Sitting of 2 December 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Liverpool Corporation (Streets and Buildings) Bill,—Lords Amendments, in
1426
pursuance of the Order of the House of 23rd July, considered, and agreed to.
Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,—considered; to be read the third time upon Friday.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Holywell, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS.
  Petition from Hackney, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Copy presented, of Return, in pursuance of Section 4 of The Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, of Railway Servants of certain classes who were on one or more occasions during the month of July 1908 on duty on the Railways of the United Kingdom for more than twelve hours at a time; or who, after being on duty more than twelve hours, were allowed to resume work with less than nine hours' rest [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (FOREIGN COUNIRIES.)
  Copy presented, of Statistical Abstract for the principal and other Foreign Countries in each year from 1896 to 1905–6 (Thirty-fourth Number) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906,— Copy of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1908 (No. 2) dated 24th November, 1908 [by Act].

  LAND PURCHASE PRICES (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing the average number of years purchase under the

  1427
  Ashbourne Act for the years 1901 and 1902, and under the Act of 1903 to the

  1901.

  1902.

  1903 Act.

  With Bonus.

  Excluding Bonus.

  Ulster:—

  Antrim.

  …

  …

  Armagh

  …

  …

  Cavan

  …

  …

  Donegal

  …

  …

  Down

  …

  …

  Fermanagh

  …

  …

  Londonderry

  …

  …

  Monaghan

  …

  …

  Tyrone

  …

  …

  Leinster:—

  Carlow

  …

  …

  Dublin

  …

  …

  Kildare

  …

  …

  Kilkenny

  …

  …

  King's

  …

  …

  Longford

  …

  …

  Louth

  …

  …

  Meath

  …

  …

  Queen's

  …

  …

  Westmeath

  …

  …

  Wrexford

  …

  …

  Wicklow

  …

  …

  Munster: —

  Clare

  …

  …

  Cork

  …

  …

  Kerry

  …

  …

  Limerick

  …

  …

  Tipperary

  …

  …

  Waterford

  …

  …

  Connaught:—

  Galway

  …

  …

  Leitrim

  …

  …

  Mayo

  …

  …

  Roscommon

  …

  …

  Sligo

  …

  …

  —(Mr. Flynn.)

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (SCHEMES FOR REGULATION OF HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT).
  Paper [presented 30th November] to be printed. [No. 341.]
  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 24th November; Mr. Field]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 342.]

  NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1895.
  Copy presented, of six Orders in Council under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  31st July, 1908, in the different counties of Ireland, as follows:—

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1894 AND 1906.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 21st November, 1908, exempting German ships when in British ports from the provisions of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, relating to overloading, upon certain conditions [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of licence granted by His Majesty to Emma Byron, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter the Lady Henry

  1429
  Somerset Home, Duxhurst, Reigate [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
  Copy presented, of Order No. 7608 dated 24th November, 1908, permitting the landing at the Deptford Foreign Animals Wharf of Animals carried on board the s.s. "Crown Point" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
  Copy presented, of Order No. 7609, dated 24th November, 1908, permitting the landing at Birkenhead Foreign Animals Wharf of Animals carried on board the s.s. "Armenian" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
  Copy presented, of Order No. 7611, dated 25th November, 1908, permitting the landing at a Foreign Animals Wharf in great Britain of Animals carried on board the ss. "Manchester Trader" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Import Duties on British Salt abroad.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are import duties on British salt in the several European countries, in the United States of America, in India, and in the self-governing Colonies of the Crown, respectively, classifying the salt as brown, light brown, pink and dark red rock, and as manufactured table salt.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The information desired by my hon. friend will be found fully set out on pages 589– 590 of the Foreign Import Duties Return [Cd. 3859], and on pages 383–385 of the Colonial Import Duties Return [Cd. 3708]. The only amendments to be made to this information since the publication of these Returns refer to Bulgaria, where the duty on rock and kitchen salt is now 6 frs. per 100 kilogs. (2s. 5¼d. per cwt.) with an additional octroi duty of 20 per cent. of the Customs duty, and Australia
  1430
  where light brown and pink rock salt have been added to the free list.

  Isle of Ely Small Holdings Committee and Co-operative Associations.
  MR. BECK: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the small holdings committee of the Isle of Ely County Council, in their report to the council upon the work already done in acquiring land for small holdings, recommend that for the present land be let to individuals and not to co-operative associations; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Small Holdings Act and of the many benefits resulting to all concerned from a system of co-operation, the Board of Agriculture will immediately point out to the Isle of Ely County Council the necessity for not adopting upon this particular point, the policy advocated by their committee.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are already in communication with the county council, and one of the Commissioners will take an early opportunity of discussing the matter personally with them.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the United States.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether in view of the proclamation of two more States in the United States as infected with foot-and-mouth disease, he can state the policy of the Board with regard to this condition of affairs; and whether the Board does not consider that the time has come to prohibit all importations of live stock from the United States, even for slaughter at the port of entry.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are carrying out their statutory obligations in regard to the outbreak of foot-and mouth disease in America. They are satisfied that the very stringent measures adopted by the Federal Government of the United States of America for stamping out and preventing the spread of the disease are sufficient to render the action suggested by the hon. Member unnecessary at the present time.

  New Lighthouse Sites.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will say what sites have been acquired within the last ten years by the Trinity House and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, respectively, for purposes connected with the erection of new lighthouses, but not including those acquired for buoys, beacons, or

  Statement No. 1:—Particulars of Sites acquired by the
  Trinity House during the last ten years for purposes connected with new Lighthouses.

  Lighthouses.

  Date acquired.

  Price.

  Area.

  Remarks.

  Lundy North

  Oct. 1899

  Nil

  2r. 28p. Right of way 490 yards

  Old lighthouse site exchanged for new sites.

  Lundy South

  Oct. 1899

  Nil

  1a. 1r.0p. Right of way 380 yards

  Pendeen

  Nov. 1899

  £35

  4a. 2r. 15p. Right of way 1,100 yards

  Jennington Point, River Thames

  Jan. 1901

  £75

  100 square yards. Right of way 41 yards

  Tripcock Point, River Thames

  Sept. 1901

  2s. 6d. Per annum

  178 square yards. Right of way 38 yards

  Penlee

  Oct. 1902

  £500

  1a. 0r. 18½p. Right of way 1⅞ mile

  Coldharbour, River Thames

  Dec. 1903

  £125

  100 square yards. Right of way 33 yards

  Portland Bill

  July 1904

  £890

  Half an acre. Approach 520 yards. Right of way for sewar 72 yards

  Valuable quarry land.

  Berry Head

  Aug. 1906

  £75

  404 square yards. Right of way 1 2/5 mile

  Strumble Head

  June 1907

  £400

  5 ¾acres

  An island.

  Bideford Bar

  May 1908

  £50

  178 square yards. Right of way 2¾ miles

  other purposes, stating as regards each site the date of purchase, the approximate area, and the purchase price.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The following statements which I have received from the Trinity House and the Commissioners of Irish Lights will give my hon. friend the information he desires:—

  Statement No. 2:—Particulars of additional Land acquired by the Trinity House during the last ten years in connection with Lighthouses existing prior to this period.

  Lighthouses.

  Date acquired.

  Price.

  Area.

  Remarks.

  Foreland, Bristol Channel

  June 1899

  £5

  500 square yards

  Extra land required to extend site to obtain satisfactory foundations for building.

  Dungeness

  May 1903

  £100

  22 poles, and right of way 480 yards long

  New site for low light-house.

  Foreland, Bristol Channel

  Oct. 1905

  £20

  140 square yards

  Site for magazine and hut for explosive fog-signal.

  Foreland, Bristol Channel

  Aug. 1906

  £3

  385 square feet

  Extra for ditto.

  Flatholm

  Oct. 1906

  £150

  Half an acre. Right of way 100 yards

  For new siren fog-signal.

  Blacknore

  Feb. 1908

  £25

  182 square yards

  For establishment of a gas-holder in connection with improvement of light.

  Lundy South

  Oct. 1908

  £53

  50 square yards

  Extra piece of land required as part of site for automatic explosive fog-signal.

  Commissioners of Irish Lights.

  Return showing Sites acquired during past 10 years for purposes connected with the erection of new Lighthouses, but not including those acquired for Buoys, Beacons, or other purposes, giving names of Lighthouses, Date of Purchase, Approximate Area, and Purchase Price.

  Name of lighthouse.

  When site acquired.

  Area approximately.

  Purchase money or rent.

  Blackhead

  1900

  2a. 2r. 37p.

  £119 18 s. 6d.

  Barr Point

  1904

  2a. 0r. 31p.

  £33.

  Inishtrahull

  1905

  Not stated

  1s. per annum for ever.

  Mizen Head

  1908

  30a. lr. 2p.

  £91 19 s. 10 d.

  Sligo Lights

  1908

  12 poles

  £1 per annum. Term 99 years.

  Flooding of Irish Rivers.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that serious and increasing injury is being done to tenant purchasers whose holdings lie alongside the small rivers and watercourses of Ireland by reason of the fact that the rivers are choked with weeds and invading the neighbouring lands; and whether the Government will bring the matter under the notice of the Estates Commissioners in order to see if anything can be done to provide against such flooding in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In districts not under the control of a drainage board the cleansing of small watercourses would seem to be a matter for voluntary co-operation on the part of tenant purchasers. I am not aware that the Estates Commissioners have any powers in the matter, but I will consult them on the subject.

  Women Clerks in the Foreign Office.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any women clerks in the First or Second Division in his Department, and, if any, will he state the number in each division.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) There are no women clerks of the First or Second Division in the Foreign Office.

  Persons Prosecuted for Corrupt Municipal Administrations.
  MR. SUMMER BELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General if he can state the number of persons during the past two years that have been successfully proceeded against in the London area for corrupt municipal administration, and the professions of such persons.
  (Answered by Sir William Robson.) Twenty-two persons have been successfully prosecuted in the London district for corrupt municipal administration during the past two years, and at the present moment further cases of the same character affecting ten persons are pending. Of the twenty-two persons convicted, five were workhouse officials, three were contractors, and the remainder
  1436
  were mostly small tradesmen or persons in somewhat poor circumstances. One convicted person had been three times mayor of a Metropolitan borough, and another had been an alderman of the London County Council.

  British, Subjects and the Berne Copyright Union.
  MR. BOWLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the hardship and loss which, by the adhesion of any country for the first time to the Berne Copyright Union, will be inflicted upon British subjects who, before such adhesion, may have purchased but not yet published manuscript arrangements of musical and other works originating in that country; whether the free publication in the United Kingdom of works so purchased has been provided for by the Berne Conference or otherwise; and, if not, whether he can take any steps to secure that British subjects shall not be deprived of rights which they have lawfully purchased by the action of any foreign Power.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Section 6 of the International Copyright Act, 1886, provides that where any person has before the date of the publication of an Order in Council lawfully produced any work in the United Kingdom, the issue of the Order shall not diminish or prejudice any rights or interests arising from or in connection with such production which are subsisting and valuable at the said date. A period of some months usually elapses between the definite adhesion of a new country to the Berne Convention and the publication of the consequent Order in Council in this country, and this interval would probably be sufficient to allow of the production of any work which may be existing in manuscript at the time, and any rights which may have been acquired by purchase or otherwise can thus be preserved.

  Irish Agricultural Exports.
  MR. ESSEX: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will state the value of Irish exports in the years 1897 and 1907, respectively,

  1437
  of cattle, sheep, horses, bacon, eggs, and butter.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The Department have no information as to the value of exports in 1897. The follow-

  Quantity.

  Value.

  1897.

  1907.

  1897.

  1907.

  £

  Cattle

  No.

  746,869

  843,010

  10,419,430

  Sheep

  No.

  810,264

  663,363

  1,267,410

  Horses

  No.

  38,502

  33,356

  1,588,441

  Bacon*

  Cwts.

  No information

  859,608*

  No information

  2,492,863*

  Eggs

  Gt. hhds.

  No information

  6,675,599

  2,920,539

  Butter

  Cwts.

  No information

  818,004

  4,008,220

  * Not including Hams.

  Postage Rates for Australian Newspapers.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether any arrangement has been entered into with the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia for the delivery of Australian newspapers in this country for 1d. postage on each newspaper weighing eight ounces; and whether a similar reduction in the postage rate of newspapers will be given from the United Kingdom to Australia.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

  Closing of Foreland Coastguard Station, Ventnor.
  LORD BALCAERES: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state on what date it was officially decided to withdraw the coastguard from the Foreland, Ventnor division.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The official authority for the closing of the station was given on the 24th November.
  ing table shows the number of cattle, sheep, and horses exported from Ireland in the years 1897 and 1907 respectively, and the quantities of bacon, eggs, and butter exported in 1907, also the value of the exports in 1907:—

  Payment of Salaries of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that inspectors of national schools in Ireland are paid their salaries monthly while the teachers frequently are not fully paid until the money is six months overdue, and then not directly; whether this is due to deficiency of staff or a bad system at head-quarters; whether he can promise that in future teachers will, like other public servants, be paid their salaries in full regularly and directly every month; and, if this be not done, whether the teachers will be paid interest on arrears of salary.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that inspectors of national schools are paid their salaries monthly. The teachers are paid punctually every quarter and it is only when there are irregularities in the payment forms or claims of individual teachers that any delay takes place. Teachers cannot be paid monthly, as this would involve a very large increase of staff and a corresponding

  1439
  addition to the Vote. The Answer to the concluding portion of the Question is in the negative.

  Indian Telegrams.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of words in telegraphic messages, and their value,

  Messages sent from India.

  Trans-Indian Messages.

  Words.

  Indian Value*

  Words.

  Indian Value*

  £

  £

  1903–4

  3,009,365

  45,777

  4,121,200

  54,898.

  1904–5

  3,450,456

  55,833

  5,080,407

  65,959

  1905–6

  3,491,616

  52,759

  5,119,111

  68,459

  1906–7

  3,740,423

  57,677

  4,421,212

  60,589

  1907–8

  3,997,327

  61,848

  4,561,908

  61,933

  *The figures in these columns show the sterling equivalent (at 1s. 4d. the rupee) of the Indian share of the receipts in respect of the messages, as shown in the Administration Report of the Indian Telegraph Department.

  Evicted Tenants in County Westmeath.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will furnish a list of the bona fide evicted tenants (including representatives of deceased evicted tenants) in Westmeath whose claims are recognised by the Estates Commissioners as valid, but who have not yet been reinstated, showing, in connection with each, the date of eviction, name of the estate from which evicted, whether the evicted farm is now tenanted or not, the reason why not yet reinstated, the purpose of the Commissioners regarding the case, and when they expect to be able to carry out their purpose.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) For the reasons which are fully stated in my reply to a Question asked by the hon. Member for North Armagh on the 8th July, 1907, I am not prepared to furnish the list in question.

  Sale of the Estate of John H. Beinn of Creenelea.
  MR. F. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
  despatched from India to places outside India during each year in 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, and 1907, distinguishing those from India itself and trans-Indian messages.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The reply is given in the following statement:—
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of John H. Beinn, of Creenelea, County Leitrim, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners; and, if bought by the Estates Commissioners, will he explain why the agent of the landlord endeavours to collect rents or takes proceedings for recovery of same.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) No proceedings for the sale of the estate would appear to have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners.

  Evicted Tenants in County Sligo.
  MR. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of evicted tenants in the county of Sligo; how many of these are in occupation as caretakers; and how many evicted tenants in this country were reinstated or given new holdings during the live years ended the 1st November, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.): I am not in a position to say how many evicted tenants there are in County Sligo or how many of them are in occupation as

  1441
  caretakers. The Estates Commissioners inform me that of the persons who applied to them for reinstatement, as evicted tenants or the representatives of evicted tenants, thirteen have been reinstated or provided with other holdings, and the cases of twenty-eight others have been noted for consideration in connection with the allotment of untenanted land.

  Completion of Sale of the Verschoyle Estate at Tanrago.
  MR. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether agreements for the purchase of the Verschoyle estate, at Tanrago, Beltra, County Sligo, were signed over twelve months ago; has the sale been completed; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estate Commissioners inform me that the agreements referred to must have been provisional agreements indicating the terms at which the tenants would be prepared to purchase. The estate is pending for sale in the Court of the Land Judge, to whom the Commissioners have made an offer under Section 7 of the Irish Land Act, 1903.

  Sale of the Hazelwood Demesne Estate of Owen Wynne.
  MR. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how much money has been advanced by the Estate Commissioners for the Hazelwood demesne estate of Owen Wynne, in the rural district of Sligo; is it the practice of the Estates Commissioners to advance money for the sale of demesnes before advances are made for the purchase of the agricultural holdings on estates; what was the average number of years purchase paid by tenants on this estate who signed agreements; and how many tenants on the estate have refused or failed to sign agreements.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have advanced £79,378 for the purchase of the Hazelwood estate, of which £13,564 was advanced in respect of the demesne purchased under Section 3 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. It is not the practice of the Commissioners to advance the
  1442
  purchase-money payable in respect of a demesne before the advances are made for the purchase of the agricultural holdings on an estate. The purchase-money of the 120 holdings on this estate in respect of which advances were made represented an average of 23·9 years purchase. Purchase agreements were not signed in respect of six of the holdings.

  Untenanted Lands on the Gore-Booth Estate.
  MR. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the purchase price for the estate sold to his tenants in the barony of Carbury, County Sligo, at Magherow and Ballintrillick, by Sir Jocelyn Gore-Booth, Baronet, has been advanced by the Estates Commissioners; is he aware that the untenanted land on this estate at Ballintrillick has been offered for sale by the vendor to the Estates Commissioners; how long have negotiations as to the price of the untenanted land been pending in this case; and will he request the Estates Commissioners to acquire these untenanted lands without further delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the purchase money of this estate has not been advanced. The untenanted lands-have been inspected, and the Commissioners informed the owner in July last of their estimated price, but they cannot acquire the lands until the negotiations have been completed and the requirements of the statute have been complied with.

  Fixing of Second-Term Rents on Joint Holdings.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is competent for joint tenants of a holding, who have had a fair rent fixed by the Court over fifteen years ago, to apply to the Court for the fixing of second-term rents separately on the holding against the wishes of the landlord, who desires the joint tenancy to continue.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to subsection 4 of Section 5 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, which would appear to answer his Question in the negative.

  Salaries and Allowances of County Inspectors, Royal Irish Constabulary, stationed in County Galway.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the salaries of the two county inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary at present stationed in County Galway; what allowances they received during the financial year, with the cost of the same; and what was the expense incurred by them in mileage and travelling.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The present salary of, the county inspector of the East Riding, of County Galway is £390 per annum, and that of the county inspector of the West Riding is £450 per annum. The annual allowances in each case are as follows:—lodging, £50; horse, £50; servant, £45; office, £18 5s.; stationery, £10; making a total of £173 5s. The accounts and vouchers showing the expenses incurred by these officers in 1907–8 for subsistence and travelling are before the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The figures are not therefore immediately available.

  Charge for Extra Police.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the average cost of the entire force is taken into account in fixing the rate of charge for extra sergeants and constables in a county, and what bearing it has upon the cost of extra police drafted from one county to another; whether the only extra expenses incurred on account of drafting extra police from one county to another are travelling expenses, subsistence allowances, medical attendance where necessary, and barrack accommodation; and, if so, why is not the charge for such extra police based upon the average of these expenses exclusive of other considerations.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The manner in which the rates of charge referred to in the Question are to be determined is clearly laid down by Section 5 of the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1874, to which I would refer the hon. Member.

  Acquisition of Lands of Aughacreira and Moydristian.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the
  1444
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired, or are about to acquire, the lands of Aughacreira and Moydristian, in the parish of Ballymachugh, County Cavan, the property of Mr. William Webb; what is the area of the lands mentioned; and, in view of the fact that the surrounding holdings are uneconomic, will this land be reserved for the evicted tenant on the estate and the small local tenant purchasers who recently signed purchase agreements.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not acquired the lands referred to in the Question, but they have directed inquiries to be made with regard to the untenanted land owned by Mr. Webb. They are not at present in a position to give the further information asked for.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Admiralty Contracts in Jarrow.
    MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the nature of the distress due to unemployment now prevailing in Jarrow; and whether he will be able to place any Admiralty orders there at an early date.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): Messrs. Palmer of Jarrow have tendered for all the recent Admiralty contracts, but have not, up to the present been successful in obtaining an order. Tenders for machinery for a battleship and cruiser are now under consideration.

    Navy Rum Supplies.
    MR. H. C. LEA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will grant a Return stating the total number of gallons of rum bought by his Department in each of the last three years; the date of each purchase; the number of gallons bought, and the price per gallon paid on each ocasion, and the marks and the names of the ships of the respective parcels involved in these various transactions; will he stale whether the whole of these purchases

    1445
    were made by one firm of brokers without competition or tender; and, if so, what reason is adduced for this departure from ordinary procedure in obtaining supplies for a Government Department.
    MR. MCKENNA: The quantity of rum purchased in London for the Navy in each of the three latest years to date, is as follows—

    Gallons.

    1906

    400,000

    1907

    120,000

    1908

    420,000

    Prices and other particulars of Admiralty purchases of supplies of all commodities, are treated as confidential in the public interest, and it is not considered desirable to furnish the information asked for in the second and third parts of the Question. The whole of the purchases were made through one firm of brokers, who obtained offers in the open market without restriction of free competition. There was no departure from the ordinary trade procedure.
    MR. H. C. LEA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Admiralty purchases of rum are carried out by one firm of brokers who accept only one kind— Demerara rum, and that the result of the purchase of large quantities is absolutely to dislocate the whole trade? Will he receive a deputation of people concerned in the market?
    MR. McKENNA: I should like notice of that Question.

    Isle of Wight Coastguard Stations.
    MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it has been decided to close the Foreland Detachment, Ventnor Division, of the Coastguard on 1st January; whether he is aware that all the men of that detachment have been in the habit of rendering assistance in the saving of life at sea, and whether he will postpone the carrying out of this and similiar reductions of the Coastguard until the House has had an opportunity of discussing them.
    MR. MCKENNA: The detachment was closed as such on the 1st December,
    1446
    but, as stated yesterday, the same number of Coastguard men are retained there. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative, As I have stated before, the House will have an opportunity of discussing this question early next session, and in the meantime I do not propose to make any reduction of Coastguard stations which would take away Coastguard men from accustomed life-saving work.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will these coastguard men be available at all times for life-saving service; and is it contemplated that they may be away from their signalling duties?
    MR. MCKENNA: They will be just as available as before. Of course, they must not neglect their official duties.
    MR. W. F. D. SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that last July he promised no further reductions should be made till next year?
    MR. MCKENNA: No reductions that would entail a reduction of service for life-saving purposes; I adhere to that.
    MR. ASHLEY: How long is it since this detachment was reduced to three men?
    MR. MCKENNA: I cannot say for certain, but, as far as I am aware, it has always consisted of three men.

    Coastguard Conference Report.
    MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the further Report of the Inter-Departmental Conference on the Coastguard has been received by the Admiralty and, if so, whether he proposes to make it public.
    MR. MCKENNA: The Report has been received and is being dealt with in the Department. The question of publishing it will be considered when the Admiralty are in a position to make a statement upon their policy in the matter of the Coastguard.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Stall we have an opportunity of considering the Report before the discussion of next year?
    MR. MCKENNA: I cannot undertake to publish the Report. I must consider it.
    EARL WINTERTON: On what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to publish the Report?
    MR. MCKENNA: I have not refused; I have said the Admiralty are considering it.
    EARL WINTERTON: But on what ground does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to give an undertaking to publish the Report?
    MR. MCKENNA: Because at present it is under the consideration of the Admiralty.
    MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of inviting the noble Lord to join the Coastguard?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Wages on Admiralty Contracts at Portsmouth.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Messrs. Morrison and Mason, at Portsmouth, have reduced their labourers' wages from 27s. 9d. per week to 23s. for fifty-six hours, such reduction taking place from 14th September; that they are also deducting from the men's wages l½d. for tools and l½d. for doctor; whether they have the consent of the Admiralty for such deductions; whether he is aware that some unions have claimed and been paid by the contractors the wages hitherto paid by the firm, viz. 6d. per hour; whether he is aware that in most towns the bricklayers' labourers' rate is taken as fair, which is always more than that paid on railways, whose wages for platelayers' labourers are invariably the lowest; and whether he is aware that the com-
    1448
    parison cannot be made between these men who are casually employed and the dockyard men for whom his Department claim continuity of employment; whether he has obtained or asked for any information from any of the labour representatives of the trade unions in the district, and, if so, from whom, or whether the information has been obtained from the employers only; and, if so, would he supply a list of those employers.
    MR. MCKENNA: The firm in question have not reduced labourers' rates, but the hours of work, which were fifty-five and a half per week in September, are at the present time forty-seven. The Admiralty is aware that a deduction is made of 2d. a week per man for medical attendance and 1d. a week for tools. The matter is one over which the Admiralty would have no control unless it could be shown that the deduction constituted an infraction of the Fair Wages Clause. With regard to the later points raised in the Question, I may remind the hon. Member that the terms of the Fair Wages Clause, as set out in the present contract, are as follows: "The wages paid in the execution of the whole of the work shall be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the district in which the work is carried out. This condition shall apply to all sub-contracts entered into by the contractor in connection with the said works, and the contractor shall procure the insertion of a provision to the same effect in any sub-contract." Upon a representation from the local Trades and Labour Council, the Admiralty, as I stated on Monday, instituted very full inquiry, and came to the conclusion that, on a review of all the circumstances, it could not be said that there had been any infraction of the Fair Wages Clause. I do not think I should be entitled to furnish the hon. Member with the list of employers for which he asks.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say at what date the hours were reduced from fifty-six to forty-seven? Has the right hon. Gentleman not had this case under consideration for three weeks, and can he give me no reply to the question whether unions have not claimed and some firms paid 6d. per hour?

    1449
    Did not the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent successfully demand that in one case?
    MR. MCKENNA: Yes, we have had the matter under consideration for three weeks, and the delay has been due to our desire to make the fullest possible inquiry into all the circumstances. I believe— but I am not sure—that the reduction of hours took place last September.

    Oats for Army Horses.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether kiln-dried oats are allowed to be issued to Army horses.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): Kiln-dried oats are only allowed to be issued to Army horses provided that such oats fully comply with the contract specification in regard to quality, i.e., that the oats must be good, sound, sweet, dry, clean, without any admixture of light or damaged oats, barley, peas, or other grains, and must weigh not less than 30 lbs. per imperial bushel, or in the case of clipped oats, 40 lbs.
    CAPTAIN FABER: Is it not the fact that kiln-dried oats have generally teen wet oats?
    MR. HALDANE: In anticipation of that Question, I have provided myself with the best opinions I could get, and I will read them. They are:—
    Opinion of the Director of Supplies.—Oats grown in this country are kiln-dried only, I believe, when they have become damaged, in which case they would not come under our present specification as being "good, sound, and sweet," and would be rejected. Foreign oats, especially Russian, are frequently slightly kiln-dried to improve their keeping powers, and this process, if the oats are in good condition, is almost unobjectionable. It is extremely difficult to tell whether a sound oat has been kiln-dried or not, and it would be useless to put a condition into our specification that we could not prove.
    Opinion of the Director-General, Army Veterinary Services. — Foreign oats are
    1450
    kiln-dried for safety in transit. Damaged oats are sometimes kiln-dried in order to effect; sales. Kiln-drying is an absolutely harmless process. If the grain is damaged, it is chemical changes in the oats, and not kiln-drying which cause disease.
    CAPTAIN FABER: But are not wet oats kiln-dried? That is the point.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is it not often very difficult to tell whether or not oats are kiln-dried?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    The Inniskilling Dragoons.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what number of officers have been transferred to the Inniskilling Dragoons from other regiments since October, 1906; what special reason exists for transferring so many; from what regiments were they transferred; what the rank of each transferred officer was; and whether, having regard to the hardship thereby inflicted, there is to be any relaxation of the rule whereby an officer has to retire in the event of his not having attained a certain rank by a certain age.
    MR. HALDANE: Since October, 1906, seven officers have been brought into this regiment which contained a number of officers who had abnormally short service or were not qualified for promotion. Two captains were transferred, one being promoted to major, four lieutenants, one being promoted to captain, and one second lieutenant. These officers came one from 5th Dragoon Guards, two from Royal Artillery, and four from Northumberland Fusiliers. There is very little likelihood of any of the officers affected by these transfers having to retire for age, the senior captain having fourteen years in which to attain his majority and the lieutenants, other than those brought in, being also proportionately young for their positions.
    EARL WINTERTON: In view of the wide difference of opinion that prevails on this subject, will the right hon. Gentleman recommend the Army

    1451
    Council to issue a Memorandum dealing with the whole subject of the transfer of officers of the Line to cavalry regiments?
    MR. HALDANE: These things must be decided entirely on the merits of the officers. I cannot say what the standard of qualification should be.
    CAPTAIN FABER: Has not the character of the Inniskilling Dragoons been good?
    MR. HALDANE: Oh, yes, excellent; but the difficulty arose from the number of officers with abnormally short service or not qualified for promotion.
    CAPTAIN FABER: Would it not be better to put the whole service on an equality?
    MR. HALDANEsaid the difficulty would not have arisen had the Inniskillings had their full quota of officers.

    Soldiers as Boot-makers.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the date and year when his Department decided to teach soldiers the trade of Army boot-making; whether he can state how many are usually employed at this work, and how long does it take on the average to make them efficient and what is the usual price per pair of boots produced in this way.
    MR. HALDANE: Action was taken on the recommendations of the Committee on the employment of Reserve and discharged soldiers and sailors in 1906. There is no attempt made to teach the trade in its entirety, but only, on the one hand, to give men who have a prior knowledge of the trade an opportunity to acquire further experiences by practising it in their leisure hours, and, on the other hand, to provide elementary instruction for men without such knowledge so that they may become familiar with the implements of the trade and be enabled to carry out repairs. No fixed number of men are under instruction, and no statistics exist to enable me to reply to the last two parts of the Question.
    MR. H. C. LEA: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to give a certain number of men in every regiment an opportunity to learn a trade, so that when the time comes for their discharge they may not be driven into the ranks of the unemployed, after having devoted the best years of their life to the service of of their country?
    MR. HALDANE'Sreply was inaudible.
    MR. CROOKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of instructing men in an elementary knowledge of the law, so that they may take up posts in the Law Courts?
    MR. HALDANE: No, Sir.
    MR. CROOKS: Why not?

    Canadian Immigration—Glasgow Boiler-Makers' Grievance.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that boilermakers have recently been engaged in Glasgow by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at specified wages, fare to Quebec being advanced by the Company but to be deducted from these wages; that the written agreements gave a definite engagement for three months, yet within two months these men were forcibly landed again at Liverpool; that when asked for the wages under the agreement, the Canadian Pacific Company, through their agents, W. A. Crump & Son, solicitors, London, deny liability; and, if so, will he say what steps the Colonial Office propose to take so that British subjects may not be thus illtreated and defrauded.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): The Secretary of State has no information as to the case referred to, but inquiry will be made.

    Workington Conviction for Stealing Coal.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of John James

    1453
    Jelly, heard at the Workington Police Court on 25th November, who was proved to be in great poverty from unemployment and had a dying child, and that there was neither fire nor food in his house, who was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment for stealing coal of the value of 2s. 2d., the defence being that he could not get a ticket for work and wanted the coppers to buy milk for his child; and will he take steps to reduce the sentence.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I am making inquiries into this case, but they are not yet; completed. I will let the hon. Member know the result.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEIL: Why not telegraph for the information? This unfortunate man is suffering all the time.

    Caledonian Railway—Owners' Risk.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the case connected with the fish trade of Aberdeen, where a wagon load of fish of about four tons, instead of being despatched when loaded by the Caledonian Railway Company to Glasgow, was shunted to a siding with empty wagons, resulting in a serious loss to the owner of the fish; if he is aware that the railway company disclaim any liability for the loss incurred; and if he will consider the desirability, in view of the frequency of such cases, of introducing next session a Bill dealing with owners' risk notes on the lines of the following Bills of private Members: Railway (Contracts), 1906, Railway Contracts, 1907, Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 1908, one of which passed its Second Reading in this House.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The Board of Trade have invited the observations of the railway company with regard to the particular consignment referred to, and have received a reply of which I am forwarding my hon. friend a copy. The question of the conditions under which traffic is carried at owners'
    1454
    risk is one that has been receiving the careful consideration of the Board, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    MR. PIRIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor in office three years ago called a meeting of chambers of commerce and traders of the country to discuss the whole question? Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of legislation for next year?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I can say nothing as to the work of next year.
    MR. PIRIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a non-party question, and that the Bill which passed its Second Reading was introduced by an hon. Gentleman opposite?
    MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to reply that he was aware of that fact.

    Seamen's Boarding Houses.
    MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now prepared to appoint a Commission to inquire into the state of seamen's boarding and lodging-houses, and the conditions under which they are conducted; and whether the Board appoints any officer or officers whose duty it is to see that such houses are conducted strictly in accordance with the licences and bye-laws of the local authorities in whose districts they are situated, in view of the fact that sailors and firemen while in port are compelled to lodge in a seamen's boarding or lodging-house.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The inquiries referred to in the reply given by me to a Question put by the hon. Member on the 4th ultimo are not yet completed. On their completion, I shall not fail to consider whether any action or further investigation is required, and I shall be grateful if, in the meanwhile, the hon. Member will furnish me with any information he may have in regard to the state of seamen's lodging-houses which will assist me in arriving at a decision. The officers of the Board of Trade have access to licensed seamen's lodging-houses, but the responsibility for the

    1455
    proper control of such houses rests with the local authorities.

    Manning of the Mercantile Marine.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a boarding-house keeper was convicted by the deputy stipendiary magistrate at Cardiff on 20th November for having illegally supplied a crew of coloured men on 16th August last, when the British steamer "Cereda" was at the port of Swansea; whether he is aware that the boarding-house keeper, named Spooner, was engaged by the master or over-looker of the "Cereda" to supply the crew; whether he is aware that under Section 111, subsection (2), of the Merchant Shipping Act a person who employs an unlicensed person to engage or supply a crew is liable to a penalty of £20 for each seaman supplied in contravention of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act; and whether, in view of the continued conviction of boarding-house keepers for illegal supply, he will say if it is the intention of the Board of Trade to take any proceedings against the persons who employ boarding-house keepers to contravene the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act.
    The following Questions also appeared on the Paper—
    MR. HAVELOCK-WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the manning of the British steamer "Ashburton" of 4,445 tons gross; whether he is aware that the men constituting the deck hands were one Frenchman, two Norwegians, one Russian Finn, two Swedes, and two Danes, all of those men being engaged at the Port of Antwerp; whether he is aware that the stokehold hands were Chinamen, seventeen in number, twelve of these Chinese firemen producing no discharges and stating at the time of the engagement that they had previously served on German vessels; and whether he can state if the Board of Trade surveyor's attention was called to the manning of this ship prior to leaving a port in the United Kingdom; and what steps, if any, the Board of Trade intend to take to compel
    1456
    Chinese seamen to produce certificates of discharge at the time of their engagement in the same manner as British seamen are compelled to produce certificates of discharge before engagement.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the British steamer "Lord Derby," of 2,401 net registered tonnage and 3,757 tons gross, only carries six able seamen and one ordinary seamen; whether he is aware that when this vessel is at sea two of the able seamen and the one ordinary seaman are employed on day work, i.e., to work on deck during the day and to be off duty the whole of the night, thereby reducing the effective deck watch during the night to one man steering, one man on the look-out for four hours each, and the officer in charge of the bridge, contrary to the regulations of the Board of Trade of 1897, which provide that in vessels of 800 tons gross there must be six effective deck hands; whether he is aware that the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade on 13th October last recommended that vessels of 1,500 tons net should carry at least eight deck hands; and whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to take any proceedings against the master of the "Lord Derby" for failing to maintain, when at sea, a proper and effective watch during the night.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can explain the cause in the delay in issuing the recommendations of the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade with regard to the scheme of manning put forward by the Advisory Committee with reference to the number of men engaged in the deck department of British steamers, and also with reference to the efficiency of the deck hands; whether he is aware that in ports of Cardiff, Newport, and Barry qualified seamen are finding it difficult to obtain employment, whilst unqualified men are being engaged on board of British vessels; and whether, seeing the length of time which has elapsed since this question has had the attention of the Advisory Committee, he will take steps

    1457
    to see that the matter is dealt with by the Board of Trade at once.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what further inquiries have been held with regard to the deaths of five Asiatic seamen on board the British steamer "Strombus"; if he can state the reason why, when inquiry is alleged to have been held at Rotterdam with regard to the deaths of the men, the other members of the crew, apart from the officers, were not called upon to make statements as to the cause of the deaths of the Asiatics in question; and whether the Board of Trade are at present retaining the seamen who made serious allegations against the officers of this ship with regard to the alleged ill-treatment of the Asiatics.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Inquiry is being made into the matters referred to in this and subsequent questions which stand in the name of my hon. friend on to-day's Paper, and I shall be happy to communicate the result to him in due course.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: May we expect a reply at a very early date?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not quite know how long it will take to make the inquiries, but I will do my best to accelerate the collection of the information, and will have it circulated with the votes if the hon. Member so desires.

    Insurance Against Unemployment.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay a translation of the Report of an investigation by the German Imperial Statistical Office into the feasibility of insurance against unemployment, undertaken in conformity with a Resolution of the Reichstag.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Report referred to by my hon. friend, which was published in 1906, is a very large one, consisting of 1,470 folio pages in three volumes. It discusses in great detail all the various experiments made in different countries for the insurance of work-
    1458
    people against unemployment, but it does not attempt to formulate any proposals. The Report was reviewed at some length in the Board of Trade Labour Gazette of August, 1906. Information upon this subject was published by the Board of Trade in the Report on Agencies and Methods for dealing with the Unemployed in foreign countries [Cd. 2304 of 1904); and I understand that the Poor Law Commission will also publish a Memorandum, which practically brings that Report up to date as regards this subject. In the circumstances mentioned it does not seem necessary to undertake the lengthy and expensive task of translating the German volumes. They are, however, open to the inspection of the hon. Member at any time.
    SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great decrease in the number of young persons in secondary schools who at the present moment are learning German, and will he take steps—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That has nothing whatever to do with the Question on the Paper.

    Wages and Old-Age Pensions.
    MR. NICHOLLS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will say if, in the case of a man earning £31 10s. a year when over the age of seventy years, the wages may be divided for pension purposes, and so enable both his wife and himself to secure the old-age pension.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I am advised that the effect of subsections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Old-Age Pensions Act is that the means of a person, being one of a married couple living together in the same house, must be calculated in the same way as the means of a person who is not married, viz., as the amount received or enjoyed by him or her individually, with this exception, that the means of such a person must not be taken as being less than half the joint means of the couple. Hence, if the husband's means are £31 10s. a year, and the means of the wife are nil, the husband's means must be taken

    1459
    at £31 10s. a year and the wife's at not less than £15 15s. a year. The husband would thus be entitled to a pension of 1s. per week, and the wife to a pension of 5s. per week.
    MR. CROOKSasked if the right hon. Gentleman had not made a mistake. Had not the £31 to be divided between the two, and would not each be entitled to 5s. a week?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have not made a mistake. I think it better to confine these Answers to the Law Officer's opinion, which I have now read out.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: If the income of the man is £31 10s. where does the woman's £15 come from? That is the whole point.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Relief Works and Disfranchisement.
    MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether men who are employed during this winter on relief works under poor law guardians will be penalised by disfranchisement.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I presume my hon. friend refers to cases in which men receive relief from the guardians and are set to work as a condition upon which the relief is given. In such a case the recipient of the relief would be disfranchised. Of course, where the guardians carry out works and persons are employed for that purpose at wages in the ordinary way, these persons are not disfranchised.
    MR. CURRAN: Was it the intention of the Prime Minister to remove disabilities from people who are employed this winter by boards of guardians in stoneyards?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: It is well within the recollection of the House that the Prime Minister's pledge and promise, which has been kept, applied to all workmen who were employed through distress committees and not by boards of guardians.
    MR. CURRAN: Will those who are employed for a temporary period this winter in stoneyards under boards of guardians be disfranchised?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes; I believe they would be.

    Inspection of Fever Hospitals.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any independent inspection is made by his Department of fever hospitals managed by public corporations; and, if not, will he see that such inspections are instituted, in view of the fact that the public have necessarily less opportunity of judging of these than in the case of general hospitals.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: A fever hospital provided by a local authority would not be inspected by a medical inspector of the Local Government Board in the ordinary course. The responsibility for the proper administration of such a hospital rests with the local authority, though, in some instances, where there has been complaint of mal-administration the Board have caused an investigation to be made. Moreover, where the district of a sanitary authority is inspected by a medical inspector, he would include the hospital of the authority in his inspection. It does not seem to me necessary that any change should be made in the practice in this matter.
    MR. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of these fever hospitals were recently found to be in a. very unsatisfactory state?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: If the hon. Member will give me information I shall only be too pleased to break through the rule and send a medical inspector at once.

    Betting Temptations for Post Office Employees.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether a Post Office sorting clerk at Walsall is now being prosecuted for an alleged attempt to obtain money fraudulently from a betting agent in Flushing; whether this agent has an English address and was prosecuted by

    1461
    the Crown, and, on being convicted, appealed; whether he dropped the appeal; and whether the Post Office can do anything to prevent him from still carrying on his business through it, and so placing special temptations before Post Office servants.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): A sorting clerk and telegraphist at Walsall has been prosecuted recently for unlawfully attempting to obtain £5 by false pretences from a betting agent at Flushing.

    Secondary School and Training College Regulations.
    SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he intends the education settlement to be produced by the Education Bill to include a settlement of the difficulties that have arisen in the last three years in regard to secondary schools and training colleges; and, in particular, whether, in that event, he intends to make the requisite modifications in the secondary schools and training colleges regulations so that denominational schools and colleges shall receive grants from the Board of Education equivalent to the grants for those provided by the local authority, as will be the case in regard to elementary schools under the settlement embodied in the Bill.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. TREVELYAN,): The various points referred to by the hon. Member do not arise under the Education Bill, which deals only with elementary education. If the Bill now under discussion is passed, the position of Nonconformists and others who are now under disabilities in other parts of the public educational system will, no doubt, be affected thereby, but the hon. Member's Questions are hypothetical, and it would be premature for me to give him a definite reply at present.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: That does not really answer my hon. friend's Question. Are these training colleges and denominational
    1462
    schools to be treated differentially, according to the religious instruction given, or will they henceforth be treated alike as before the year 1907?
    MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot add anything to my right hon. friend's Answer.
    MR. JAMES HOPE: Are we to understand that this part of the education question is to remain unsettled?
    MR. TREVELYAN: I do not think so.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I will put another Question to-morrow.

    Walworth Catholic and Council Schools.
    MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state, in shillings, what are the present grants per child made from taxes by his Department and from rates by the local authority to the Catholic school at Rodney Road, Walworth, and what are the similar grants per child to council schools in Walworth, and if he can state what are the annual salaries of the head and assistant teachers in this Catholic school and in the Walworth council schools; and whether he can estimate by how much the salaries of the Walworth Catholic teachers will be reduced if the grant from rates is withdrawn.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The grants from the Board of Education, in respect of the school named, amount to 38s. per child, and the average grant, in respect of all the council schools in Walworth, amounts to 37s. 8d. per child. I have no information as to the amount spent by the local education authority from sources other than Government grant in respect of the particular school named, or of the council schools in Walworth. The school at Rodney Road is in three departments. The average salary of the head teacher is, I believe, £154 odd, and the average salary of the assistant teachers of various grades is £88 odd; the average salary of the head teachers in the various council schools in Walworth is £241, and of the assistant teachers £122 odd. I have no means of knowing the Answer to the concluding paragraph of the Question.

    Attendance in Catholic Schools.
    MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, although the average attendance at Catholic schools in England and Wales is only about 300,000 children, the accommodation in them is for 412,669 children; whether, in consequence of the slackness of the local education officials, the attendance is generally slack in Catholic schools; whether the number of children on the rolls is nearly 400,000; and whether he is aware that, including Scotland, nearly 560,000 of Catholic children of school age in Great Britain are about to be deprived of grants from the rates, to which their parents contribute; and what steps the Government proposes to take to safeguard this body of future citizens from being placed in a position of permanent educational inferiority and inefficiency.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The average attendance in Roman Catholic schools for the last year for which figures are available was 286,188, and the recognised accommodation was 406,137. I have no reason to suppose that the attendance in Roman Catholic schools is generally slack. The average number on the books in Roman Catholic schools in 1906–7 was 333,403. With regard to the last paragraph, so far as England and Wales are concerned, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Education Bill now before the House.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Are we to understand that the average attendance of pupils in Roman Catholic schools compares favourably with the average attendance of children attending other denominational and undenominational schools?
    MR. TREVELYAN: I do not think it compares unfavourably, but I can get the figures if notice of the Question is given.
    MR. MYER: How many Catholic children are in attendance in Council schools?
    MR. TREVELYAN: I am afraid I cannot answer that without notice.

    Religious and Moral Instruction.
    MR. G. GOOCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the term religious instruction in Section 1, subsection (2) (b), of the Elementary Education Bill includes systematic moral instruct on, whether derived wholly from Biblical sources or not.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The point raised in the hon. Member's Question seems to suggest too fine a distinction for ordinary persons who are not theologians to grasp; but so far as I understand what the hon. Member desires in the way of moral instruction, I do not see why any difficulty need arise in regard to it under the Bill.
    MR. W. THORNE: Does the hon. Gentleman think that Section 1 of the Bill can be carried out without instituting a credal register?
    MR. TREVELYAN: I do not think that that arises out of the Question.
    MR. W. THORNE: Surely it does.

    Religious Instruction Syllabus.
    MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if it is intended that the three-quarters of an hour specified in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill may be occupied in part by the religious observances, viz., the hymn and the prayer, or, additionally, the reading of a passage from the Bible, which at present usually form part of the proceedings of a school during the period assigned to religious education; and, if so, will he take steps to make that clear, either in the text of the Bill or by an article in the Day School Code.
    MR. TREVELYAN: So far as I understand what it is that the hon. Member wishes to be allowed to take place in the schools, I doubt whether any alteration need be made in the Bill; but I will consider the point.

    Teachers and the Fair Wages Clause for Contracting-out Schools.
    MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the President of he Board of Education if

    1465
    the Fair Wages Clause, invariably inserted in Government contracts, is to be applied to the employment of teachers in contracting-out schools under Clause 3 of the Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill; and, if so, will he make that clear by amending the text of the Bill accordingly.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I am considering in what way it can most satisfactorily be provided in the Bill that the teachers in contracting-out schools shall receive adequate remuneration, to the satisfaction of the Board of Education, regard being had to the rate of salaries paid by local education authorities to teachers in other public elementary schools.

    Appeals Against the Allocation of School Grants.
    SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in the allocation of grants by an association, formed under Sections of the Education Bill, to public elementary schools affiliated to it, any appeal will be allowed from the managers of a school dissatisfied with the proposed grant to the Board of Education, as under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897.
    MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir.

    Education Associations.
    SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education how the new associations under Clause 3 of the Education Bill are to be constituted; and will the denomination have full power to form an association as it thinks best or will it be compelled as under the Voluntary Schools Act of 1897, to propose a scheme of constitution for the approval of the Board of Education, whose decision shall be final.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The constitution of the association will be determined by the denominations, but will be subject to the approval of the Board of Education.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: Will members of the High, Low, and Broad Church parties be regarded as one denomination or be allowed to have separate associations?
    MR. TREVELYAN: The Church of England will have one association.
    LORD EDMUND TALBOT: Will there be any appeal against the decision of the Board of Education?
    MR. TREVELYAN: I would rather leave that till the clause is under consideration.
    LORD EDMUND TALBOT: But we are under the guillotine.
    MR. TREVELYAN: If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied, I think he might put down a Question to my right hon. friend.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will time be given by the Government on the later stages of the Bill to define more clearly the position of the associations?
    MR. TREVELYAN: That is a question for discussion when we come to Clause 3.

    Richmond Park.
    SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will state by whose order and under what authority a portion of Richmond Park is being converted into a nursery garden with pits, entirely altering its character and affecting the amenities of surrounding private residences; and whether he will take steps to obviate or lessen the deterioration which is going on.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,): A portion of an outlying paddock in Richmond Park is being made into a nursery under my directions. It is absolutely necessary that this nursery should be made in order to provide the shrubs which are required for the Royal Parks. When the initial work is completed I do not think it will be found that the amenities of the houses surrounding the park will be affected.
    MR. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the occupiers

    1467
    of these private residences in the park pay rates towards the upkeep of the park?
    MR. L. HARCOURT: I cannot say as to that.

    Mall Improvement.
    MR. CARR-GOMM: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the archway which is now being built in the Mall, over the footway leading to Birdcage Walk, is part of the original scheme for the improvement of the Mall, and if it is intended to build any other white stone arches in St. James's Park.
    MR. L. HARCOURT: No archway is being built over the footpath. The gates form part of the Queen Victoria Memorial scheme for the completion of the Mall. It is not proposed to build any arches in St. James's Park.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Out of what fund is the money being provided?
    MR. L. HARCOURT: Out of the Queer, Victoria Memorial Fund.
    MR. REES: Have any turf or trees been lost by putting up these pillars and gates?
    MR. L. HARCOURT: Yes. One thorn tree, which I am convinced was dying, has been removed under my direction.

    Sheriff Clerks in Scotland.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the system of paying sheriff clerks in Scotland is to hand over to them a lump sum from which the sheriff clerks pay their staffs; that no cognisance is taken by the Treasury of how much is paid to sheriff clerk-deputes or to clerks serving under them; that the distribution of this money might often be inequitable without the Treasury becoming aware of it; and, if so, whether he will see the advisability of having the staffs of all the sheriff clerks in Scotland directly associated with the Treasury, with their salaries paid thence, or otherwise that
    1468
    the Treasury take cognisance of the manner in which the lump sums are distributed, so that me it and length of service may always be recognised with fairness.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): Sheriff clerks in Scotland receive, as a rule, in addition to fixed salaries, lump sum allowances for payment of deputes and clerks, but in some cases the salaries also include allowances. The Treasury do not ordinarily take cognisance of the distribution of an allowance, unless a question arises of the necessity for varying the total amount, but receipts for amounts paid to deputes and clerks are furnished to the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer as well as to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. A system of this kind is common to several branches of the public service, and I see no reason for altering the present arrangements.

    The Weir Trust.
    SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Barn-staple division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether, and when, the Charity Commissioners propose to seal the scheme they are preparing respecting the diversion of the trust fund bequeathed by the late Mr. Benjamin Weir, of Streatham; whether they will afford the Member for Wandsworth and the inhabitants of Streatham, in the borough of Wandsworth, a final opportunity of perusing it before it is actually sealed; and whether they will postpone the carrying out of the scheme until such time as the matter can be debated on some Vote in Supply next session.
    MR. SOARES: The Commissioners propose to seal the scheme on Tuesday next. I will send the hon. Baronet a copy of the scheme to-night. In answer to the last part of the Question, the scheme will be carried out in the ordinary course.
    SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Charity Commissioners, a body entrusted by Parliament with the performance of specific and statutory duties

    1469
    and paid for the same, are proposing, greatly in excess of the powers conferred upon them by Parliament, to divert a trust fund, bequeathed by the late Mr. Benjamin Weir, of Streatham, to found a medical charity within and for the benefit of the inhabitants of Streatham, in the borough of Wandsworth, to other purposes altogether in another parish and another borough; whether he will direct the attention of the Attorney-General to the subject; and whether he will cause the carrying out of the scheme proposed by the Commissioners to be postponed until such time as the matter can be debated on some Vote in Supply next session.
    MR. SOARES (on behalf of the PRIME MINISTER): The statements contained in the first part of the Question are evidently based on incorrect information, and a misapprehension of the nature of the trust. There would be no useful purpose in directing the attention of the Attorney-General to the subject at the present time. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

    Cambridgeshire Small Holdings.
    MR. NICHOLLS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he has received any communication from applicants for small holdings at Coates, Cambridgeshire, complaining "that the Isle of Ely County Council have mot taken steps to provide them land, although the men have sent repeated applications since last January; that recently the small holdings committee have refused to recognise the applications from the Co-operative Small Holdings Association; if he has been asked to send an inspector to Coates to make inquiry into the case; have the applicants urged the Board to exercise their powers under the Act to acquire land for these men; and what steps do the Department intend to take in the matter.
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The facts are as stated, and the Board are in communication with the county council on the subject.

    Scottish Secondary Schools,
    MR. MENZIES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that the total number of children in average attendance at secondary schools in Scotland for the year 1904–5 was 16,688 and that they received grants of public money amounting in all to £70,496 11s. 10d., he will explain upon what principle grants to the amount of £80,690 14s. 3d. were given to these same schools for the year 1906–7 when the number of children had only increased by 240, making a total of 16,928; and whether this increased grant of £10,000 is reasonable, as it amounts to £40 per child in increased average attendance.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The particulars of grants paid to secondary schools in the year 1906–7, as given on page 41 of the Report on Secondary Education, comprise a number of payments made in respect of two years, as explained in a footnote. The figures given by the hon. Member do not make allowance for this fact and therefore require considerable modification. Apart from this, however, the amounts of these grants were not determined by average attendance. They were derived from three sources, two of which provide fixed sums to be distributed annually as nearly as may be in their entirety for the benefit of secondary schools. The grants for science and art paid by the Department, which formed the third source of income of these schools, were determined by the amount and quality of the work done,

    Lawlessness in the West of Ireland.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government sent Mr. Horne, late resident magistrate, to the West of Ireland to report upon the condition of that part of the country, especially in regard to lawlessness; and, if so, will they lay the Report of Mr. Horne upon the Table.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): As stated in my reply to a Question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for

    1471
    East Down on 4th March last, Mr. Home was employed in County Galway for ten days in the month of January last. His communication to the Government was of a strictly confidential nature, and will not be published.

    Cahirciveen District Council and Fairs.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the terms of the resolution passed by the Cahirciveen Rural District Council on the 11th ultimo. to the effect that it is advisable that rural district councils should have equal powers with urban councils to regulate the holding of fairs and markets; and whether he proposes to give effect to this resolution.
    MR. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the resolution referred to. Under Section 1 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896, a rural district council can be invested by the Local Government Board with the powers of an urban authority for any of the purposes of the Public Health Acts. Under those Acts urban authorities have certain powers with regard to markets, and the Board are prepared to consider an application from the rural district council to be invested with such powers.

    Saurine Estate, Tipperary.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet advanced the cash for the purchase of the Saurin Estate, Lisballyard, County Tipperary; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay.
    MR. BIRRELL: This estate will be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners in its order of priority. Its turn has not yet been reached.

    Irish Land Purchase Compulsory Powers.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland which clause of the Irish Land Bill restricts or limits the power, conferred upon the Land Commission by Clause 31, of acquiring land compulsorily outside the congested
    1472
    districts area; and whether it is intended that this power of compulsory purchase is to be exercised solely for the purpose of dealing with cases of congestion.
    MR. BIRRELL: Clause 44 of the Bill contains general restrictions on the compulsory acquisition of land under the Bill. Clause 31, which lays down the procedure to be adopted by the Land Commission preliminary to compulsory acquisition, is limited to land which is not situated in a congested districts county. The power of acquiring such land is not confined to cases of congestion, but doubtless the most urgent cases of this kind would be the first to be dealt with by the Land Commission.

    Rosse Estate Evicted Tenant.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to reinstate an evicted tenant named Rose Egan on the property of Lord Rosse at Clonlyon Castle, King's County, the agent having told Rose Egan that he was willing she should be reinstated by the Commissioners.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that this holding has been inspected and that they have intimated to the owner the price which they are willing to advance for the purchase of the evicted farm, provided the evicted tenant is reinstated and signs a purchase agreement.

    Marsham Estate Evicted Tenant.
    MR. F. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any steps to reinstate Mrs. Anne McHugh, an evicted tenant on the Marsham estate, Killavoggy, County Leitrim, she having signed the necessary agreement for purchase in May last and for the preservation of the plantations, in compliance with the terms of the Commission; and whether, having regard to the fact that the young plantation on the farm was being destroyed, the Commissioners would take immediate action to have her reinstated.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have had the lands inspected and have intimated to the owner the price which they are prepared to advance for the purchase of the evicted farm. It is understood that the owner is about to reinstate Mrs. McHugh, who has agreed to purchase.

    Irish Equivalent Grants.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Irish Development Grant was made to Ireland as an equivalent of the increased education grants to England and Wales under the Education Act of 1902; and whether he is able to state the amount which Ireland should receive as the equivalent of the increased grants to English and Scottish education, under Acts subsequent to 1902 or contemplated under the Education Bills now before Parliament.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. With respect to the first part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to a reply given by my predecessor to the hon. Member for West Kerry on 14th March last. I will send him a copy. As regards the last part of the Question I am not aware of any reason for increasing the grants for education in Ireland, in connection with the English Education Bill or otherwise, as practically the whole cost of elementary education in Ireland is already borne on Votes of Parliament.
    MR. LONSDALE: Has not the equivalent grant to Scotland been largely increased?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Member will give me notice I will inquire.

    Kingstown Pier Dispute.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that, since 1st April last, the steamers of the London and North-Western Railway Company have been using the Carlisle Pier, Kingstown Harbour, without making any payment for the use thereof, while the only other steamers allowed to use this pier are the
    1474
    mail steamers of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, which has to pay a sum of £2,000 per annum for the use of this pier, he will state on what grounds the Treasury charge an Irish company this heavy annual sum for the accommodation provided, while, at the same time, they allow an English Company to use the pier without any payment; and if he can state how long it is intended to discriminate against an Irish company in this manner.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The amount paid by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company is £182 5s., not £2,000 per annum. The amount to be paid by the London and North-Western Railway Company has not yet been decided, pending a decision on the legal questions which have been raised by the City of Dublin Company.
    MR. MOONEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under the contract between the City of Dublin Company and the Postmaster-General, the Postmaster-General stops a sum of £500 per quarter out of the passenger receipts of the Company for the use of this pier, and whether that does not amount to a charge of £2,000 par annum for the use of the pier? Am I to understand that because there is an action between the company and another Department in connection with the interpretation of the contract that is considered a reason for allowing another person to come in and use the pier free of charge?
    MR. HOBHOUSEsaid the facts were as stated in his reply.
    MR. MOONEY: Will the hon. Gentleman' cause a copy of the contract to be placed before him so that he may see whether it is not a fact that £500 per quarter is taken out of the passenger receipts of the company and paid over to the Treasury? Are we to understand that in addition to that there is an annual sum charged by way of rent?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: No. I am not aware of that. I understand that 5s. per trip is charged and that this sum averages £182 5s.
    MR. MOONEY: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, and I will put down another Question so that he may see it.

MINISTER FOR EDUCATION AND QUESTIONS.
MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's,): May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that eight Questions were to-day put to the Minister for Education relating to the Bill now being discussed under the Closure Resolution as to some of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board stated he could not take the responsibility of answering, and whether the Prime Minister is aware that the Answers to some of these Questions are of crucial importance in forming a right judgment upon the policy of the Bill, and will he be good enough to make arrangements— I know there are difficulties—that the Minister for Education, or some responsible Minister, shall be present at Question-time during the progress of this;
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): There is no man in this House who, at this moment, is so hardly worked. I believe I am not exaggerating when I say that he has not had twenty-five minutes to-day to himself. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board was present, and he answered the Questions, but he refused to answer some Supplementary Questions. Under the circumstances this treatment of the Under-Secretary is somewhat ungenerous.
SIR F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of withdrawing the Education Bill in view of the result of the Chelmsford election?
MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.

COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [LORDS.]
  POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL. [LORDS.]

    STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [LORDS.]
    Report from the Joint Committee in respect of the Statute Law Revision
    1476
    Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 343.]

    DEBTORS (IMPRISONMENT).
    Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed].
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to; be printed. [No. 344.]
    Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 344.]

EDUCATION BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 2:
MR. MILDMAYsaid that when he was interrupted by the adjournment of the Committee last night he was in process of moving the omission of the words "on two mornings in the week in which school meets," with the result that if the omission were accepted the opportunities given to a child of receiving denominational religious instruction would not be confined to two mornings in the week. He had been refreshing his memory by reading the report of what was said on the subject yesterday by the Prime Minister, who told them that the right of entry was not to be confined to two days a week, but that no individual child would be at liberty to receive denominational teaching on more than two days a week. It appeared to many of them that that was a very meagre allowance. He would ask hon. Members opposite to remember that they had conceded the principle that children were to have the opportunity of receiving denominational teaching in all schools, and they had also conceded that the presence of denominational teachers was not to be restricted to two days a week. Then

1477
what reason could there be for preventing children from receiving religious education in accordance with the wishes of their parents on more than two days in the week? He had never upheld the extreme denominational point of view, because he believed that religious teaching of value to the children, so far as it went, could be imparted under the Cowper-Temple Clause. Although he thought that religious teaching of value to children was possible, and was given in some schools under the Cowper-Temple Clause, yet he did not ignore the fact—they had all got to recognise the fact—that there was a large body of people in the country who took the contrary view, conscientiously and honestly believing that such teaching, if not harmful, was absolutely valueless. They might not be able to understand that view, but those who held it had a perfect right to it, and it was perfectly certain that that view was honestly held. No man had a right to dictate to another man what should be his views in this connection, where deep religious convictions were concerned. No suggestion could be more illiberal. And so, if they were to have a settlement, one fact must be recognised by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it was an important fact in connection with this provision for the right of entry. What had been the chief complaint of the Nonconformists in connection with their opposition to the Bill of 1902? What had impelled them to passive resistance? It was that they had been forced, and they said it was an insupportable injustice, to pay for religious teaching of which they did not approve. How did they propose to remedy this state of affairs under the Bill? And here was the fact which he wished to impress upon them.. They proposed to remedy it by shifting the same grievance, which by their own admission had been intolerable, on to other shoulders; they proposed to remedy it by compelling others to pay for religious teaching of which those others did not approve. And when hon. Gentlemen opposite said that this was not a balanced settlement, that the concessions did not balance, that the sacrifice required by the Church was small, he would ask them to recall to their minds the violent terms in which they had characterised that bondage which, under
1478
this Bill, they were now light-heartedly seeking to impose on others. How came it that anyone with a sense of justice was willing to discuss or entertain for a moment this solution which would appear to be so obviously unjust? It was only because it was hoped that the quid pro quo, the right of entry into all schools, would be no shadowy concession, but a concession of a substantial and really valuable nature. He had to admit that he was speaking from the point of view of members of the Church of England. This concession of right of entry was no good to Roman Catholics, and in this sense, from their point of view, the solution was most unsatisfactory. Returning to the English Church point of view, it appeared to him that under this Bill, whereby children whose parents so desired were to have one-and-a-half hour's denominational religious teaching in the week, the right of entry as a concession was lacking in substance. They had conceded the right of entry, and, the principle once conceded, was it not politic from every point of view to be ungrudging in the application of that principle? There was another matter. Many of them were strangers to some of the fears which were entertained by extremists in connection with this Bill, but if they were to allay those fears—if they were to get a lasting settlement—they must endeavour to understand those fears, and must give consideration to those hypothetical cases which were suggested by extremists in all sincerity, even if the possibility of such cases occurring might seem to them very remote. Under the Bill, as he had said, the children of parents so desiring were to have denominational instruction for two periods of three-quarters of an hour in the week. What if the headmaster of the school was a man of forceful character, and for one reason or another was strongly antagonistic to the denominational teaching in his school, or to the teacher thereof? If not a probability, was it not a possibility that he might set himself in the remaining three days of the week to give religious teaching to put it, mildly, in no sense in sympathy with the denominational teaching? Was it not possible that he might set himself in the remaining three days to counteract this teaching? It might be said that it was not probable, but none could say

1479
that it was impossible, and how disagreeable would be the position. It might be asserted that the parent would have his remedy in the withdrawal of his child from the Cowper-Temple teaching under the conscience clause, but the result of this would be that the child would be penalised by receiving only one and a half hour's religious instruction in the week, a very meagre allowance. He submitted that his Amendment alone would solve such difficulty. The Prime Minister yesterday said that the Bible-teaching given in Church schools on three days a week was an excellent basis on which to superimpose Church teaching, and further, that it had been an almost universal system in Church of England schools to give three days ordinary Bible-teaching, and on the remaining two days distinctive denominational teaching, and that it had worked well. Yes, it had worked well where all religious teaching had been given by the same teacher, or under the same superintendence, but it must be remembered that in future this religious instruction in the schools was to be given by two independent teachers. They were not allowed to inquire into the religious opinions of the headmaster before he was appointed, and they did not know what his religious views might be, or what might be his qualifications even for giving the teaching which it was his duty to give, under the Bill, under the Cowper-Temple clause, and under those circumstances was it not possible that the two teachers of religion in the school might be teaching one against the other? Everyone in that House, he thought, would agree that that would be a most deplorable position. The Prime Minister said yesterday that Cowper-Temple teaching was an excellent basis on which to superimpose Church teaching. Yes, but what security had they that Cowper-Temple teaching as now given in the schools would endure? What guarantee was there that in the future it would not be supplanted by religious teaching absolutely valueless, and even pernicious in their eyes? Who knew what Governments might be in power in the future? Was it absolutely impossible that they should see something as uninspiring to children as the New Theology, or perhaps,
1480
ethical teaching with strong socialistic tendencies, installed in the schools as the State idea of what religious teaching should be? At all events, with the possibility of the future before them, they had a right to ask that the benefits to be conceded by the right of entry should be real and substantial benefits. He would detain the House no longer; as he had already said, the Government and their Nonconformist supporters had conceded the principle of the right of entry, and he most earnestly appealed to them to apply this principle ungrudgingly by accepting his Amendment, because it would only make for peace. He believed the acceptance of the Amendment would do more to pacify a large body of Churchmen than any Amendment which was not contrary to the principle of the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 26, to leave out from the word 'instruction,' to the word 'make,' in line 27."—(Mr. Mildmay.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'on' stand part of the clause."
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said he understood the hon. Member's Amendment was directed to the time-limit of two mornings a week, although he had argued beyond that point. The two mornings a week which were provided for by the clause represented, not any arbitrary time picked on by the Government as being what the framers of the Bill thought sufficient, but a time which, by almost universal consent, had been found adequate by those desirous of giving denominational instruction in the schools. Denominational instruction did not cover the whole ground of religious instruction, even in denominational schools. He was quite sure that hon. Members opposite, so far as Protestants were concerned —he said nothing about those of the Roman Catholic faith—would recognise that the teaching ordinarily given as Cowper-Temple teaching was in a large part such as was also ordinarily given as religious instruction in denominational schools, but it was not the whole of the religious instruction given in denominational schools, and was therefore defective in that respect. But

1481
whatever the differences between the different Protestant denominations might be, there was a considerable amount of religious instruction which was common to all. They all knew that in Church schools and undenominational schools the Bible was taught very much on the same lines, and therefore that teaching was common to both the denominational and the undenominational schools as at present constituted. But, dealing only with the catechetical teaching, it had been found sufficient in practice in the denominational schools to confine that catechetical teaching practically to half an hour on two mornings in the week, and in many schools on only one morning in the week. Why had that been done? Not because the State put any limit upon the time; nor because the teacher who gave religious instruction was in any way stinted by the authorities. Not at all. It was found that half an hour of catechetical teaching on two mornings a week was adequate for the purpose, and perhaps would give as much as a child of tender years could conveniently assimilate. The denominational schools had themselves made the limit, and the Government had, therefore, adopted it. He would not like to speak as to the course of the negotiations between the exalted persons whose names had been raised in that debate and his right hon. friend, because he could not speak with anything like authority, but he thought he would be right in saying, from what had appeared in the public Press, that those who had assumed to act on behalf of the Church in all these arrangements had not made any very strenuous claim for more time than that which was given in the Bill. He did not know that they had made any claim for more time, but if they had made any, certainly it had not forced its way—
LORD R. CECIL: So far as the published correspondence goes, no one has assumed to act on behalf of the Church.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid he did not think he was contending that anybody had acted on behalf of the Church. He said they were assumed to act on behalf of the Church, and he thought the noble
1482
Lord himself not infrequently assumed to act on behalf—
LORD R. CECIL: Never.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that at any rate the noble Lord had spoken on behalf of the Church there and had assumed a degree of almost pontificial authority, and one might allow, therefore, some authority to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London. They at all events did not seem to have laid any very great stress or insistence upon the extension of the proposed time, and under those circumstances he thought they might fairly adopt the existing usage and stand by it. The mover of the Amendment went further, in his speech, than the question of time. He spoke of the possibility that the Cowper-Temple teaching might counteract the denominational teaching, that they might have in the room where Cowper-Temple teaching was being given some theological proposition or spirit inculcated which was not consistent with that going on in another room under the care, it might be, of an Anglican teacher. The same observation might be made, however, with regard to the Anglican teacher and the Cowper-Temple teacher. It might be possible that he would inculcate doctrines in one room highly inconsistent with those taught in another room under the right of entry; but it was not for the State to try to prevent the various religious denominations from trying to counteract each other. Undoubtedly they would seek to counteract each other; they must have the liberty to counteract each other, and the State certainly could not assume to prevent them. It would be a very undesirable course if they were to try in any way to limit the authority that any denomination might claim to possess in teaching doctrines inimical to others.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that this was one of the matters which he raised at the opening of the debate yesterday, in reply to which the Prime Minister made on the whole a very considerate speech. He thought the learned Attorney-General misconceived the point made by his hon. friend It was perfectly true that if they admitted

1483
denominational teachers of different denominations into the same school, those teachers in their denominational classes would give teaching which in the different classes was inconsistent, but that was an entirely different thing from what his hon. friend said. It was the possibility that the school teacher giving the ordinary Cowper-Temple teaching might give something which was not what the learned Attorney-General described as the Cowper-Temple teaching, as having the fundamental basis of all Christian, or at any rate of all Protestant, teaching, but something which was inconsistent with the denominational super-struction which it was the object of this clause to allow the denominations to build up.
MR. WALTERS: Why not?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Could the hon. Gentleman really inquire why not? He did not know whether the hon. Member was a supporter of the Bill and desired to see a compromise effected. But his observation struck at the root of all compromise. Could the hon. Gentleman defend the proposition that for three days in the week the child should be subject to teaching subversive of the doctrines in which the parent believed, and then on two days a teacher should come in to counteract that subversive teaching? Surely that was not the doctrine of the Liberal Party?
MR. WALTERSasked to be allowed to explain the object of his interjection. Suppose for example the Cowper-Temple teacher in his teaching took exception to the Anglican or Roman Catholic view on the Apostolic succession, would that not be Cowper-Temple teaching and yet destructive of a peculiar doctrine of the Anglican Church? Would the right hon. Gentleman say that teaching under the Cowper-Temple syllabus could be given without coming into collision with the doctrines of certain sections of the Anglican Church?.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he certainly took direct issue with the hon. Member. He was not a denominationalist, as the Committee knew by this time. He took direct issue as to
1484
what was permissible under the Cowper-Temple clause. If he was wrong and the hon. Member was right, then the Cowper-Temple clause was not the protection to anyone which the Government held it out and the country believed it to be; and it would be impossible to proceed with a Bill based on the Cowper - Temple clause. The Cowper-Temple clause, according to the Attorney-General, provided for the teaching of religious truths not specifically characteristic of any particular Church, but did not provide for teaching in an agressive form against the doctrine of any particular Church.
SIR W. ROBSON: Antagonistic teaching on the part of the Cowper-Temple teacher against some particular doctrine of a denomination would be clearly contrary to the spirit of the compromise.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that unless that was understood and clearly embodied in the law, compromise became impossible. He deplored the intolerant spirit shown by the hon. Member for Brightside in his explanation.
MR. WALTERSsaid he was entitled to protest against language of that kind. He asked to be allowed to substitute another illustration. Suppose, in giving Cowper-Temple teaching common to all sections of the Christian faith, some doctrine should be inculcated that was antagonistic to the Unitarian faith; would that be considered as narrow-minded, intolerant, fanatical, and destructive of compromise?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he felt certain that if a teacher in a school in which there were children belonging to various denominations, in giving simple Bible-teaching such as was contemplated by the Cowper-Temple clause, took advantages of his opportunity and the trust confided in him to undermine the child's belief in his parents' religion, it would be an act of the grossest intolerance and a grave breach of trust. He was astonished to hear the hon. Member defend or recommend any such action, and was glad to think that

1485
teachers had a better sense of the responsibility of their position. The point which his hon. friend had submitted to the Attorney-General had reference to a fear that that might happen which apparently the hon. Member for Bright-side would be prepared to defend. He did not himself believe that it would be largely done; but after the interruption from the hon. Gentleman, did not the Attorney-General see that the fear which existed was not altogether unreasonable? In the great bulk of the denominational schools at the present time, no more time was occupied in this instruction than the Government allowed in the Bill, but probably there would be some schools where further facilities would be desired, and what possible offence could it give to any sensitive Nonconformist to allow such facilities? It might be thought that the concession asked for would not really be of any use, but in making a bargain, was it not wise to give up that which involved no sacrifice on their own part?
MR. YOXALLsaid it was not the case that in the past in the board schools the teachers had in connection with Cowper-Temple teaching insisted on those points on which Christians had divergent views. In his experience they had dwelt almost exclusively on those points on which all denominations concurred. He had sought and sought in vain for any cases of intolerance in the teaching under the Cowper-Temple clause. He knew that many such charges had been made, but they had never been substantiated. It was not his business to defend the Bill, or to support the Government in this controversy; but still he must say that there was no need for the apprehension shown on the one side or the other; because, he believed, whether the teaching was that of theological religion or that of the common denominator of Christian faith, the teachers would discharge their duty with honesty, fairness, and discretion. While it might be possible to arrange for the right of entry on two days of the week, if they extended it to three, four, or five days a week, it would be disastrous from an administrative point of view, and would interfere seriously with the work of the school.
1486
He was sure that if the Amendment were adopted it would defeat in practice the very aim which the hon. Member had theoretically in view. It might be possible, and he thought it would be possible, to arrange for this teaching two days a week without interfering with the administration of the school, but if hon. Gentleman wanted to have three or four days a week they would go far to week the work of the institution, and if they desired that on four or five days a week certain children should be taught religion it would break down. [Cries of "Why?"] If he knew anything about the working of a school he said that would be the case. [Cries of "We want to know why."] Hon. Members would excuse him from explaining at great length to the Committee the many reasons why the arrangement would not work, and if they did not accept his view he could not help it.
MR. MILDMAYsaid he did not question the hon. Gentleman's right to speak with authority on this matter, but he was only anxious for information. He confessed he knew lass than the hon. Member about these things.
MR. YOXALLsaid the localities would have to arrange for the use of a certain room or rooms, and for the services of certain teachers. It might be possible, without infringing upon the general convenience or work of the school, to set a room or two rooms apart for one day or two days a week, but it would become increasingly difficult with each additional day, and it would become impossible for three, four, or five days a week. For a similar reason it might be possible to arrange for the service of a special teacher on two days a week, but it would be much more difficult to arrange for the curate or lay teacher to-come into the school on four or five days a week.
MR. ASHLEY: He can go in now under the Bill.
MR. YOXALLsaid the teaching could be given by an outside teacher. The two days might not interfere with the efficiency of the school, but if it was three, four, or five days it would very

1487
seriously interfere with the work, and the whole system would break down. He would like, in the name of the general efficiency of the schools and the system of education in this country, to protest against any extension of what was now offered. Then they were going to provide for religious teaching of a specified kind for three-quarters of an hour. He put it to any man whether he did not think that a three-quarters of an hour sermon once a week was too long, and certainly twice a week was too long, unless the preacher was very able and entrancing. He put it to those who regarded this matter from the point of view of humanity and the religious interests of the children, and not on theological grounds, whether three-quarters of an hour was not too long on even one day a week for a religious lesson. In not a single council school at this moment was there a three-quarters of an hour lesson of this kind, and this Bill would completely destroy the present system, because it would give the parent the right to claim the actual teaching of dogmatic subjects for three-quarters of an hour on two days in each week. He protested against three-quarters of an hour for any lesson whatever. It was bad educationally, and there was no reason whatever for it. Three-quarters of an hour lesson for children of tender age was much too long. There was not an expert who would not tell them that three-quarters of an hour was too much on one subject at a time. A good deal of the effect of the teaching would be disastrous, and would certainly be not beneficial to the religious life of the children. He hoped the Government would make it clear that the three-quarters of an hour should contain at least the same ten minutes which was now occupied in religious observances in the morning, and if they would not do that, and the Bill passed in its present form, three-quarters of an hour was too much on two mornings, and to make it three, four, or five mornings in the week would be perfectly absurd. He protested against this application to the children of the poor and the working classes of rules and regulations and principles of lessons which were never used in the schools of the upper classes. Who were the men who were supporting this proposal?
1488
What was the length of their theological lessons at Eton and Harrow? How much of their time per day did they spend in school and college chapels? [AN HON. MEMBER: More than that.] He knew better. They escaped from it whenever they could, and yet these were the men who came there and demanded that by law they should impose on children in the people's schools a length of theological teaching which they never experienced, and from which they escaped on every possible occasion. The parents of the children and the children had never grumbled at the present system, but, on the contrary, had expressed the greatest satisfaction with it, and he protested against this proposal in every possible way.
LORD EDMUND TALBOTsaid that this question of two mornings a week was one of very great importance to the enormous number of Church of England schools in the division which he had the honour to represent in this House, but it was also a question of importance to the Catholics of the country, though, comparatively speaking, a very minor matter indeed. But it often happened in places where a new trade was started, or a new mine was opened, or there was the development of a new seaside resort that some of his co-religionists went there to start businesses, and for some time they were unable to provide themselves with schools, and in these places, of course, they would want to take full advantage of these two mornings a week. He wanted to have it clearly understood, and therefore he put a definite question to the hon. and learned Attorney-General, whether it was not a fact that it would be possible for the priest and the parson to get into a council school every day in the week? He understood that was so.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that, as he understood, the noble Lord was showing that the religious instruction might be on any morning of the week. That was so, provided that no child got more than two mornings a week. The limit of two mornings a week was for the child and not for the school. Each child was to get two mornings a week, and if he did the law was satisfied.
LORD EDMUND TALBOTinquired whether it would be possible for the priest and the parson to get into the Council schools every day in the week, provided they did not teach the same child more than twice in the same week. If that was so, surely it could not do much harm if they let them teach the same child a little oftener.
MR. MASSIEsaid the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire had approached them on this occasion, and the spirit in which he had approached the question on other occasions, made them most anxious to give him what he desired. But he ventured to submit that he did not fully appreciate the state of things which this compromise was already creating. That might be described as a state of irritation in many neighbourhoods, an irritation, not on the part of Nonconformists only, but on the part of many citizens who belonged to no Church whatever, because the schools, of whose freedom from clerical in erference they had been proud, were now likely to be handed over for a certain time in the course of the week to that clerical interference; and even if this was only in private rooms, they strongly objected to it. It was very natural, therefore, that many Members of the House should desire to make that imitation on as slight as possible. The fact that two days were being offered in the Bill was, as he had said, already creating friction. That offer had been made at a great cost to many of them, because even with two days only they were giving away the highly valued freedom of the schools from the atmosphere of religious differences. They did not desire, and he was quite sure that a vast number of people in the country connected with the council schools did not desire, the intrusion into these schools of denominational teaching. It interfered with the unity of the schools. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire had not in the slightest degree exaggerated the honourableness with which the teachers in the council schools had carried out the spirit of Cowper-Templeism. If Cowper-Templeism had done nothing else, it had created in these
1490
schools a public opinion, on the part of the teachers, in favour of due respect for the religious convictions of the parents whose children they were teaching. Two days a week was the price that they were preparing to pay, and a high price too, for peace outside the schools. Five days a week would immeasurably increase the price. The price was already high, and they could not pay more.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid the last speaker talked about the spirit of conciliation and compromise. He thought if hon. Members wished to preserve that spirit they would have to muzzle the hon. Member for Nottingham, because if he made many more speeches in the same vein as he had adopted that evening—a vein which he should not endeavour to copy—the spirit of compromise would disappear.
MR. YOXALL: I voted against the Bill.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid he was perfectly aware of that, but whether he supported or opposed the Bill, he had no right to deal with the matter in the spirit in which he thought he had dealt with it. The hon. Member told the Committee that the system suggested by the Amendment was impossible, but beyond that he gave very few and insufficient reasons for it. But the noble Lord had pointed out— and this was proved beyond all doubt— that this teaching could be given, and was given, every day. The whole mistake which underlay this question was pointed out by the hon. Member for the Bright side Division of Sheffield. Cowper-Temple teaching was not a definite teaching of any kind; it was merely a negative form of teaching.
MR. WALTERS: I must ask the hon. Member not to put into my mouth so absurd a proposition as that.
MR. LANE-FOXdid not suggest the hon. Member said that. That was his own statement. Cowper-Temple instruction merely embodied a negative form of teaching, and, therefore, they were bound to get an opportunity for all sorts of teaching under the Cowper-Temple

1491
Clause. He believed that if a man wished he could teach Ritualism or give mere Bible-reading under that clause, so long as he did not embody it in a dogmatic form. That was the objection of Members of the Opposition. That was the reason they said that there was no guarantee that there would not be a conflict between the teaching given on one day under the Cowper-Temple Clause, and the teaching given on another day in a denominational form. It was impossible for the Government to lay down the principle that nothing taught under the Cowper-Temple Clause would conflict with the teaching given in a denominational form on another day. Hon. Members had no right to assume that the teaching required by those who supported the Amendment was purely the catechism. Everybody must recognise that what they wanted was not to impress dogma on children every morning, but to give teaching with a guarantee that behind it would be found that well-founded and genuine belief which was not to be found under the Cowper-Temple clause.
MR. J. W. WILSONsaid that the special teaching on two days a week was regarded as one of the distinctive features of the compromise which they understood was arrived at, and he thought he had some right to submit that to the consideration of the House, because the last time the matter was discussed in the House two years ago, he moved an Amendment for doing away with the two days and allowing special instruction to be given on every day of the week. It was argued then that probably it would make no difference in the long run, and that two days a week would be ultimately all that would be required, and, therefore, by conceding five days they were doing no more than if they conceded only two days, because the remaining three would not be used. He submitted that in this case it concerned not the transferred schools, but it mainly affected the great board schools of the country. He thought the President of the Board of Education was justified in concluding that the main body of board school educationists would regard the giving up of restrictions regarding the five days as a far greater concession than giving up two only. Therefore,
1492
he appealed to those Members who desired to support the Bill to consider this as a question already decided, and to occupy the limited time of the Committee with those matters which were more open to criticism, and possibly to amendment.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the speech of the hon. Member for Brightside had convinced him that it was necessary that he should support the Amendment. He had always felt the Cowper-Temple teaching had admitted the expression of dogmatic theological opinion, but they had always been assured—and he believed it was generally though not universally the case —that Cowper-Temple teaching consisted of those fundamental Christian truths, common certainly to all the Protestant creeds and common, he believed, to the Roman Catholic Church, though they could not accept that particular form of presentation, and that therefore it might very properly be a foundation on which the two days' denominational teaching might be given. But, if it was suggested, as it was by an hon. Member who had had considerable experience in educational matters, that Cowper-Temple teaching might properly be used to counteract and undermine the denominational teaching which was given to the child on two days of the week, then it appeared to him that the parent should be safeguarded by the permission to insist that his child should receive the denominational teaching on all the five days of the week on which religious instruction was given. In that way only could he be guarded against conflicting religious opinion, contradictory to the tenets of the parent, and profoundly repugnant to his wishes. If there was any risk that this teaching might be given in a controversial spirit and in a way contrary to the wishes of many of the parents, was it not desirable that this teaching should be given under some form of supervision and inspection that should ensure to the parents that their children were not taught on three days a week doctrines that were subversive of what they were taught on the other two days?
MR. NAPIERthought that this Amendment was contrary to the scheme of the Bill and to the spirit of compromise behind it.

1493
The stipulation that there should be in all schools compulsory Cowper-Temple teaching was not a stipulation made by the Nonconformists. It came from the Archbishop of Canterbury, who insisted on Cowper-Temple teaching being given by the local education authority to the whole of the children of the country, subject, of course, to the conscience clause. The stipulation was that there should be Cowper-Temple teaching on three days of the week, and specific Church teaching on the other two days. That meant that Cowper-Temple teaching was not inconsistent with Church teaching, and nine-tenths of the people of the country believed the Cowper-Temple teaching did include the fundamental principles of Christianity. If that were so, would it be contended that more than two days a week was at all necessary for inculcating those particular doctrines of the Church of England which were not inculcated in Cowper-Temple teaching? He thought the proposition was almost absurd. When they thought of little children, how much could they teach them of special doctrines wherein the Church of England differed from the bulk of Nonconformists? Up to the age of ten he thought they ought to be content with teaching the child those fundamental doctrines which practically included his own parent's specific religious faith. The compromise embodied in the Bill contained those great principles which he believed were firmly held by the great majority of the people of this country. 'In the first place, there was a common root of Christianity which they might safely teach to all children; and the second principle, held by most Christians 'in this country, i.e., that it was impossible that they should train up the population as Christians to do the, best Christian work of which they were capable unless they taught the youth of the country, before they attained the age of thirteen of fourteen, that their duty was to belong to one of the great Christian communities. He believed that religious education would be incomplete unless it taught children when they came to be of full age that they should belong to one of the great Christian bodies in this country and he believed that they would be
1494
infinitely better Christians, more forcible in fighting against the evil things of this world, if they began by teaching them that there was one great common Christian brotherhood of which the denominations were merely regiments in a fighting army.
MR. GEORGE ROBERTSsaid he admired the sentiment expressed by the last speaker, that they should train children to the recognition of the great Christian brotherhood, but he confessed when he heard from the speeches how much they were afraid that the balance of advantage might be turned to the Church side or to the side of the Nonconformist, that the spirit of brotherhood was hardly contemplated in a practical way in Parliament. He wished to point out to the Government what in his opinion were the dangers which beset them along the line on which they were going. He found that those whom he regarded as well qualified to speak for the Church of England, as the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed to do, would not be satisfied with the provisions of this clause. Two days a week would not satisfy them for all time, and undoubtedly at succeeding elections, and in Parliament, demands would be made for the amendment of this Bill, so as to allow of tests and the right of entry into provided schools without any restriction whatever. He believed with the hon. Member for Nottingham that they should restrict this right as far as possible. In his view, two mornings a week, or three-quarters of an hour's definite dogmatic teaching, was quite as much as an ordinary child could assimilate. He agreed that they should seek not to extend the opportunities for this right of entry, but to hedge them round with reasonable restrictions as far as possible. He conceived that this was going to be a real danger to our educational system. After all, in the provided schools they had largely imbued the children with a recognition of the spirit of social unity. In his view, the right of entry would dissipate that altogether. The children in future would be divided into little sects, and undoubtedly that spirit of social unity would suffer proportionately. Further, he was inclined to think that the discipline of the school must be affected. He

1495
tried to picture to himself what would follow if this Bill became an Act of Parliament. Each morning the children would gather together, and would be divided into different sects. This meant that the school discipline would be upset completely every morning in the week. The head teacher was to look on passively and not interfere at all with what was being done by those who came in from outside. Moreover, different views might be held by the different teachers who imparted religious instruction. And the question was asked whether there was to be any supervision. For his own part he failed to see how supervision could be exercised, because it would need an army of inspectors, nearly one inspector to every teacher. He was convinced that the parents were not requiring that there should be the right of entry into council schools. It might be that the compromise had been entered into by persons who had no responsibility whatever, because they were repudiated in that House, but even if the terms of compromise did bring about peace inside the House of Commons, he was certain that it was going to create chaos and disorder in every one of the public schools. He believed that the parents did not desire it. But he could quite see that the different sects would immediately set to work. The parents' belief would be inquired into, and there would be some sort of religious inquisition instituted in the land. The parents would be marked off—as some of them were now politically —according to their religious opinions. He entered a strong protest against this right of entry at all, but certainly if they were unable to prevent its being enacted, he sincerely trusted that the Government would not give any further extension to the principle
MR. ASHLEYthought there was a fallacy underlying the arguments of hon. Members on the other side, namely, that Cowper-Templeism as a foundation and a top-dressing of Church of England teaching would satisfy the vast majority of Church people as the religious education which ought to be given to their children. That, he thought, was also the underlying consideration which had
1496
induced the Government to refuse this very reasonable Amendment. He would ask hon. Members opposite to endeavour to meet the Church a little more than they were trying to do. It might seem unreasonable that all Church people did not accept Cowper-Temple teaching as a complete substratum, but in a great many places of Lancashire and else where they desired their own teachers to teach Church principles in their own way. That might appear unreasonable, but why would they not allow them to have it? So far as the provided schools were concerned, he could understand perfectly well the position of hon. Members opposite. But he asked them to consider for a moment the position of the Church of England, in those schools which were in single-school areas. They had schools built with the subscriptions of poor men for the express purpose that their children should have a Church of England atmosphere and Church of England teaching on five days a week. What were they going to do under this Bill in single school areas? They were taking away these schools from the Church of England, and they were going: to say to the majority of the parents— because they must be the majority for they had built the schools—that they were only to be allowed, at their own expense, two mornings a week when their children might be taught their religious faith, while the minority of parents who were satisfied with Cowper-Temple teaching were to have five mornings a week with nothing to pay. Then take the Roman Catholic schools, of which there were some twenty-five in England in single school-areas. Consider the position of the children in these Catholic schools in those single-school areas. No one would say that simple Cowper-Temple teaching would satisfy Catholic parents, and yet if they were not given an entry on five days a week, but only on two, they were saying to those Catholics who had built the schools: "Your children are going to have no religious instruction at all, or they are going to have Cowper-Temple teaching on three days a week, and only on two days a week are the priest and the nun to be allowed to come in and teach them." That was a very great injustice. If the Government could see their way to make

1497
a compromise, to restrict the right of entry to two days a week in the old provided schools, and extend it to five in the Church and Catholic schools, they would do no harm to their own cause, and would certainly remove the very sore and angry feeling in Lancashire at the way in which the Catholic and Church schools were being filched from them.
MR. ADKINS: expressed regret that the development of the debate had not seemed to bring about a greater identity of opinion, but he hoped hon. Members opposite, who attached great importance to the right of entry, would consider that some of them who were perfectly loyal to this part of the Bill, much as they disliked it, saw very grave practical objections to the alteration proposed by the hon. Member for Totnes. He did not think anyone had denied that as, a matter of actual fact, throughout the country denominational teaching was only given at the most on two days in the week, and very often only on one, in Church schools. When they found in a syllabus issued by a Diocesan Education Society that provision was made for this kind of instruction on only one morning in the week, and never on more than two, it was clear that the Bill as it stood was honestly trying to carry out what already existed by the wish and authority of the Church leaders in their own schools. Accordingly the onus of proof was very heavy on the hon. Member and his friends if they sought under this Bill to get more than was their unfettered practice at present in their own schools. That was admitted by the hon. Member for Oxford University, who had accused some members on that side of frivolity, because their conscience was affected by the difference between two and three days. It was not a question of conscience, but of practicability and fairnes. He thought the hon. Gentleman himself had indulged in quite unwonted levity in a matter of this importance, when he knew that the ordinary practice was in accord with what the Government proposed, and yet said he would vote for the Amendment because of a casual remark of an hon. Member, who had been elaborately though unintention-
1498
ally misinterpreted. That was deciding the question on a very minute detail. Any teacher known to be so teaching religion under the Cowper-Temple clause as to be really launching polemics against denominational instruction, would have very short shrift from any local education authority in the country. The real guarantee for what they all desired, that Cowper-Temple teaching should be used in no aggressive spirit, did not consist in the method proposed by the hon. Gentleman of eating into the Cowper-Temple teaching by this enlarged facility, but in a sense of fairness which local education authorities would have, and also in the great disinclination of local education authorities to have more religious controversy and discord than they could possibly avoid. There was no real danger to be run in that particular. Hon. Gentlemen put it with great seriousness that if they allowed the clergy or other persons, to teach denominational instruction twice a week, and that could only be done by allowing them to come in every day, there was no difference in actual practical administration. There was an enormous difference if they were allowed to teach the same children every day. If there were thirty children desiring denominational instruction, there would have to be sixty lessons in the course of the week. If the Amendment were carried and denominational instruction was given five times a week, they would have to provide 150 lessons, which was a far greater disturbance of the ordinary methods of the school than where they were merely providing sixty. He was sure the ordinary administrator, who looked at this, not as a Churchman or a Dissenter, but as one who had to see that education was smoothly carried on, would see the enormous difference between two days a week and the three, four, or five days a week which would be possible under the Amendment. He was not opposing the Amendment with any wish to make these facilities anything but a reality, but while, on the one hand, one was anxious that these facilities should be adequate and real, he was also anxious that they should not be so arranged as to lead to the disorganisation of the schools.
MR. DILLONthought the: Amendment reasonable and just, but said the debate would bring home to many men the extent of the concession which had been made. When they once allowed the right of entry they would be dragged in spite of themselves to allow it on equal terms to all denominations. That seemed to be the weak-point in the position of those who supported the compromise, and what made it almost impossible, although it did not press upon the Catholics, was that they were for the first time establishing in the common schools of England an endowed, established, and compulsory form of religious instruction. It was no use trying to get away from it. He had only to quote the words of the Rev. Scott Lidgett, which would be heard again and again—
"Throughout the country in the course of this controversy let us always remember that in spite of this compromise Cowper-Templeism remains the established religion of the schools of England."
He believed that was an impossible position to maintain. He did not believe it would work out as a compromise to invite the Church of England to come into these schools in an inferior position only on two days a week. The question, what was Cowper-Templeism, and what could be done under it, had always had an extraordinary attraction for him, and he had never heard anyone really adequately explain the matter. It would, of course, be possible under it to carry on propaganda against the doctrines of the Church of England or Rome, and it was idle and absurd to repeat the cant phrase about Cowper-Templeism being simple Christianity free from dogma. Did simple Bible teaching include the New Testament and the sayings of Christ, and were they going to teach children the New Testament and not tell them who the chief figure of the New Testament was? If they did tell them who He was, was not that dogma, and would it not bring them into collision with Unitarians? He could never see his way through this maze of Cowper-Temple teaching at all. They could not teach the Bible or the New Testament without plunging into theology. They could teach no religion without theology or without dogma. In his opinion, under the Cowper-Temple clause, they could teach the Catholic
1500
religion. It depended on who drew up the syllabus. Catholics could draw up a syllabus without infringing the clause. Was it not rather childish to imagine that if they banished the Catechism they banished dogma out of the schools? There was nothing magical in the Catechism. They could teach under the Cowper-Temple system whatever the local authority chose to put into the syllabus, and the local authority, if they desired to counteract the influence of the High Church parson, could, and probably would, carry on something in the nature of a propaganda against his doctrine. They could not have the two things, and there was no use in attempting to get them; they could not have the schools free from the contentions of different religious denominations and at the same time allow the denominations into the schools. They were met the other day by a reference to schools in America and Australia, and warned that their fate might be similar to theirs. Me had been in those schools in America and Australia, and there they had no conflict with the sects because they had a secular system. Once they established religious teaching in the schools they would open the flood-gates to all the dangers he had mentioned. He had dealt with the two points which induced him to intervene. It seemed to him that the Nonconformists had been led on to make a far greater sacrifice in. this compromise than if they had accepted Clause 4 of the Act of 1906. That would have left the board schools intact under a system they approved of, but now they had invited the Church into their schools, and they would insist upon being put upon an equality with Cowper-Templeism. He supported this. Amendment because he thought it was fair, and because hon. Members above the gangway supported the Catholics on a critical Amendment. This Amendment did nothing for Catholics, because their ideals ran in a totally different direction. They wanted a school where the whole atmosphere was Catholic. The noble Lord had so eloquently expressed their view on this matter that he was almost tempted to invite him to come over and join them. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] He did not mean anything offensive, but the noble Lord

1501
had eloquently expressed their view of this subject when he said that he attached supreme importance to impressing upon the mind of the children the fact that they belonged to a great ecclesiastical organisation, and that was the only way in which religion could be kept alive. The children should be taught that they were numbers of a great Church entrusted with the task of maintaining the Christian faith. Catholics had no interest in the right of entry, and he looked forward to the day when Nonconformists would deeply regret they did not meet them on this question in 1906.
MR. WALTERSsaid that poor, simple Nonconformists, who were persuaded to accept this compromise, imagined that as far as the council schools were concerned they would preserve their old freedom from religious interference, and that all they were asked to do was to give the opportunity on two mornings a week for denominational instruction to be given to the children of the parents who desired it above and beyond the ordinary Cowper-Temple instruction they were receiving on the other days in the week. They understood that all the children would assemble at the morning worship. They imagined that under the compromise it would still be possible for the children to look upon each other in a friendly way without being divided into sectarian pens, and that there would still be some common ground upon which the children would share the same kind of religious exercise. But nothing of that sort was to be continued. The children of denominationalists were not to be contaminated by singing hymns with Cowper-Temple children. They were to have on two mornings a week not Cowper-Temple instruction but some other kind of foundation on which the superstructure of the Anglican Church religion might be built. That was not what Nonconformists or the supporters of council schools expected. He had had practical experience of council schools for a great many years, and to grant the right of entry on two mornings a week with the inevitable division of the teachers into different sects, was an enormous sacrifice to make. A full denominational atmosphere for
1502
certain children in the schools was not the basis of a compromise to which Nonconformists could agree. It was not a compromise when one party swallowed the other. "When the whale appropriated Jonah it was not a compromise—far from it. He was prepared for a reasonable compromise, but if Members opposite imagined this was to be the beginning of a kind of absorption of the whole educational system by denominations they did not understand the spirit and thought of the country. He had nothing to say to priests and parsons in their proper place, but he did not want them in the schools. He objected to them from every standpoint. They gave no help educationally or religiously. They stirred up strife and contention and nothing but mischief resulted. Hon. Members opposite argued that if they were going to give denominational teaching on two mornings a week it was quite simple to give it on five mornings. Supposing they had a school with only two classrooms, holding thirty scholars each, and they wanted two classrooms to accommodate the number of children who wanted special instruction on two mornings. If they increased the number to five times a week they would not have sufficient accommodation, and they could not be expected to expand their schools at the dictation of the denominations. In a large number of schools the classroom accommodation was a very serious difficulty. If they were going to give this special grant of denominational instruction on five mornings they would require a larger staff of teachers, and that practically meant compelling a large proportion of the teachers in the school to volunteer for special religious instruction. The whole object of this proposal was to create a denominational atmosphere and impose denominational instruction upon council schools. He was prepared to sacrifice a great many of his prejudices and a few of his principles for this compromise, but nothing would induce him to vote for a claim of this kind if it was to be extended in every direction. First they made a small concession, and then they were asked to give five times as much. As far as he was concerned, if the Government went on making concessions he should not support them. He had been lectured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for

1503
saying that Cowper-Temple teaching could be given which was antagonistic to the doctrines of the Anglican Church, but this was perfectly true. Simple Bible instruction taught that salvation was through Jesus Christ, but many Anglicans held that salvation was through Apostolic succession and all the machinery of a State church. He hoped the Government would resist the Amendment and not allow itself to become the Jonah and the other side the whale.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINdid not think the remarks of the last speaker had contributed towards a peaceful solution of this difficult question. The hon. Member, speaking as the chairman of an education committee, said that the Cowper-Temple clause was antagonistic and destructive of the beliefs of the children of the Church of England.
MR. WALTERSsaid the right hon. Gentleman was not quoting him correctly. He did not say so.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINbelieved he was correctly interpreting what the hon. Gentleman said. When the hon. Gentleman interrupted him it was to ask—why should not teachers who gave Cowper-Temple teaching give instruction which was destructive of the Christian faith? Such a question went far to justify the fear which he did not share but which was felt by many of his hon. friends, and if there was no other argument in favour of the Amendment now before the Committee the statement which the hon. Member had made as to the practice in schools with which he was acquainted was sufficient to justify them in pressing for the adoption of the Amendment.
MR. W. BENNsaid the question they were discussing was one of fact. His desire was that the right of entry should be a genuine concession and not an illusory one. The question of fact was: On how many days was it usual for special religious instruction to be given? When they had decided that question they would be able to say on how many days it should be made statutory by this Bill. Light had been thrown on that
1504
subject by the utterances of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He reminded the Committee that the First Lord of the Admiralty brought forward last year a statement which purported to show the proportion of the time worked by teachers which represented that occupied in giving special religious instruction. The statement called forth protests from some hon. Gentlemen who stated that the fraction was a great deal too big. The hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield stated—
"The general practice in the Church of England schools at the present time was that special religious teaching was only for one half-hour in the week."
Various controversialists outside said that one-fifteenth was a ridiculous fraction to take. Canon Alford said—
"In most Church schools they found that the two Scripture knowledge lessons in the week were the only ones that could be called denominational, and the other three were as purely Scripture lessons as in any Council school. In some Church schools the time given to denominational teaching was even less."
Canon Cleworth said—
"Moreover, the teaching of the Catechism and Prayer Book occupy only one-thirtieth of the weekly school hours, so that instead of one-fifteenth, one-nintieth is a more accurate estimate."
Judging of the question in the light of those statements it seemed to him that two mornings a week were quite sufficient. He understood that there were three definite propositions. One was that denominational teaching should be given on only two days in the week in any given school; the second was that any child should have denominational teaching on only two days of the week; and the third was that any child should have denominational teaching every day of the week if necessary. That was what he understood the Amendment to mean. The Bill brought in by the Chief Secretary for Ireland was before the House laid down that denominational instruction in the transferred schools should be given only on two days of the week, and an Amendment was put down by an hon. Member on the other side of the House to make it clear that every child should be entitled to receive special religious instruction on two days of the week, although the teaching itself might have to take

1505
place on four days of the week. The Chief Secretary at that time admitted that the intention of the Government was that no child should be entitled to have the special religious instruction on more than two days a week.
MR. LAMBTON MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S. E.), as one who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, could not support the Amendment, because it was against the spirit of the compromise entered into. The position the Archbishop of Canterbury accepted in principle was that Cowper-Temple teaching was sufficient for Christian children. There were hon. Members who did not accept that view; for instance, the hon. Member for East Mayo declared that Cowper-Temple teaching was worse than nothing; but representatives of the Church of England did not take up that attitude. The compromise was founded on the idea that Cowper-Temple teaching on three mornings and denominational teaching on two mornings was sufficient Christian education for a child up to the age of fourteen. It was his view, after following the discussions upon earlier Education Bills, that it would not be impossible for all denominations to come together and settle upon some form of religious teaching sufficient for young children. Cowper-Temple teaching, if given honestly, as it had been and would be, by a teacher worthy of his position, was sufficient. A teacher must have the confidence of the children he taught; he must not deceive them. If he attempted that he would soon be found out, and it was easy to lose the confidence of children. If he gave instruction with —so to speak—his tongue in his cheek, he would lose the children's confidence and the whole tone of the school would deteriorate. There was no danger if the teaching were given in an honest manner. It was based on the Bible, and, after all, there must be some common form of belief in Christianity in these days, 2,000 years after Christ. He was reading not long since from a book written some 250 years ago by a celebrated divine, Thomas Hobbes, of Malmesbury, in which it was declared that the fundamental faith of Christianity was that Jesus was the Christ, and surely that was taught under the Cowper-Temple clause?
LORD R. CECIL: It may not be.
MR. LAMBTON: Surely his noble friend would not say that it did not teach Christianity? If it did not, they had better give up the Bill at once and have secular teaching. His noble friend must have some faith in the Christianity of his fellows. As the same old writer to whom he referred said, if assent were required to all the doctrines taught by theologians nothing in the world would be so hard as to be a Christian. Why put difficulties in the way of children? What would a child of fourteen understand of this discussion? Suppose the empty Gallery of the House were filled with listening children, what would they understand of this discussion? They would hear Members apparently abusing each other and telling each other across the floor of the House that they were not true Christians, and what would the children think of that? He believed the compromise was an honest compromise, and he could not support the Amendment.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,)said he was quite sure the Committee would appreciate the speech just delivered as a sensible contribution to the debate. Everybody admitted that the old Cowper-Temple clause was a vague clause, and that no clause could accurately define the kind of education given for the last thirty-eight years. It could not be defined, but they could act on the experience of it. All the school authorities had acted with due regard for the sacred-ness of the teaching given under the clause, and when the noble Lord insisted that religious teaching to be efficient must be denominational he asked, Was this not so abroad? He remined the noble Lord of the China mission and the report of the undenominational character of the organisation and teaching of that mission to which Lord William Cecil attached his signature. All that was now asked was that there should not be artifically created differences of Christian teaching, just as they were not to be created in China. Of course, they might continue to bandy tu quoques over the Cowper-Temple clause, but sensible men would be content to lean on the experience they had had. The hon. Member for Brightside said he had known teaching given antagonistic to

1507
Church doctrines, but he could only say, after seeing a good deal of school administration, that he had never heard of anything of the kind. That, he believed, had been the general experience of administrators. As a matter of fact, the Amendment before the Committee was founded on the proposition that the Cowper-Temple clause was not sufficient for Church school-children and that they required Church teaching on the five days of the week when two had been sufficient in the past. They had done their best to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Government had gone a long way to meet them. They had done their best to be generous in granting fair facilities for religious instruction. They had done what they could to make the concessions which they had granted real concessions. They had done what they could to make them good, not only in the mere machinery, but in giving the children the religious instruction which their parents desired. The demand which was put forward that special denominational instruction should be given five days a week went beyond anything that had been asked for before. Even if that were granted, he did not believe that it would be taken advantage of, except by people who wished to upset Cowper-Temple teaching, and if the Government were to suggest such a thing he did not think they could carry it in this House, and certainly they would not have with them the main body of the people outside.
LORD E. CECILsaid he would not detain the Committee more than a few minutes. He wished first of all respectfully to recognise, if he might, the admirable tone which had characterised the speeches of the Minister for Education. He rose mainly to reply in a word or two to the speech of the hon. Member for South-East Durham. The Minister for Education quoted a statement of what was done at some meeting in China, with reference to a concordat which had been entered into by the missionaries. With every word of that declaration he was in hearty and complete agreement. He did not himself doubt that there was an essential agreement between all the
1508
sects who held the Christian faith, including the Roman Catholics, with regard to the fundamental doctrines of that faith. And he fully agreed with the hon. Member for South-East Durham that the points on which all the sects were at one were out of all proportion to those on which they differed. He had never said anything in this House which would conflict with that opinion, and if anyone imagined that he had done so he would be delighted to withdraw it and do penance in a white sheet. But he wished to say that to attempt to teach, particularly to the young, Christianity on an undenominational basis was, in his judgment, wrong and doomed to failure. It was all very true to say that they were agreed as to the great doctrines of the Christian faith and that they should recognise what the different sects had lone in the way of the conversion of the heathen; but he did not want anything to be done by the State to compel anyone to adopt the teaching of the Anglican or the Wesleyan or any other religious body. What he wanted was to give an opportunity to the parents to have their children taught the faith which they themselves held. If they tied the hands of all the sects and said that they were not to teach the children in such a way as to attach them to the denomination to which the parents belonged, then the State would be putting fetters on the hands of the teachers which would make it impossible for them to do the work which they were set to do. His hon. friend had said very truly that it was part of the spirit of Cowper-Templeism not only that they were not to seek to attach children to this or that particular religious body, but not to detach them from the religious denomination to which the parents belonged. Although he deplored the tone of the hon. Member for the Brightside division, he entirely agreed with the substance of his speech, and he could not see how anyone could disagree with it. It was that there was nothing in the Cowper-Temple clause to prevent teaching being given which was hostile to Christianity, and the hon. Gentleman had given an admirable instance of it. His hon. friend had

1509
said with great indignation that it was absurd to suppose that under the Cowper-Temple clause any teacher could teach what was against Christianity; but his hon. friend was up in the clouds in regard to this matter, for it had been proved over and over again that under Cowper-Templeism there was teaching which might be moral but was not Christianity. There was no doubt whatever that that had been done. For himself, he held that the case put forward by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was irresistible, viz., that it was desirable, if the parents wished it, that they should have an opportunity of their children being taught their own religion not only two but five days in the week if they were satisfied that Cowper-Temple teaching was not in accordance with their religion but was hostile to it. He objected to this labelling of denominational teaching with the badge of inferiority. The proposal in the Bill was one more step towards the discouragement of denominational teaching, which he believed was the only really effective way of teaching Christianity. For that reason he would support the Amendment.
MR. VERNEYsaid that he knew many schools in which Cowper-Temple teaching had been given for years, and in these schools there were children whose parents belonged to different denominations but who raised no objection whatever to that teaching. Some months ago he was in a school in Scotland where children belonging to every denomination, sitting on the same benches, were being given religious instruction by the same teacher who had been master of the school for twenty-eight years. He asked that teacher whether he had had any difficulty in regard to this religious teaching, and the teacher assured him that he had never during all those years had a single complaint made by any parent of a child attending the school, although the children belonged to every denomination in Scotland. He main-
tained that in the face of facts like these the Minister for Education had a right to appeal to experience that there was no difficulty in teaching the fundamental principles of Christianity to classes of mixed denominational children. The Cowper-Temple clause was in no sense a form of religious belief, but merely a prohibition against the use of certain dogmatic forms. No one could say that the Sermon on the Mount was either denominational or indefinite. It must then be conceded that there was such a thing as definite religious instruction which was not denominational but which had had a beneficial result on the character of the children, a result which remained with them all their lives.
MR. WALTER GUINNESSsaid that as he read the Amendment it would make the position of the Church of England not better but worse, because it would put it entirely within the power of the local education authority to say on which days religious instruction was to be given. He believed that this compromise had been entered into in a perfectly honest spirit, but if the hon. Gentleman's interpretation was right, very great confusion would be caused, because they had been told that the local education authorities would try to prevent the Bill being worked in the spirit of give and take, and that they might say that it would be inconvenient for them to give more than one day to special denominational religious instruction. Thus endless difficulties would be caused and an appeal to the Board of Education as to whether there should be religious instruction on two or five days would be useless. If they wanted to avoid trouble they should define the obligation of the local authority to give religious instruction, but as the clause now stood a loophole would be left to the local education authority to evade the obligation.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 269; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 426.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Alden, Percy

Atherley-Jones, L.

Agnew, George William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gill, A. H.

Marnham, F. J.

Barker, Sir John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

Massie, J.

Beale, W. P.

Glendinning, R. G.

Menzies, Walter

Beauchamp, E.

Glover, Thomas

Molteno, Percy Alport

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Morrell, Philip

Bennett, E. N.

Grant, Corrie

Morse, L. L.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gulland, John W

Myer, Horatio

Black, Arthur W.

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W Brampton

Napier, T. B.

Bowerman, C. W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Nicholls, George

Brace, William

Hall, Frederick

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Bramsdon, T. A.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Branch, James

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Brigg, John

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Nuttall, Harry

Bright, J. A.

Hart-Davies, T.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Brooke, Stopford

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Paul, Herbert

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

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Harwood, George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Bryce, J. Annan

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Helme, Norval Watson

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Henry, Charles S.

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

Byles, William Pollard

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Cameron, Robert

Higham, John Sharp

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hill, Sir Clement

Pullar, Sir Robert

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Hobart, Sir Robert

Radford, G. H.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Chance, Frederick William

Hodge, John

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rees, J. D.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Rendall, Athelstan

Cleland, J. W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Clough, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Clynes, J. R.

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jackson, R. S.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Robinson, S.

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

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Cox, Harold

Jowett, F. W.

Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Crooks, William

Kekewich, Sir George

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Crosfield, A. H.

Kerry, Earl of

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Cross, Alexander

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Crossley, William J.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Seddon, J.

Curran, Peter Francis

Lambert, George

Seely, Colonel

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Shackleton, David James

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Lamont, Normann

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lehmann, R. C.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Duckworth, Sir James

Levy, Sir Maurice

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Snowden, P.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Soares, Ernest J.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

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

Spicer, Sir Albert

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Stanier, Beville

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Maclean, Donald

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Erskine, David C.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Essex, R. W.

M'Arthur, Charles

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Callum, John M.

Steadman, W. C.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

M'Crae, Sir George

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Fenwick, Charles

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

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Maddison, Frederick

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mallet, Charles E.

Summerbell, T.

Fullerton, Hugh

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Sutherland, J. E.

1512

1513

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Walters, John Tudor

Wilkie, Alexander

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Walton, Joseph

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Wardie, George J.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Waring, Walter

Williamson, A.

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough),

Tillett, Louis John

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Tomkinson, James

Watt, Henry A.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Toulmin, George

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whitbread, Howard

Yoxall, James Henry

Verney, F. W.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Vivian, Henry

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Master of Elibank and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Walker, H. De. R. (Leicester)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Walsh, Stephen

Wiles, Thomas

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Fletcher, J. S.

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Flynn, James Christopher

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Ashley, W. W.

Forster, Henry William

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Gardner, Ernest

Nolan, Joseph

Balcarres, Lord

Ginnell, L.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Baldwin, Stanley

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

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

Halpin, J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Helmsley, Viscount

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hogan, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Boland, John

Houston, Robert Paterson

Percy, Earl

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hunt, Rowland

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Joynson-Hicks, William

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bull, Sir William James

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Carlille, E. Hildred

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Reddy, M.

Cave, George

Kilbride, Denis

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

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

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

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

Sheehy, David

Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingham)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Shefield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lundon, W.

Starkey, John R.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Crean, Eugene

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'rd Univ.

Delany, William

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Dillon, John

Macpherson, J. T.

Valentia, Viscount

Donelan, Captain A.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

Doughty, Sir George

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Winterton, Earl

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Kean, John

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Duncan Robert (Lanark, Govan

M'Killop, W.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Meagher, Michael

Faber, Capt. W.V. (Hants, W.)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr Mildmay and Mr. Lane-Fox.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Fell, Arthur

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Ffrench, Peter

Mooney, J. J.

SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELDasked whether his proposal to insert after the first word' on the word "any" would not make the intention of the Government clearer than it seemed to be at present. He took it that two mornings of the week might only mean Monday and Tuesday, whereas if the word "any" were added it would make the matter plainer. He put the Amendment forward
1514
in order to see if the Government thought right to accept it, but he should not carry the matter to a division, because they had stated that every teacher of a denomination would have facilities to enter any school on any day of the week. He only wished to put in the word "any" to make it certain that the teachers would be able to enter the school on any day of the week if they did not teach an individual child more than twice. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 26, after the first word 'on,' to insert the word 'any.'"—(Sir Berkeley Sheffield.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'any' be there inserted."
SIR W. ROBSONwas understood to say that he thought the insertion of this word would go a good deal further than the hon. Baronet himself intended according to the explanation he had given. It would give the parent the right to claim instruction on any morning without reference to the particular two selected by the local authority. In other words it would give the control of the arrangements for this kind of instruction to the parent instead of to the authority, and that would give rise to great inconvenience, It was for the authority to settle how many mornings they might think it convenient to give the instruction, and they might say three mornings or four mornings, and the hon. Baronet's Amendment would be an interference with their discretion which he did not think would facilitate the working of the clause.
LORD BALCARRESinquired whether the clause would not allow the authority to say that they did not intend the instruction to go on on Tuesday, and in defiance of the parent they might say that they would not allow denominational instruction on certain days.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the authority could name the days, but it must arrange at least two mornings. If it could arrange for every such child getting two mornings by giving less than four or five days a week, they would do it. If one of the two days did clash with the convenience of the parent it would be a misfortune but he did not think they could meet it.
MR. FORSTERinquired whether the local authority would not be bound by subsection (6) which provided that they should have regard to the number of children of different groups of children for whom religious instruction provided by the author-
1516
ity and religious instruction under this section were from time to time respectively desired, to the proportion of the number of those children in each case to the total number of children in attendance at the school, to the number of persons available to give the different forms of teaching, and to the manner in which the class-rooms might be used most conveniently by those several teachers. They therefore could not make the instruction any particular mornings in the week provided there was a sufficient number of children desiring this form of instruction to make it necessary for them to appoint denominational teaching on every day.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that subsection (6) made it perfectly clear. It said the authority were to take into account the circumstances, and secure for each child instruction on two mornings a week in their institution. In order to fulfil that obligation they must allow the teachers to come in every day if necessary, but if they could fulfil that obligation by allowing them to come in four days a week they would be at liberty to do so.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that this was a matter of importance. As he understood the Attorney-General, if the local authority desired they could roughly estimate that denominational teaching would require only a certain number of teachers. They might say to the teachers they gave them two days a week on which they could have four different classrooms of a respectable size, but there might not be four teachers on that particular morning. In that way the local authority might have full power to stop the denominational teaching from going on properly. His right hon. friend would notice that subsection (6) did not require the local education authority to take into account the number of teachers.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, yes; it says that the local education authority shall have regard "to the number of persons available."
MR. RAWLINSON: If that be so, I have nothing more to say.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. YOXALL, in moving to insert the word "appointed," said the object of his Amendment was to secure that two days only should be appointed for this purpose as a result of the endeavour of the local education authority to meet the wishes of the parents. He did not want class "A" to be taken on Mondays and Wednesdays and class "B" on Tuesdays and Thursdays. He wanted, if possible, to narrow these five days to any given children to two days of the week—to allow only two days a week. That was what he believed the Government wanted, and that was what he asked them to do. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 26, after the word 'two' to insert the word 'appointed.'"—(Mr. Yoxall.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'appointed' be there inserted."
SIR W. ROBSONassured the hon. Gentleman that the Government would be only too happy to accept any Amendment of his to safeguard this matter, but they thought that this Amendment would too greatly limit the authority. The local education authority would have a very difficult task in cases where a great many denominations put forward a claim for this right of entry. He thought this matter ought to be left entirely to the local education authority.
Amendment negatived.
LORD R. GECIL LORD R. GECIL, on behalf of the hon. Member for Norwood moved to substitute the word "each" for the first word "the" so that the clause should read "for the purpose of enabling that child to receive that instruction on two mornings in each week on which the school meets." It had occurred to his hon. friend whether the section as drafted would carry out the intentions of the Government whether it would not confine this to two mornings in the week on which the school met.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 26, to leave out the first word 'the' and insert the word 'each.'"— (Lord B. Cecil.)
Question proposed "That the word 'each' be there inserted."
SIR W. ROBSONdid not think that could be so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ESSEXsaid the Amendment he desired to move was a small one, but he ventured to think not unimportant. Its object was that when parents demanded this privilege they should be assured that it would be given to them for twelve months.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 27, after the word 'meets,' to insert the words 'for twelve calendar months thereafter.'"—(Mr. Essex.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR W. ROBSONthought it would be most undesirable to put a limit on these arrangements.
Amendment negatived.
MR. ASHLEYmoved an Amendment the object of which, he said, was to make it obligatory on the local authorities to make suitable accommodation for denominational teaching either in or adjoining the schoolhouse. He saw no reason why the local education authority should not give equal facilities to denominational education as to undenominational. If the right of entry was to be real the local education authorities must, even at some expense, give the children, of those parents who desired to avail themselves of the right of entry, this accommodation, and that could only be done by providing room for these denominational classes. The local education authorities were compelled to give secular instruction to every child, and Cowper-Temple teaching to every child between 9 and 9.45 a.m., if the child's parent demanded it. If it was obligatory on the local education authority to give Cowper-Temple teaching then it was hot fair that they should be

1519
able to say that the denominational teaching could not be given unless there was some accommodation available for the purpose. If that were allowed Cowper-Temple teaching would be given the preference. He could not see why in most cases, even if there was no room in the schoolhouse, the local education authority should not hire a recommit the neighbourhood; otherwise denominational teaching would be placed in an inferior position to Cowper-Temple teaching. If this was to be a compromise, the Bill must not be allowed to leave the House with that sense of inferiority on the part of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. Whatever arrangements were made by high ecclesiastical authorities had been made without any consultation with those who sat on the Opposition benches, and they were not bound by what had been agreed to by the bishops and archbishops. Unless undenominationalism and denominationalism were placed on an equality there could not be a settlement. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 27, to leave out from the word 'meets,' to the end of the subsection, and insert the words 'provide suitable accommodation in or adjoining the schoolhouse.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'make' stand part of the clause."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid he did not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman through the whole of his remarks. The hon. Member said that in regard to the terms of compromise, hon. Gentlemen opposite had not been consulted and were free in regard to them. If the negotiations were referred to at all it was rather for the purpose of indicating that they might in a certain degree limit the Government's freedom of action and not in any way limit the freedom of action of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Amendment raised three rather important and substantial points. The first was that it made it compulsory on the local authority to provide accommodation, without any qualification at all. In the next place it proposed to enact that the accommodation should be suitable. In the third place, the accommodation was to be in or adjoining the school. In regard
1520
to the first point, the Bill as it stood only put upon the local authority the obligation of providing such accommodation as was available. The Government had accepted suggestions which would make that provision possibly clearer, though he thought it was reasonably clear already. An Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire had been put down in the name of the Government so that it might not be subject to accidental exclusion, and under that Amendment the local authority would have to provide suitable accommodation in the schoolhouse where it was reasonably available, unless they satisfied the Board of Education that accommodation could not be made available without making structural alterations or additions. He thought when they came to deal with the Amendment in its turn it would be seen that it was a substantial advance, and was at all events worth considering. The next point was as to the suitability of the accommodation. That also was provided for in the proposals which they had upon the Paper. The third question was as to accommodation adjoining the school house. He did not think that the hon. Member had sufficiently reflected upon that point, because if the local authority was animated by the intentions which the hon. Gentleman ascribed to it, then to press this demand might have the effect of causing the local authority to send denominational teaching out of the school altogether. Hut even friendly authorities might be put under serious difficulty if the Amendment were adopted, because what the hon. Gentleman intended was, if there were no available accommodation in the school-house, that accommodation should be provided for them near the school. Let the Committee see what that involved in the case of a friendly authority. The hon. Member was seeking to put a heavy building obligation in many cases on the schools which belonged to the community at large, in order that the gratuitous use of those buildings thus erected might be at the disposal of the denominations. He thought that was pushing the right of entry much further than even hon. Gentlemen opposite should require. It, was something more than a right of entry—it was a right to have buildings erected at the cost of the community for

1521
the express and particular use of certain denominations. He thought that the hon. Gentleman would see that he was going far beyond anything that the Government should feel disposed or entitled to give.
SIR E. CARSONthought that his hon. and learned friend would admit that this matter of the right of entry, in connection with which they were endeavouring to frame safeguards, was from their point of view one of the most important provisions in the Bill. It was about all the denominations were getting in this part of the Bill, unless they were willing to contract out of the national system of education. The apprehension seemed to be that the right of entry might not be a reality in some places. It should be remembered that it was their own voluntary schools which were going to be handed over to the local authorities, so that even their own schools built for the purposes of denominational education might be subject to the answer of the local authority that they had no room for denominational teaching. That was a very serious matter, and one which they could not let go without having given a good deal of consideration to it to see whether or not they were sufficiently safeguarded. There were many ways in which the right of entry might be safeguarded, but in the Bill there were no safeguards at all. In the first place, it was a very easy thing for a hostile local education authority—and they were already beginning to be a little frightened by the amount of literature they were receiving as to the way in which local authorities would work this compromise if the Bill were passed—to say that it had no accommodation available. It might be put forward, in a perfectly bona fide way, that there was no available accommodation; but what was to happen then? They took over the Church's denominational schools, and then the Church was to be told that there was to be no more denominational teaching in those schools. They would be incurring the risk, particularly in growing districts, when their schools were transferred, of having no available accommoda-at all for denominational teaching. He thought that was a great blot on the Bill. It made one extremely suspicious as regarded the probability of the Bill's
1522
working, in some respects, as it was no doubt intended by the Government that it should work. The second point of his hon. friend was as to the Board of Education, in which denominationalists had not any very great confidence. He dared say that when the Unionists were in power there were Nonconformists who had not any great confidence in the Board of Education of that day. That was his point. What was the tribunal to whom they were going to refer these important points? It was a tribunal in which neither side at various times would have any confidence. That was extremely unsatisfactory, and there ought to be some means, if the local education authority raised these points, by which the parties would be satisfied that they would have their matters decided by a tribunal in which they had confidence. Therefore, if they placed the two points together, namely, that they were leaving the loophole, and in leaving the loophole, they were not setting up a tribunal in which the parties would have confidence, then they were very greatly minimising the satisfaction which they might otherwise feel with this provision of the Bill. He knew that there had been something said about accepting the Amendment of his right hon. friend, but it would still leave it open to the local education authority to say that they had no available accommodation, and that might occur in many cases. He would appeal to the Government not to leave this matter open to a hostile education authority, but close it up in the Bill, and make it say that in all these cases the right of entry should be a reality, and that no power to create obstacles to the exercise of it should be given to the local education authority.
MR. REESsaid that for his part he would not for worlds do anything unjust or ungenerous to any church, least of all to the Church, or to the mother Church of Rome, or to the daughter Churches known as Free. But he thought that there was a serious flaw in the argument of his hon. friend the Member for Blackpool, and in the argument of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, which invalidated both their speeches. They said that the right of entry was not fair, because preference was given to Cowper-Templeism over

1523
what was called denominationalism. But there was a fallacy in that. Cowper-Templeism was not a religion. That was the whole point. If he was right, then other churches, if Cowper-Templeism could not be called a church, were on the same footing. Cowper-Templeism was the sublimated essence of Christianity, a sort of State code of morals to which nobody could take any exception, and upon which the creed of any church might safely be grafted. He should say any creed but that of the Catholics, which practically was lost if the Catholic atmosphere was not preserved intact in youth and adolescence. Last night, the Deputy-Chairman had stopped him when he endeavoured to deal with this subject, but now that the Chairman was present, if he had two minutes, he could explain exactly the line that really existed between Cowper-Templeism and denominationalism. He would, however, have to trespass on the preserves of the hon. Member for Newbury, and go as far as China. At least he believed the hon. Member was Captain-General of the Chinoleptics, if indeed the corps had, not been disbanded.
THE CHAIRMAN: I really do not think we can re-discuss this question on every Amendment.
MR. REESsaid in that care he would say nothing about it. He would end where he began. He protested that the fallacy which was exhibited in the speeches of the hon. Member for Blackpool and of the noble Lord was that this endeavour to describe Cowper-Templeism as a religion, which no one could properly describe it as being, entirely falsified the whole of the argument. If it was true that it was a mere sublimated essence of Christianity, a mere code of morals, bearing the same relation in England to the Christian Churches as the code of Confucius bore in China to ancestor worship and Buddhism, where was the inequality and the injustice to other denominations? Upon such teaching might surely be grafted the teaching of the Church of England or of the Free Churches.
LORD BALCARRESsaid the Amendment raised a question
1524
of policy of sufficient importance to make one regret that they should not have any Member of the Cabinet present. The Attorney-General said they could not have this Amendment, because it made it compulsory to provide accommodation for Church teaching. To him that was not an objection. They had to provide accommodation for Cowper-Temple teaching under the Bill. In the surrendered Church school why should it not be obligatory on the local authority to provide accommodation and facilities for that particular form of religion which had been given in that school for years? He wanted to raise a specific point dealing with a very disquieting answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education yesterday. The hon. Member for Sowerby Bridge stated the other day in a letter to the newspapers that 1,000 schools in single-school parishes were schools of one room only, and in them there was to be no right of entry and no giving of denominational instruction. That was one-fifth of their schools gone. He wondered who told the hon. Member that. The hon. Member for Yarmouth asked a question on that point, and the Parliamentary Secretary refused to give any specific denial of the allegation that in the opinion of the Board of Education administrative reasons might be considered adequate to say that in a single-room school this teaching should not be given. That was a very serious state of things. There were 1,000 schools, and 980 of them probably were Church of England schools. A single-room school need not be a bad or an old building. He knew cases where people had put their hands in their pockets in recent years and paid a good deal of money to provide a school which was adequate for the population of the district but had only one room. It was evidently contemplated that in certain conditions the fact of its being a single-room school would be sufficient to exclude denominational teaching on the ground that the general conduct and discipline of the school and general administrative convenience would make it impossible. He wanted to exact a statement on that point across the floor of the House. He desisted to know on what grounds it was fair to take away from the Church

1525
of England these 1,000 schools if in future the fact of their smallness would prevent them giving any more denominational instruction. It was a great and probably an admitted hardship. He did not know that it was originally contemplated, but here was a statement of a very well-informed Member, who represented a district which in the past had not been slow to take advantage of the opportunities of injuring voluntary schools, that was largely supported by the Board of Education.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. TREVELYAN,)said he was, of course, not responsible for what was said by the hon. Member for Sowerby Bridge, and he hardly thought the report that the noble Lord had given was exactly correct of what he had said on behalf of the Board. What he had said was that in the case of single-room schools there would be a right of entry unless reasons of administrative convenience prevented it. The whole idea of the clause was that the right of entry should be as absolute as it could possibly be consistently with certain administrative difficulties which might arise, as they thought in very few of the schools, and possibly those few schools would be more single-room schools than any other.
SIR E. CARSON: How many single-room schools are there?
MR. TREVELYANsaid it was not exactly known. He went on to say in the answer it was not possible to lay down a hard-and-fast rule applicable to all single-room schools. Large numbers of them were already provided with partition screens and other means of separating them, which meant that administratively the right of entry would be easily practicable, or were otherwise suitable for the conduct of two or more classes. He had in his mind a quite small school in his own county, a comparatively small room where there were very often two classes taken at the same time. There was nothing administratively impossible in it, but there might be a few instances in which it would be impossible to have a right of entry, but
1526
he thought they would be very few. He thought hon. Members were acting really too much from a suspicious view of what the local authorities wanted to do. He took the very case with which they were always challenging them, the West Riding of Yorkshire, in which he represented a very Nonconformist constituency. It was perfectly true that the West Riding from 1902 onwards, through the county council, did in many respects work the Act of 1902 as far as it possibly could in the interest of what it regarded as the right settlement, that all schools should, as far as possible, be under the control of the local education authority, and they were admittedly not friendly to non-provided schools which were under their control. Everyone knew and admitted that. But in 1902 what was the condition of public opinion? In this county in which there was an enormous amount of Nonconformity, the whole of the Nonconformists were violently discontented. They did not all necessarily approve of the passive resister or of the strong measures taken by the county council, but they were to a man discontented. What was the state of things now in his constituency—one of the most Nonconformist in the West Riding? He had been reading in the papers with regard to the various people who lived in his constituency, leaders of opinion, on this Bill. In one part of the constituency, one of the leading Nonconformist ministers, strongly opposed to the Bill of 1902, was strongly in favour of the compromise, although of course he did not approve, as none of them did, of all the conditions of the Bill. The man who led the passive resistance movement accepted the Bill, and finally a man who was a passive resister and who went on to the county council because he was a passive resister also accepted the Bill, and expressed his intention of working it. The very people who Were most anxious, as fat as possible, to work the Act of 1902 in the interests of what they thought the public, as against the Church and the non-provided schools, were the men who at this moment were most ready to accept the Bill. He had no reason to suppose there were not a very large number of Non-conformists throughout, the West Riding who wished to do the same and if that

1527
state of things existed it was quite impossible to suppose that the county council of the West Riding would be allowed, even though there were a certain number of people who wished to make mischief upon it, to make the Bill a dead letter, and he believed that not only the county councils and the corporations which had hitherto taken a strong line, but even those local education authorities which, like the West Riding, had taken a rather questionable line from the hon. Member's point of view, were honestly intending to work the Bill. If he was right in thinking that, he felt that the anticipation of danger of hon. Gentlemen opposite were very much over-coloured. In the case of the single-room schools it was extremely likely, even if they had not on the top of the local education authority the control of the Education Board, that the Act would be honestly worked at the service of the Church of England. Finally, they accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire because it gave in the most direct form possible an appeal to the Board of Education. In starting this new system he ventured to say that if they could get the local authorities, or most of them, in a reasonable frame of mind and ready to start, and if they could be sure of the system starting well, it was one which would be readily accepted and adhered to by the mass of the people of this country for many years to come. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite had expressed suspicion of the Board of Education. They had said that perhaps not the present Board, but another Board might be unwilling to work this Bill honestly. Even right hon. Gentlemen opposite could not think that of the present Board, because they could not suppose that the President of the Board of Education, if he got this Bill through, was not going to get this measure worked honestly. It was as much as his political reputation was worth if he did not carry out the measure honestly. In the next place they had the undoubted anxiety of the mass of the people through local authorities to work the measure honestly, and they had on the top of that, if they accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member
1528
for East Worcestershire, the Education Department at present controlled by a man who was determined to make his Bill work and to see that the local authorities did their duty in regard to it.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he found himself differing from those of his hon. friends who had spoken in the course of this discussion. The hon. Member opposite had alluded to the distrust of the Board of Education as an ultimate and sole court of appeal. He agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down that the President of the Board of Education, and any President they were likely to see in that office for some time to come, would do his best if this Bill were passed to make it work fairly. As far as the Amendment went it did not carry this matter any further.
MR. ASHLEYsaid he dealt with the matter further in a subsequent Amendment.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that if they had a court of appeal it would apply to the whole working of the section. As regarded the Amendment before them, what was the difference between that and the one which the Government had accepted which stood in his name and which was framed by himself in consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hanover Square and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University? The Amendment which the Government had accepted placed a specific obligation on the local authority to make available any existing suitable accommodation, or to satisfy the Board of Education that it could not be made available, before the right of entry was refused. His hon. friend wished to say that where suitable accommodation was not available, and where it could not be provided, there the local education authority should be obliged to provide additional buildings by spending money. That was a demand which it was not possible for him to support. He had taken the main lines of the compromise as they were sketched in the Bill, and as they appeared in the correspondence between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the

1529
Prime Minister, and he could not help feeling that what was proposed would be going outside those main lines. He should, therefore, remain contented with the concession the Government had made and he could not support the Amendment. The cases which his hon. friend had in mind were much fewer than the figures cited would lead the Committee to suppose. It did not follow because a school was a single room that accommodation would not be available. There were, as the Parliamentary Secretary had stated, cases where partitions might he put up, which were not structural alterations, in order to make the room available for that kind of instruction. He attached some importance to the fact that the provision included not only the schoolroom, but the master's house which was attached. In a case where there happened to be twenty-one scholars belonging to one denomination and ten belonging to another, it would be possible to allow the twenty-one to remain in the schoolroom and withdraw the other ten Into the parlour of the master's house. He wished to point out that in many of these schools the minority would be the undenominational portion of the school. He thought the number of instances where they would not be able to provide the necessary accommodation would be very small indeed.
SIR GEORGE WHITEsaid the picture which the right hon. Gentleman had drawn in regard to religious instruction being given in the teacher's house was likely to set the teacher's organisation more against the Bill than ever. He was sorry he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that respect. Without any actual authority as to figures he doubted from his own knowledge of the rural districts whether there were anything like 1,000 single-room schools in the Kingdom. He had a strong suspicion that the hon. Member for Sowerby Bridge had in his mind single-teacher schools rather than single-room schools. At the same time he quite shared what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the possibility of making even single-room schools available for this special teaching without having recourse to the teacher's house, which he should certainly not regard as
1530
a remedy for the difficulty. He had risen to try and allay some, of the suspicions which appeared to actuate hon. Members opposite in regard to the conduct of local authorities. He invited hon. Members to survey the constitution of local authorities and especially county authorities. If there was any ground for such a suspicion it ought to exist in the minds of Non-conformists rather than in the minds of hon. Members opposite, for certainly in the case of county local authorities where they would have control of the vast number of transferred schools the party opposite were in a majority from a political point of view. He felt that whatever political party might be in a majority they would endeavour to administer the Bill fairly and reasonably towards all parties. He deprecated that feeling of suspicion which was almost worthy of a gentleman trying to buy a horse from another person rather than dealing with the religious difficulty. As to whether there would be accommodation available he had listened to the remarks of many hon. Members on the point and they appeared to have drawn a picture of six, eight, or ten different religious sections endeavouring to find accommodation in one schoolroom. Speaking for himself, he held the conviction that the Free Churches as a whole would not trouble the local authority to provide accommodation for classes to teach their own special doctrines. Speaking for the denomination to which he belonged he would be no party to any attempt to place religious teachers in any transferred schools to teach Nonconformist doctrines. He did not believe in the doctrines of his own or any other religion being taught in schools at the public expense. If the right of entry was fairly administered and no undue pressure was put upon parents to make their selection; if this measure was fairly and honestly administered on all sides both by the Board of Education and by those who had influence with the parents, he felt sure that Free Churches as a whole would not desire to have any representative teacher in those schools teaching their own doctrine. Therefore, it would resolve itself practically in most of the transferred schools where

1531
facilities were desired into either Anglicans or Roman Catholics, and in the vast majority of cases the special instruction would he for the Anglicans alone. Therefore, all the doubts as to whether there would be available accommodation for this special teaching might be set at rest, because the accommodation required so far as the number of class-rooms was concerned would be very limited. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would feel that this was not an impossible condition, and the Board of Education if they desired honestly to administrate this clause would have no difficulty in the great majority of cases in doing it.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was not animated by any acute suspicion of the local authorities in this matter, but he wished to put it to the Secretary to the Board of Education that the wording of this clause, even as amended by his right hon. friend's Amendment, which the Government were ready to accept, would only suggest that there was a great difficulty in providing this accommodation in any school which only contained one room. If a local authority put that interpretation upon the wording of the Act they would not be liable to be accused of any unworthy conduct. It would be a mistake to suggest that this instruction could not be given in a school with only one room. Perhaps the hon. Member opposite was not aware that the Leader of the Opposition received the whole of his secular instruction before he went to a public school in a school with one room in which four classes were conducted.
MR. TREVELYANsaid that two years after that he was taught in the same room. He had already mentioned that he thought more than one class could be taught in a room:
MR. WYNDHAMsaid he did not hear the hon. Gentleman say that. That being so, he thought they would make a mistake if they were to suggest, as they would do by the language of the clause, to the local education authorities that there was some insurmountable difficulty in the way of giving religious instruction of a separate character for three-quarters of an hour in a school which had only
1532
one room. The Secretary to the. Board of Education had told them that there were very few schools in which any pretence of a difficulty could arise. They had also been told that there were many schools in which no parents would desire to have this right of entry at all. He suspected that these two classes largely coincided, and that the cases in which any real difficulty could be put forward for not acting in the spirit of the Act must be few indeed. If that was so, would they not really make the task of the local education authorities easier, and not harder, if they said quite explicitly in the Bill that these facilities should be given? He could imagine the case of a local authority being very anxious to give these facilities, but being impressed by the opposition of some who took a more violent view of these matters, with the result that the local authority, looking to the fact that the school consisted of only one room, would say that the language of the Act did not clearly impose the obligation. He thought the local authority would have an easier task if, when pressure was put on them, they were able to say that the words of the Act required that facilities should be provided. That, he believed, was the intention of the Government, and it was also the course which the local authorities would almost in every case pursue.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he regretted that on the present occasion he must separate himself from the hon. Member for Blackpool. It appeared to him that this Amendment was really not the right of entry, but the right of construction, which was a very different thing. Construction must cost money, but his hon. friend had not explained from what fund that cost was to be defrayed. He had a shrewd suspicion, however, on reading the Amendment and the Bill together, that the fund would be the local rate. Thus, at a time when the passive resister had betaken himself to wholesome slumber, they would be adopting a course which would again arouse him to action. Such a step, he thought, would be a mistake. He was very much struck by what the Under-Secretary had said as to the sentiment of peace which now prevailed in his constituency. He knew something

1533
of that district, because many years ago he was the representative of that division of the West Riding, and he knew the intensity of the Nonconformist feeling in that most beautiful valley. It was a matter of great consolation to him to hear of the improved condition of feeling that the hon. Gentleman had described in such graphic terms. He desired most anxiously that this Bill should become law. He believed that if it did become law it would, duly amended, mean moderation where there had hitherto been extravagance, peace where there had been warfare, and co-operation where there had been constant antagonism.
MR. NAPIERsaid he wished to make one observation in the hope that it would calm the fears of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was certain they were anxious that those fears should be calmed. He assumed that the calculation was right that there were 900 schools in the country which had only a single room available for teaching, and that even according to the calculation of hon. Gentlemen opposite only about three county councils might be recalcitrant. There were about sixty county councils altogether in England. That meant that one-twentieth might conceivably have intentions hostile to the Act, and might endeavour, so far as they could, to refuse facilities. If it was assumed that the single-room schools were spread tolerably equally over the whole country, that would bring the House to the conclusion that there were forty-five single-room schools in the possibly recalcitrant counties. How would the position stand in relation to them? There might be partitions in some of these schoolrooms, and, if not, partitions could be put up. If the Government accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for East Worcestershire, as they had expressed their intention of doing, the Board of Education would be able to compel the county councils to put up partitions in all the single-room schools, so that the whole difficulty would be reduced to nothing at all.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that this Amendment, if it stood alone, would not be of serious importance. He wished to point
1534
out that, as the Bill stood now, there was no sort of obligation on the local education authority to carry out what was intended in this matter. He concurred with the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk in deprecating suspicions on one side or the other. But lawyers knew that nothing was more liable to lead to unpleasantness and litigation than for one party to an agreement to say to the other party: "Do not be suspicious of me, do not put it down in black and white, and I will not be suspicious of you." The hon. Gentleman himself would not have attained his present position if he had conducted his business on these lines. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had referred to the position in the West Riding of Yorkshire. There were pretty keen business men in that part of the country, and if one or two passive resisters had said that they were quite content with what the Government proposed, it might be taken that they knew how the proposed arrangement would work. If he might give the local authority a bit of gratuitous legal advice he would advise them that they would be perfectly safe in signing this document, for he believed that there was absolutely no remedy against them in case they did not fulfil their side of the bargain. It was not a question of suspicion or of personal trust of the President of the Board of Education. It was better to have these things in black and white so that no dispute could afterwards arise. If the Government really meant to make the providing of accommodation, so far as practicable, obligatory, some general words should be put into this Bill as had been done in the Children Bill this year. Once the duty was put on the local education authorities in that way, there would be a remedy against those who might be recalcitrant. If the course he suggested were followed, local education authorities would be able to hold the balance evenly as between Nonconformists and denominationalists. Unless the Government saw their way to meet this point, it seemed to him that the Committee were being asked, so to speak, to sign a document which involved confidence on the other side in regard to a matter which should be put clearly in black and white.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 307; Noes, 78. (Division List No. 427.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Hudson, Walter

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Agnew, George William

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Alden, Percy

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S

Jackson, R. S.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jardine, Sir J.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Duckworth, Sir James

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jowett, F. W.

Barker, Sir John

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Kekewich, Sir George

Beale, W. P.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Beauchamp, E.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Laidlaw, Robert

Bell, Richard

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Erskine, David C.

Lambert, George

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

Essex, R. W.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Bennett, E. N.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lamont, Norman

Berridge, T. H. D.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

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

Everett, R. Lacey

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

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Fletcher, J. S.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lehmann, R. C.

Black, Arthur W.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Levy, Sir Maurice

Bowerman, C. W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lewis, John Herbert

Brace, William

Fullerton, Hugh

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Branch, James

Gill, A. H.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Brigg, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lynch, H. B.

Bright, J. A.

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Glendinning, R. G.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brooke, Stopford

Glover, Thomas

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

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Maclean, Donald

Bryce, J. Annan

Grant, Corrie

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Callum, John M.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Crae, Sir George

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

M'Laren, Rt. Hn Sir C. B. (Leices.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gulland, John W.

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

Byles, William Pollard

Hall, Frederick

M'Micking, Major G.

Cameron, Robert

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Maddison, Frederick

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mallet, Charles E.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

Marnham, F. J.

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

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

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Chance, Frederick William

Hart-Davies, T.

Massie, J.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

Menzies, Walter

Cleland, J. W.

Harwood, George

Micklem, Nathaniel

Clough, William

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Clynes, J. R.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Molteno, Francis Alport

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Helme, Norval Watson

Montgomery, H. G.

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

Henry, Charles S.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

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

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morrell, Philip

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Higham, John Sharp

Morse, L. L.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.)

Cowan, W. H.

Hodge, John

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Cox, Harold

Hooper, A. G.

Myer, Horatio

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Napier, T. B.

Crooks, William

Horniman, Emslie John

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Cross, Alexander

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Nicholls, George

Crossley, William J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Seddon, J.

Verney, F. W.

Nuttall, Harry

Shackleton, David James

Vivian, Henry

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Paul, Herbert

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

Walsh, Stephen

Paulton, James Mellor

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Walters, John Tudor

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Walton, Joseph

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wardle, George J.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Waring, Walter

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Pirie, Duncan V.

Snowden, P.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Pollard, Dr.

Soares, Ernest J.

Waterlow, D. S.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Spicer, Sir Albert

Watt, Henry A.

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

Stanier, Beville

Whitbread, Howard

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Rainy, A. Rolland

Steadman, W. C.

Whitehead, Rowland

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wiles, Thomas

Rees, J. D.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wilkie, Alexander

Rendall, Athelstan

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

Summerbell, T.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Ridsdale, E. A.

Sutherland, J. E.

Williamson, A.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

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

Robinson, S.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Thomasson, Franklin

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

Rose, Charles Day

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset E

Yoxall, James Henry

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Tillett, Louis John

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Tomkinson, James

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Toulmin, George

NOES.

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

Gardner, Ernest

M'Kean, John

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Nield, Herbert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Percy, Earl

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bowles, G. Stewart

Helmsley, Viscount

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement

Renwick, George

Bull, Sir William James

Hills, J. W.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hunt, Rowland

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Joynson-Hicks, William

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

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

Courthope, G. Lloyd

Kimber, Sir Henry

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Walker. H. De R. (Leicester)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

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

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Winterton, Earl

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Younger, George

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Fardell, Sir T. George

Macpherson, J. T.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Ashley and Mr. F. E. Smith.

Fell, Arthur

M'Arthur, Charles

And, it being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of
1538
27th November, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Amendments moved by

1539
the Government of which notice had been given and the Question necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock this day.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 2, line 27, to leave out the word 'available any,' and to insert the word 'suitable.'"
"In page 2, line 28, to leave out the words 'which can,' and to insert the words 'available unless they satisfy the Board of Education that accommodation cannot.'"
"In page 2, line 28, at end, to insert the words 'without making structural alterations or additions to the schoolhouse.'"—(Mr. Runciman.)
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 31, after the second word 'and,' to insert the words 'such instruction shall be entered on the time-table and the children receiving it shall be subject to the ordinary discipline of the school in the same manner as when receiving any other instruction.'"—(Mr. Runciman.)
Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 293; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 428.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cleland, J. W.

Grant, Corrie

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F

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

Gretton, John

Agnew, George William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gulland, John W.

Ashley, W. W.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hall, Frederick

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Courthope, G. Loyd

Harcourt, Dt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Cowan, W. H.

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Cox, Harold

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Balcarres, Lord

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

Baldwin, Stanley

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Craik, Sir Henry

Hart-Davies, T.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cross, Alexander

Harwood, George

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Crossley, William J.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Helme, Norval Watson

Barker, Sir John

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Helmsley, Viscount

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Henry, Charles S.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

Beale, W. P.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Beauchamp, E.

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

Higham, John Sharp

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hill, Sir Clement

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Hills, J. W.

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hobart, Sir Robert

Bennett, E. N.

Duckworth, Sir James

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Black, Arthur W.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Hooper, A. G.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N)

Branch, James

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Horniman, Emslie John

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Brigg, John

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Houston, Robert Paterson

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Erskine, David C.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Essex, R. W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Bryce, J. Annan

Everett, R. Lacey

Jackson, R. S.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Faber, George Denison (York)

Jardine, Sir J.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Bull, Sir William James

Fardell, Sir T. George

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fell, Arthur

Joynson-Hicks, William

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Fletcher, J. S.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Byles, William Pollard

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Cameron, Robert

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Kimber, Sir Henry

Carlile, E. Hildred

Fuller, John Michael F.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gardner, Ernest

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Laidlaw, Robert

Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

Lambert, George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Glendinning, R. G.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lamont, Norman

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

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Chance, Frederick William

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Steadman, W. C.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Lehmann, D. C.

Paul, Herbert

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Levy, Sir Maurice

Paulton. James Mellor

Straus, B. S. (Mile end)

Lewis, John Herbert

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pirie, Duncan V.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Pollard, Dr.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Lynch, H. B.

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

Thomasson, Franklin

Lyttelton Rt. Hon. Alfred

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

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

MasCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

Thomson., W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

Rainy, A. Rolland

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton.

MacKarness, Frederick C.

Ratcliff, Major D. F.

Tomkinson, James

Maclean, Donald

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Toulmin, George

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Arthur, Charles

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Valentia, Viscount

M'Callum, John M.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Verney, F. W.

M'Crae, Sir George

Rendall, Athelstan

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

M'Laren, Dt. Hn. Sir C. B. (Leices)

Renwick, George

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Walters, John Tudor

M'Micking, Major G.

Robinson, S.

Walton, Joseph

Magnus, Sir Philip

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Mallet, Charles E.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wardle, George J.

Marnham, F. J.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Waring, Walter

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Rose, Charles Day

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Massie, J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Masterman, C. F. G.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Menzies, Walter

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Waterlow, D. S.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Watt, Henry A.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Montgomery, H. G.

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

Whitehead, Rowland

Morpeth, Viscount

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Tho's P.

Morrell, Philip

Shipman Dr. John G.

Wiles, Thomas

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Murray, Capt. Hn A C. (Kincard)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Williamson, A.

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wills, Arthur Walters

Myer, Horatio

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Napier, T. B.

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

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

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Soares, Ernest J.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Spicer, Sir Albert

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

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Stanier, Beville

Younger, George

Nield, Herbert

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Nuttall, Harry

Starkey, John R.

NOES.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Glover, Thomas

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Atherley-Jones, L.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Bowerman, C. W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Brace, William

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

Clough, William

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

Ridsdale, E. A.

Clynes, J. R.

Hodge, John

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Hudson, Walter

Koch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Crooks, William

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kekewich, Sir George

Seddon, J.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Shackleton, David James

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Snowden, P.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Summerbell, T.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macpherson, J. T.

Sutherland, J. E.

Fenwick, Charles

Maddison, Frederick

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Fullerton, Hugh

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Gill, A. H.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Vivian, Henry

1542

1543

Walsh, Stephen

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Hutton and Dr. Haze'.

Wilkie, Alexander

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Yoxall, James Henry

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 276; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 429.)
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND-AND WALES) [GRANTS].
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment of. Parliamentary Grants to associations of schools in respect of every public elementary school belonging to such

1547
associations, and of a Parliamentary Grant in respect of instruction given in special subjects at centres, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to Elementary Education in England and Wales."
Resolution read a second time.
MR. TREVELYANsaid his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education had asked him to move the Report of this Resolution, because under the rules of the House he would not be able to speak twice, and he wished to hear the criticisms which might be desired to be made by the other side before he answered at a later stage of the proceedings. At this stage, there was, he thought, no need for him to go at any length into the position of the Government. The Prime Minister had said that what the Government proposed and desired was that contracted-out denominational schools should be given a reasonable chance of existence, leaving, however, a substantial burden to be borne by the denomination. He thought the main part of the House was on common ground, at any rate in theory, with regard to these schools. They all agreed that it was educationally disadvantageous to have any large number of contracted-out schools. Therefore, they did not want to encourage needlessly contracting-out. They were also aware that there was, in certain classes of the community, a conscientious dislike to the terms under which most of the schools were asked to accept a national settlement, and, therefore, it was not desired to make contracting-out impossible. Since this discussion had started, a certain number of Members of the House and of people outside the House had been practically, if not actually, asking the Government to make the grants equivalent to the present rates. So far as the Government were concerned, that, or anything like that was impossible, because where then would be the national settlement— [An HON. MEMBER: Where is it now?] —if all the thousands of contracted-out schools were to have an easy opportunity of standing out of a national system? The view of the Government was that
1548
there must be a real and substantial burden on the schools which stood out, but that there must not be required of them any ruinous sacrifice.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Semi-starvation.
MR. TREVELYANsaid his right hon. friend had had figures put before him by the representatives of various denominations, but he did not believe that any denomination had proved that the figures of the Government would not meet both those requirements. His right hon. friend invited criticism, but the more he examined the figures put forward by the Government, and when he considered the pooling arrangements of the grants according to the size of the schools, the more satisfied his right hon. friend was that the Government estimate was about right—namely, that something like 85 per cent. of the maintenance of the schools would be provided by the Government grants, and that something like 15 per cent. would remain to be found by the denominations. If those figures were correct, it was for the House to decide, after discussion, whether that was too much to ask the Churches who stood out of the national settlement to pay for the sake of privately controlling the schools and of the private patronage it brought. He begged to; move.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, can he tell us how the negotiations now stand with the Archbishop of Canterbury?
MR. TREVELYAN: My right hon. friend will say something about that, but I am not in a position to say anything about it.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
MR. JOHN REDMOND MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford), said that apparently the hon. Gentleman believed that nothing could be a national settlement unless it inflicted some sacrifice upon a large minority. He had risen for the purpose of entering a protest against the extraordinary position in

1549
which the House was placed at that moment. When the other night they were trying to discuss, indirectly at any rate, the first Schedule to this Bill and the amount of the grant to be provided, they were told that the Government were still considering this question and had asked for figures from various denominations, that they had received some of these figures and were making elaborate calculations with regard to them, and that when those calculations were completed, the Government would to-day on this Motion through the lips of the Prime Minister make a statement as to what the financial arrangement was to be. Yet, in the face of that pledge, they are now asked to commence a discussion upon the financial basis of the Bill without any financial statement whatever being made, without knowing whether they were discussing the first Schedule or not—
MR. RUNCIMAN: I can tell the hon. Gentleman at once. It is the first Schedule of the Bill and I take it that is the one we are now discussing.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether he was to take it from that that the negotiations had led to nothing. Was he to understand from that that the Government stood or fell by the Schedule and by the Schedule alone, or was he to understand that the Schedule was to be increased or enlarged? They were entitled to some better treatment than that. He submitted that that was trifling with the House. He ought to be informed whether the first Schedule contained the whole financial programme of the Government, or whether the Government were still considering whether that Schedule should be enlarged, whether they were still negotiating on the question as to whether it should be enlarged or not. If the matter was still, in suspense, he honestly thought the discussion should be adjourned. If the Government were negotiating to see how much further they could go to satisfy those who were asking for more, ought the discussion to go on? Through long years he had witnessed a series of new rules of procedure in the House which, he agreed with the Leaden of the Opposition, had gradually reduced the House to a position almost of con-
1550
tempt, but he did not know of any instance in the past of such utter contempt of the House of Commons as that of asking them solemnly to undertake the discussion of the financial basis of this Bill when the Government would neither tell them whether they were negotiating and endeavouring to enlarge that basis, nor on the other hand, whether they were going to stand by that basis. What were they going to discuss? Were they going to discuss this 49s. 6d. per child? What was the use of discussing it if they were at that very moment engaged in discussion and negotiation to see whether they could not go further to meet the further claims which had been made? He thought the House of Commons was being treated badly in the matter, and speaking for those whom Irish Members represented, he thought they had grave reason to complain. They were told their figures were disputed. They were asked to submit them for examination. Their figures had been submitted to examination. The most full and detailed statistics had been collected—not from Blue-books or general averages; he doubted if the Church of England had done the same—but statistics drawn from every individual Catholic school in England. They had been examined now for many days, and would it be believed that at that moment when they were asked to undertake this discussion, they had received from those to whom they had submitted the figures no statement of any sort or kind as to whether their figures were correct or incorrect, or as to what was the opinion of the Government experts upon them? He thought they had grave reason to complain. Up to this moment they had heard nothing whatever from the Government with reference to the figures, and he drew from that fact this conclusion: that the experts of the Government and the Education Office had found it impossible substantially to differ from their figures. Now he would, in a few words—because he did not want to make a long speech—deal with the various general aspects of the question at the moment. He felt it was almost useless to do so when they did not know what the position of the Government was or what their proposals were, but, he felt it his duty the moment this financial aspect of the question came up,

1551
to put their case with reference to these Schedules. Now the figures they had proposed were drawn from each individual school in the country, and they went to show that the total expenditure on the Catholic schools of England and Wales at this moment was £830,000 a year. Taking the proposed grant of the Government in this schedule at 50s. per child— that was something more than the amount of the grant—it would amount to £712,000, leaving a deficit of £120,000 for the Catholic schools of England and Wales. The President of the Board of Education spoke the other day of their having claimed a deficit of £300,000 upon their schools. No responsible person made any such statement. Was it made by anyone on these benches?
MR. RUNCIMAN: No, I did not say it was made by anyone in the House. I said the statements were made on behalf of the Roman Catholic authorities and I quoted the statement.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: By whom was it made?
MR. RUNCIMAN: It was made by one of the dignatories of the Roman Catholic Church.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the name? I utterly deny it was ever made by any responsible person. It might have been made in newspapers, but so far as the responsible leaders in this House, or responsible leaders outside it were concerned, no such statement was made. The statement made was that there would be a deficit of £120,000 for the whole of England and Wales. Of these figures they challenged contradiction. He would take by way of illustration, first of all, London. He had the estimate of the deficit in London prepared by the diocesan authority. Excluding the charge for furniture—he would deal with that in a moment—it amounted to £34,094. The authorities, in order to make sure that they were right had these figures checked by the London County Council—the Education Authority—and he had there the official figures of the London County Council. The salaries alone amounted to £83,600, or 58s. 8d. per head; wear and tear,
1552
£1,068 15s., or 9d. per child; cleaning, £8,906 5s., or 6s. 3d. per child; books, £5,225, or 3s. 8d. per child; total maintenance, £15,200, or 10s. 8d. per child. Total cost, including salaries and maintenance, £98,800 a year, or 69s. 4d. per head. The grant proposed in the Schedule was £70,705, or 49s. 8d. per head, a deficit of £28,085 per year, or 19s. 8d. per head.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What is the total per child?
MR. JOHN REDMONDsail the total of maintenance and salaries now was £98,800, or 69s. 4d. per child, in the Catholic schools. The grant according to the Schedule for salaries and maintenance would be £70,705 or 49s. 8d. per child per annum, which left a deficit of £28,085 per annum, or 19s. 8d. per head. Take the salaries alone. They amounted now to £83,600; the total given by. the Schedule for salaries was £70,755; therefore in London alone there would be a deficit on salaries, not to speak of anything else, of £12,825. The right hon. Gentleman would notice that he was not including in the charges maintenance or any of the matters mentioned in the White Paper to which he took exception the other night as not fairly to be counted as maintenance. He was only taking salaries, wear and tear, cleaning, and books. If they included furniture it raised the amount very much. How did furniture stand? The moment this Bill passed, the furniture would cease to belong to the Catholic schools. The whole of it would be taken away from them altogether, or they would have to pay for it either in a lump sum or have the amount spread over a number of years. These were the County Council figures which he was quoting now, not the figures of the diocesan authorities. If they included furniture then they had £83,600 for salaries; for maintenance, £15,200; for furniture, £4,631 5s., or 3s. 3d. per head; and the total cost of maintenance, furniture and salaries was £103,431 5s.; less the amount of grant, £70,775; leaving a deficit of £32,656 5s., or 22s. 11d. per child. That brought the checked figures of the London County Council within between £2,000 and. £3,000 of the figure which was originally

1553
quoted by the diocesan body. He quoted these figures as an illustration of the figures given by the Catholic body, as a checked and authorised statement of the case in London, and as a proof that their total figure of £120,000 a year deficit over the whole country was a correct figure. But it might be said that while he was sure of his figures which had been checked as to London, he could not say the same for the rest of the country. He had the total figures for Liverpool, which also had been checked by the local education authority of the town council. They showed a deficit in Liverpool of £11,500 a year in the thirty-five schools. They had got the details of other places in England and Wales. He did not want to quote them all, but he wished to give two or three illustrations in order to impress upon the House the accuracy of their figures, which had been checked by the local education authorities. If he took smaller places, he found that in Widnes there was a deficit of £1,039; and in Warrington—he quoted these small places in order to make his illustration complete— the deficit was £487. All through, these figures, as checked by the local authorities went to show that their estimate of £120,000 a year deficit over the whole of England on the Schedule of the right hon. Gentleman was an accurate figure. let him deal with one other matter. It had been suggested to them that by th.3 system of pooling, as it was called, they would be able to redress the balance, and that the great loss of £32,000 in London would be made up by the profit on the 50s. per child in other parts of England and Wales. They had gone most elaborately into those figures, and the pooling would be of absolutely no use to them at all. According to the figures which he had there were only two dioceses in England or Wales where there would be a profit, and in both the profit was insignificant. In the diocese of Menevia in Wales, he was told that there would be a profit of £340; and there would be a profit in Newport of £1,440. He was told that in no other diocese in England and Wales would there be any profit. Of what use was this pooling; of what advantage was it to Catholics? Where were the schools in London to look for the £32,000
1554
a year to enable them to make up that enormous deficit? The pooling was of absolutely no use. The Schedule as it stood, even with this pooling, meant for the Catholic schools of England semi-starvation and practical ruin. What would happen? If it were carried out, well-paid teachers would have to be dismissed and badly-paid teachers put in their place. The small classes into which these schools had been properly broken up of recent years would have to be amalgamated. They could not by any possibility have efficient schools even if the cost of education remained as it was, but they all knew the cost of education was rising and would rise, and in point of fact when he quoted the county council figures for these schools in London he had understated the case, because the salaries, £83,600, giving 58s. 8d. per head had since then been raised 2s. per head, and the figures he gave therefore were to that extent underestimates. They knew that the cost would increase rapidly. This system would mean for their schools inefficiency, starvation, and destruction. His colleagues and he took the strongest view against the whole principle of contracting-out. They were opposed to it root and branch, but he did not think that was the right opportunity for him to argue the principle of contracting-out, and he wanted to confine himself simply to the finance of the Bill, which was ruinous to these schools. He complained that their figures which were sent to be checked, if they had been checked, had not received the attention of the Government. If they had been found to be correct they ought to have been told of it. If they had been found to be incorrect they also ought to have been told so. He complained of the way they had been dealt with in this matter. He complained of the way the House of Commons had been dealt with. He had, during those few moments, been discussing the Schedule. He felt bound on the first opportunity to state their case and give their figures, but in a sense he was beating the air. He was talking about a Schedule which, for all he knew, did not exist, a mere shadow, and they were entitled to know from the right hon. Gentleman did the Government stand by its Schedule. If it did not, what Schedule did it stand

1555
by? At any rate, so far as they were concerned, speaking on the figures in the Schedule and from the statistics he had quoted, nothing could induce them to refrain from the most vehement opposition to every stage of the Bill.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid that from the first he had desired a settlement of this question, but he had stated, and he trusted made clear, to the House that that desire was subject to the reservation that equitable treatment among other things should be shown to contracting-out schools and upon the question of transfer. He wanted to associate himself with the hon. Member who had just spoken when he said that in this matter it was not fair that the House should be kept so much in the dark as it had been day after day, and that those who favoured the settlement of this matter should be compelled to cast their vote in a state of uncertainty upon subjects of great importance. They were compelled to sink their opinions for the time being in expectation of promises being fulfilled when no means had been afforded and no statement of any sort had been made which would enable the House to decide whether those promises could be fulfilled. They were in the dark as to the finance of the Bill and as to the most important question of training colleges. Until that day he had had no communication with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had thought it was more desirable to conduct the negotiations apart from Members of the House. But the Archbishop had made a communication to him on this subject which it was right that the Government and the House should know. He held in the strongest way that it was the duty of the Government, having at their command the experience and the resources of the Education Department, to justify their own figures, and to give the House a perfectly clear statement as to the material on which they based them. His personal view was that the figures in the circumstances should be liberal and generous, and, above all, that the House should have time to consider them. The Government had not taken that view, however. On the contrary, they had asked the Church of
1556
England, the Roman Catholics, and those who dissented from the Bill and wished to stand outside its provisions, to bring forward their own figures and to justify them, they having nothing approaching the opportunity, experience, or organisation which the Board of Education had, and he presumed from the attitude they had taken up in regard to this schedule they intended to criticise those figures. Let the House not mistake him. He did not deny that, so far as he could judge, there had been great difficulty in getting any definite figures on such a vast subject in a short space of time He proposed, however, to rely for the validity of the position which was taken up by the Archbishop in this matter on the official figures supplied by the Department. In the communication received from the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed to the President of the Board of Education it was stated that the figures for the transfer schools were utterly inadequate, and that the amount which would be demanded on the basis of the Government proposals from the voluntary schools would be a contribution of 14s. 6d. per child. These were the views of the Archbishop—
"The transfer and contracting-out provisions must be looked at as a whole. It is clear, therefore, that if the contracting-out schools are to be maintained efficiently without an impossible strain upon voluntary subscribers the amount of the grants set out in the schedule must be increased in each case at least 7s., and there must be a further provision that they are to rise-automatically year by year with the average expenditure for the whole country as set forth on page 3 of the White Paper already referred to. Unless you can concede these essential matters, I am obliged to say that the schedule will, in my opinion, take away what the Bill purports to give, and consequently it would seem that the settlement which seemed attainable as the result of our correspondence cannot be carried out. In that case it would be useless to discuss the many important points which. seem to me to call for amendment in the Bill itself, and especially in Clause 2 with regard to facilities. It gives me genuine distress that I should thus be obliged to contemplate at this stage of our discussion a result which, in my view at least, would be a real calamity to the interests of educational and religious peace; but I feel that it is necessary to speak explicitly on what, as you will know, I have regarded from the first as an essential part of any scheme of settlement. I am so well assured of your desire being in harmony with my own that I will not despair of your being able to take such steps as are possible for making your whole scheme a consistent and practical one, and thus effecting what will in the long run—despite present

1557
criticism and fears—redound to the country's good."
In a postscript it was added that—
"The Representative Church Council meets on Thursday, and will reasonably expect from me a definite statement."
No settlement either differing from or in accord with the representations of that letter had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, and it appeared that the Archbishop, who had shown the most earnest zeal in the interests of peace, had found the financial provisions of the Bill utterly inadequate. He claimed that the Archbishop had shown great moderation in the statement of his views, though he wished to guard himself from accepting fully the standard which the Primate had mentioned as the minimum which he could possibly accept. He did this because he had heard the statement of the last speaker, and he had also before him the White Paper which seemed to him to prove that the Archbishop's request was a very moderate one in the circumstances. This Paper showed that the expenditure per child over the country was 64s. 10d. He Was aware that this figure had been repudiated on behalf of the Government as containing matters regarding deductions of an important character. He had tried to look into the question, and he declared that the Paper as it stood was meant for the information of the public and not for the benefit of educational experts. What were the deductions which the President of the Board of Education had indicated ought to be made? He agreed that some deductions ought to be made in respect of the conveyance of children to schools—a trifling matter. There were deductions which he dared say would amount to 3s. 4d. per child for rates and insurance of school buildings. There was a deduction which could properly be made and which would come to very little for the purchase of land and the erection, alteration, and maintenance of school buildings. He agreed that where a school was purchased a deduction would have to be made, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would say that was an expenditure which had to be made except in very rare instances. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to show that the deductions referred to
1558
were not balanced by the additions which would necessarily fall on the contracting-out schools. The White Paper did not show the real average expenditure, because the general standard of the voluntary schools had not reached its highest point. In the next place, the country schools brought the whole average down, and he submitted that the vast number of country schools would not be able to contract-out at all. That was an important set-off against some of the deductions which he admitted had to be made. Take a more important matter still. The contracting-out schools would have the whole upkeep laid upon their shoulders, a most formidable item which did not exist at the present time. Then, lastly, there were the administrative charges, which the White Paper eliminated altogether. These could not be taken altogether off the contracting-out schools, for in future the whole administrative charges would fall on the contracting-out authority. He was informed that as far as an investigation, had been able to be made by the authorities of the Church of England in the short time available, the figures gained from 140 schools in divers parts of the country seemed to corroborate the conclusions arrived at in the White Paper—namely, that 64s. 10d. was the average and legitimate expenditure which was made by the local authorities on the schools of the country.. It seemed to him, therefore, that the request of the Archbishop—namely, that the rough average grant of 50s. should at the very least be added to by 7s.—was a moderate demand on the face of the only figures they had before them on official authority. He did not for one moment wish to underrate the case presented by the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford, and it was quite obvious from the greater consolidation and concentration of the schools for which he spoke that they had been able to get fair, complete, and accurate statistics, and therefore they were able to draw from them a more definite conclusion. All he wished to say was that the Archbishop's request seemed to be considerably under rather than over the cost. He wished to say that it had been to the honour of those who had spoken upon that side that they had

1559
firmly declared that contracting-out schools were never to fall below the provided schools of the country, and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, in the speech he made, indicated that progress would involve further expense. Was it really to be contended that under a concordat and settlement which many of them wished to see carried through, the schools of the Church of England and the Roman Catholics as well should be placed upon a far lower standard than that which was enjoyed by their rival schools in the country? The effort of peace which was being made upon the bash of contracting-out was only being accepted on condition that those who accepted it would subject themselves to a strain far more intolerable than they endured before 1902. He wished to say in conclusion that he did not desire to use any provocative word upon this matter. The settlement, if it was to be a settlement, ought not to break down upon a point of finance. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, it ought not to break down on that point. There were far greater sacrifices to be made by both sides. There were sacrifices of most dearly-loved and cherished convictions which had to be made by hon. Members on both sides And he said with absolute sincerity that it would be absolutely useless to ask people to make such sacrifices of convictions which were dear to them if there was at the same time to be placed on the shoulders of those making them a burden quite intolerable, which would condemn these schools to a lower standard of efficiency.
SIR GEORGE WHITEsaid that, although many of them had heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with very great regret, and specially the communication from the Archbishop, none could find any fault with the tone of the speech. He should endeavour to emulate that tone. He could not, however, agree with the expression of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to a question of this sort breaking down on a matter of finance when the matter of finance was so intimately connected with one of the essential principles of the Bill. He had at different periods of the history of educational controversies said that under certain conditions he might
1560
agree to the right of entry, and that under certain conditions he might agree to contracting-out, hut under no circumstances that he could foresee could he agree to the two operating in one area; and yet to a certain extent that was the position in which they were placed by this Bill. They were brought to that condition of things solely by the belief that at least those belonging to the Anglican Church would have been very largely, if not wholly, content with the operation of the principle of the right of entry, and would not have sought to enlarge the opportunities for contracting-out. Therefore, he was quite sure the House would see that the question of finance was so intimately connected with this great principle that it was impossible to look upon it as a light matter. What would be the position of those who had received a good deal of blame from their friends already if they consented to the right of entry in the towns and in other districts not single school areas—placing them in the position in which he believed they would be placed if they acceded to the figure named by the right hon. Gentleman and allowed the right of entry in all the council schools, at the same time giving every facility for contracting out for the whole of the denominational schools if they chose to do so? They could not face such a figure as that which was named by the right hon. Gentleman because they felt that sum would place every possible facility, so far as finance was concerned, in the way of contracting out. In the course of a long life he had had a good deal to do with educational figures, and he was bound to say that there was no class of figures which laid themselves open to so much misrepresentation and misunderstanding; therefore, it would be an extremely difficult thing to get at what was the exact cost of education under all the circumstances under which those contracting-out schools, would exist. From his own experience and knowledge, as well as from the information he had been able to gather, he felt that the figure which the Government had put into the Schedule was a liberal figure. Bearing in mind always the limitation which they had endeavoured to place upon the contracting-out system, namely, that those who engaged in it should at

1561
least have some reasonable sum to subscribe themselves as they did years ago under similar circumstances, they could not watch that sum absolutely disappearing and be content to go on with this arrangement under those conditions. He took up this position with very great regret, and he did so because they had reached a stage in the compromise which was a very serious one indeed. He would go so far as to state that the position of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the future attitude which the education authority might take in the interest of education in all the schools of the country would not be an unreasonable position, or that those demands as they applied to contracted-out schools should be reasonably met by the Board of Education in regard to future finance. He thought that was a reasonable proposition, but in regard to the present situation for him and his friends, with the figures before them which they had endeavoured to get as accurately as they possibly could, to consent to a condition of things in which they would be promptly charged with handing over the whole of the town schools to denominational schools, either through contacting out or the right of entry, would be to assume a position of which he for one could not take the responsibility, and he felt if this demand was persisted in, he personally should have to use all the influence he possessed to bring the compromise to an end. He hoped they had not even yet reached that position. He trusted the President of the Board of Education would be able to put figures before the Committee—figures which ought to be authentic, for the Board of Education was certainly the only body so far as he knew who could really ascertain what was the exact expenditure for education in the country. He was quite sure they all credited the right hon. Gentleman with the desire to put the facts as they were before the Committee and give the best information at their disposal. He would fain hope that there was some way out of the position in which they found themselves. He felt that there was a great difficulty also in regard to his hon. friends below the gangway. What he had to say in. regard to them he would put in the form of a question, and he hoped it would not
1562
be misinterpreted. He presumed that his hon. friends had in calculating the cost of their schools calculated the full salaries paid by the local authorities to all their teachers. They were perfectly justified in so calculating the salaries, but at the same time the deficiency between what the grant would yield and the amount of the expenditure credited to the salaries paid by the local authorities could not be said to be altogether a loss to their Church. It was a matter in which non-Catholics had no right to interfere in the slightest degree, but still it was a matter they might very well take into consideration in calculating what was the actual pecuniary difference which they would have to make up as against what they now received from the local authorities. He very much regretted to have to make this statement. He had certain responsibilities which had induced him to make it thus early, but he did not yet give up all hope that some way might be seen out of this dilemma. He was sure that if hon. Gentlemen would try to understand the position of those he represented, namely, that at this moment there was a prospect of all their town schools being practically in a greater or less degree put under denominational influence, they would feel that he was justified in taking up this position.
MR. DILLONsaid that while recognising the sympathetic and generous tone of the speech of the hon. Member for North West Norfolk he thought it must be evident to everyone in the House that the Catholic schools had no locus standi in this compromise. He must say a word in support of the position taken up by the hon. Member for Waterford. The hon. Member opposite seemed to have forgotten that the He see were now discussing the financial Resolution, on which, the First Schedule of the Bill depended. They were in the awkward position of not having had the statement in regard to the finances: of the Bill promised by the Prime Minister, which was necessary to enable them in a really rational and useful way to discuss this Resolution: Although they had been led to believe that the mind of the Government was not made up and that the

1563
Schedule was being revised, they were now debating in ignorance of what the mind of the Government was. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk had made an obscure hint as to the effect of the deficit which from carefully prepared figures the Catholic representatives had shown would fall upon their Church. He did not understand the hon. Member's remark, and he could only guess at its meaning. He presumed that there was an impression abroad that they would have to sweat the nuns, and that the Catholic Church had a certain body who would teach for nothing. That was a complete delusion. Those bodies did teach in some of the Catholic schools, and their teaching was so much sought after that it had been a matter of great embarrassment to find a considerable number of Protestants coming into their schools. These Protestants came in without being asked. Was it not very mean, though the nuns were earning their living and because they lived on very little, to take up the position, as the hon. Member had done, that they ought to be paid on a lower scale?
SIR GEORGE WHITEsaid what he meant was that when the Education Act of 1902 came into force a great number of salaries of Catholic teachers were certainly doubled, or at all events very largely increased by their being placed as they were bound to be on the status of other teachers. It was acknowledged at that time that those teachers were receiving small salaries, and that they in the interest of their Church were doing what was practically mission work. He did not deny for one moment that these teachers had a right to do what they liked with the salaries paid to them, but these salaries had been increased by many thousands of pounds by the Act of 1902.
MR. DILLONsaid he knew the hon. Member too well to imagine that he was so ungenerous as to suggest that the salaries of Catholic teachers should be cut down again. After all, in this matter a man was entitled to a fair wage, and it was most ungenerous and unfair—he did not make any charge against the hon. Member—to go behind and ask what he did with the money. They were not entitled
1564
to do that. Were they going to fine men or women because they had devoted the wages they received for work done to a religious purpose? Were they going to say to them: "We will fine you, and reduce your wages, because you choose to devote those wages to some purpose we do not approve of"? They had no right to do that. Any public teacher who did his work had as good a right to draw his wages as any teacher in the country. It was an extraordinary position for anyone to take up to say that, as a condition of the national settlement, the salaries of the Catholic teachers in this country should be fined down below those of other teachers.
SIR GEORGE WHITE: I never made any suggestion of the kind.
MR. DILLON: I do not think the hon. Member fully gave the bearing of his remark, but if it had any meaning it meant that—
SIR GEORGE WHITE: I wish to disavow any such intention.
MR. DILLONasked how on earth salaries were to be kept up if the Catholic teachers did not come on the same scale as others. If they were not so paid, the deficit would fall upon the Catholic body. He wished to know how they could discuss Clause 3 to-morrow unless they knew fully the financial aspect of the question. The representatives of the Catholics had stated over and over again that they were opposed to contracting out; they had pointed out the dangers they foresaw; but they had never denied that their attitude towards the granting of contracting out would be largely modified by the amount of money they were going to receive. If the hon. Member opposite had indicated a sliding scale which would move in accordance with the general course of education in the country, and place Catholic schools in a permanent position of equality with the other schools of the country, that would largely modify their objection to contracting out. He still adhered to his view that the other settlement would be better, but how could they approach the discussion of Clause 3 until they knew the

1565
final decision of the Government in regard to the Schedule and contracting-out? Contracting-out might be tolerable if they were going to get a fair grant, but it would be intolerable if it meant the slow starvation of their schools. He had received that morning a resolution passed by the Synod of the United Diocese of Cork and Ross strongly protesting against the closing of certain small schools, on the ground that it would be a gross injustice to the members of their Church, namely, the Protestant Church in Ireland. He would point out that in Ireland there was a regulation that wherever Protestants were in a small minority in a Catholic parish, if they could gather not thirty but ten children they had a school of their own, paid for entirely out of public funds and under Protestant management, and without any inequality whatsoever. He asked the House to compare that with the treatment given to Catholic schools in this country. The Turn. Member for North-West Norfolk reminded Catholics the other day that they were only a small minority asking that there should be Catholic schools with Catholic teachers in a Protestant country. There was a minority of Protestants in Ireland, which was a Catholic country. Supposing the Irish people got Home Rule to-morrow, or even if they did not get it, supposing they had popular control of education in Ireland, and they said: "We are a Catholic country, and we decline to give to the Protestants of Ireland their Protestant schools." Supposing they said further: "We shall set up in this Catholic country that form of religious teaching which is acceptable to the majority of the population; we will establish and endow that religious teaching in the schools of Ireland"; and, supposing that they said to the Protestants of Ireland who were in the minority, that they might contract-out, but if they did they must be prepared to bear a considerable burden for the privilege of contracting-out. They had suffered too long to attempt anything of the kind, and if they had Home Rule to morrow they would not close one of the Protestant schools. But supposing they did; and that the Protestant minority in Ireland came over here and appealed to the party opposite
1566
for justice against such oppression, how could they answer them if they were going to do to the Catholics of this country precisely what the Protestants of Ireland would then complain of? They were not teaching them a good lesson in Ireland by this conduct. Last year, when this question was first raised, the Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and other Protestants came to him personally and appealed to him to go to the Government to save their small Protestant schools, and he saw the Chief Secretary on the subject. He had a letter of thanks from the Provost of Trinity College for his assistance in keeping these small Protestant schools open. They did not require to get thirty children to keep them open as was proposed here. Some of these small Protestant schools had only ten children, and in some parishes in the South of Ireland only half a dozen, but these small schools were paid for in every respect the same as the Catholic schools. The question of religious equality was not affected by this question of the rates. In Ireland the education system was a State system. What he was asking here on this particular matter was not assistance from the rates, but assistance from the taxes. Again he asked, were they setting Ireland a good example in this matter? He contended that the facts proved that the Catholic majority in Ireland were more broad-minded and more generous to the Protestant minority than the Protestant majority in this country were in their treatment of the Catholic minority. Before he sat down he wanted to point out that there was another element of inequality in this treatment which made his case stronger in the matter of the upkeep of the school buildings. In Ireland the Protestant minority was the minority of wealth; they were the landlords and the professional classes, and could well afford to bear this burden of the upkeep of the buildings; but here it was proposed to inflict this fine for conscience' sake—for, whatever might be said to the contrary, it was a fine for conscience' sake—on the poorest of the whole population of the country. That was an intolerable position to take up, and one which it was impossible to defend. He thought the Catholics

1567
had been treated badly by the Government. They were promised a statement, and they ought to know what was the final word of the Government as to this question of grants to the contracted-out schools and forcing the Catholics out of the national system of education in England.
[Several Members on both sides of the House rose to continue the debate, and there were persistent cries from the OPPOSITION benches of "Runciman."]
MR. RUNCIMAN: Hon. Gentlemen opposite need be under no misapprehension. I have no objection to speaking. They must know that I am under the Rules of the House. I wanted, when replying, to cover the whole of the ground, and with Mr. Speaker in the Chair I can only speak once. In the first place, I want to refer to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. I think his strictures were a little undeserved. He blamed me for not having got up at once and made a full statement.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I complained that the statement, which was promised by the Prime Minister, was not given.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The statement that I can give now, I think, will be quite sufficient. The only Schedule that we have under discussion at the present time—we are not, in fact, discussing the terms of that Schedule, but the Resolution which covers it—is that which is now in the Bill; end I think I shall be able to show that in fixing this scale as we did we fixed it on liberal lines. It is not a stingy scale. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman opposite who said that those who managed the voluntary schools had not the information with regard to the cost of maintenance of those schools which is at the command of the Board of Education, but the right hon. Gentleman is really misinformed in that matter. The Board of Education have not got the opportunities or means of knowing or finding out any of the figures for individual schools, and the hon. Gentleman who preceded me in the last Administration at the Board of Education knows that that is the case. As a matter of fact we are really in the hands of the local autho-
1568
rities for much of the information that must be provided if we are to know in full everything that can be known about the maintenance of voluntary schools. I hope, therefore, that the Board of Education will not be blamed for not having fuller information at its command than the managers of those schools. Then most of the local authorities do not keep their accounts for these schools separately and they cannot give it to us, even if we had the right to ask for it from them. The hon. and learned Member objected to our not having given him and his friends a full criticism of the whole of the information that has been given to us by the Roman Catholic authorities during the last two days. I will tell the hon. Gentleman why I have not been able to communicate with him earlier. A very large number indeed of the Roman Catholic forms were presented to us about two o'clock on Monday. Many only arrived at three o'clock yesterday, and since then I have had my officials hard at work examining those forms as carefully as they possibly could. No time has been lost, and up to a late hour last night and during the whole of to-day they have been occupied in examining not 140, as has been put forward, but well over 800 schools. That is no small task, and as far as I can give the House information, I am very glad to do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman also objected to a statement of mine that on behalf of the Roman Catholic communion there had been very wild figures used in exaggeration of the sum which might fall on them if they contracted-out. He referred in particular to the figure of £300,000 which I quoted the other day. When I referred to that figure I was quoting from a paper, which I believe is a Roman Catholic paper, called the Tablet, and I quoted that as an instance of the sort of exaggeration which many Members attempt in this House. The noble Lord opposite used very large figures, and I venture to criticise the figures that he put forward on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. He did not say that this scale would throw a burden of £120,000 on the Roman Catholic Church; he said the figure would be. £214,000.
LORD EDMUND TALBOT: I was speaking from the White Paper.
MR. RUNCIMAN: That just shows what an enormous discrepancy there is between the figures of the noble Lord and those which have been carefully compiled by those who represent the Roman Catholic Churches. I shall show both to him and to the Leader of the Opposition that the White Paper does not give, and does not purport to give, the cost of the maintenance of contracted-out schools. Now, if £214,000 upon examination by the Roman Catholic authorities is brought down to £ 20,000, I think we may take it that the smaller figure is nearer the mark than the larger. The Roman Catholic authorities, who were good enough to place this information at the disposal of the Board of Education, have given us, as far as they possibly could, the actual value. But they have in many cases given us the estimated amounts. So far as I have been able to ascertain from the summary which has been made from the balance-sheets and other figures which have been put before us at the Board of Education, we come approximately to the same result as the hon. and learned Gentleman. But I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that in a very large number of instances the figures are estimated and are so stated in the Paper.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Some of the instances I gave, such as London, Liverpool, and other places, are not estimates, but actual figures checked by the local authorities.
MR. RUNCIMAN: I was going to say that in the case of London, Liverpool, and one or two other places the figures are the actual amounts, but that does not apply to the whole country. A very large number of them are estimated figures. My officials found, in scrutinising these figures, that approximately the total estimated expenditure by the Roman Catholic authorities in their schools will work out at about 58s. 8d. per scholar, and I would commend that to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite who thought that the Archbishop's figure of 64s. was nearer the mark. These are the actual figures from the accounts of 800 Catholic schools. [AN HON. MEMBER: "There are a
1570
thousand of them."] There are about 1,000 of these schools, but those which have been left out of account are immaterial. These are made up of teachers' salaries, which work out at 49s. 11d, per scholar, a figure which does not differ materially from that of the right hon. Gentleman; and of 8s. 9d. per scholar for the other items which have been included in the forms under the head of maintenance. But some of these items are items which do not properly fall under the head of maintenance.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: What are the items which do not properly fall under the head of maintenance?
MR. RUNCIMAN: I will state that later. Therefore the total amount that the Roman Catholics believe will fall on them if this scale is adhered to is £120,000, or about 8s. 9d. per scholar. But some of these estimates are quite clearly very wide of the mark. In one case the estimate for cleaning, warming, and lighting would work out at £1 per scholar, which everyone with experience of schools knows must be very wide of the mark. In most cases it works out at only a few-shillings at the outside. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have you the average attendances?"] I am afraid I have not the average attendances, but I do not think it matters. In other schools the same item is estimated at about 15s. 7d. per scholar, at Nottingham St. Mary's 14s., at Saffron Hill about 11s., and at Ilkley about 10s. It is clear these figures must be a little wide of the mark, but I have no quarrel with the Roman Catholic authorities who have done their best to give us information. The figure for books, apparatus, and stationery at Leeds St. Anne's Higher Grade School is estimated at 15s. 3d. per scholar, and that is the largest figure I have ever heard suggested, and it is very wide of the mark; at Rugby St. Mary's the amount is very nearly 10s. Then there is lumped together for "other expenses," the interpretation of which we have no means of knowing, something like 12s. per scholar at St. Anne's Underwood School, and in another case 9s. 7d., and so on. Thus, a number of the items, in so far as they are estimates, are not good

1571
estimates. I do not wish to draw any inference from that except that I am sure that the Roman Catholic authorities have not underestimated the amount of money which they would have to bear. One of the items included for maintenance is repair of the structure. That is a capital charge, and, therefore, it ought not to be put into the account. In two or three cases there is a charge for interest— interest, I presume, on mortgage loans. That, again, is never treated as a maintenance charge. In another case religious inspection is treated as an ordinary charge of maintenance, and in another case there is added in an amount of 12s. per scholar for alterations. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to maintain that those amounts are items which would properly come under the heading of maintenance. And, therefore, with those few criticisms, which I venture to offer as an example of how estimates get out of hand, I would suggest that the Catholic figures are very generous figures from their point of view. I do not think they are as greatly exaggerated as the £240,000 of the noble Lord opposite. They estimate that about 8s. 9d. per scholar would fall upon them under this scale if the child population in their schools did not diminish. But they must be quite aware of the fact that under the altered conditions—the building of new Council schools, and the fact that they have the power to put out of their schools those who are not of their own faith— there must in many instances be a diminution of their school population. I have specially framed the scale in the schedule of this Bill with that in view, and that would, I think, be of material assistance to them. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that in London the amount per child worked out at about 69s. 8d. each and in Liverpool also at a very large sum. But under a pooling arrangement you cannot take one specific big town, you must take the country as a whole—the cheap schools with the dear schools, and make the money go as far as you can. The amount which the hon. and learned Gentleman says would fall upon them—8s. 9d. per child—may, I think, be diminished slightly because of the over-estimate—because we shall give a larger grant as the schools diminish in size, and for other reasons. In the year 1901 the amount which was produced
1572
by the Roman Catholic Church for their schools in this country, so far as we may gather from the published accounts, worked out at about 6s. 5d. per child, or, it may be, 6s. 6d. I do not think there is very much material difference between the estimated 8s. 9d. and the 6s. 5d. which is the actual figure which appears in the published statistics, and when the hon. Gentleman makes a demand that we should really support their schools as if they were still rate-aided, I really must tell him that we cannot do that. The hon. Member must know, and I am bound to say that we cannot make the grants to the contracting-out schools equivalent to what the grants plus the rates have been in the last six years. The hon. and learned Gentleman says then it will be of no use, for they will get no aid out of it. I doubt whether there is any denomination in the country better equipped for pooling arrangements than the Roman Catholic community. The hon. Member for Mayo quoted the Irish case, hut I have no doubt the Irish case would be entirely different. If there had been no rate aid given to the denominational schools there would be no education controversy in progress at the present time. If the voluntary schools were still as they are in Ireland, and had not been placed upon the rates, we should not have this raging educational controversy now. So that we cannot copy the example of Ireland. Ireland, after all, is a country of small schools, and the fact that they are not so efficient as the schools in this country or in Scotland is due to the fact that they are such small schools. Scotland is much nearer our case than Ireland. The Catholic schools in Scotland are not inefficient, they are very good. In Scotland, where the standard of education is much higher than in Ireland, the cost is 67s. 10d. per child. In Scotland, the Roman Catholics have been able to educate their children well and secure good, efficient teachers, and they have received in the past only a 40s. grant from the Exchequer. Therefore, I do not think we are making any unreasonable demand upon the Roman Catholics in England to do what their co-religionists are doing in Scotland. Then the right hon. Gentleman complained that we had kept the House in the dark in regard to the

1573
Schedule. We have not kept the House in the dark; it has been on the Table ever since the Bill was printed. The hon. Member must know that I cannot discuss the Schedule in full detail on this Motion, seeing that we have specially arranged the time so that we may have a full discussion of it when we come to it. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from the White Paper, and has made three exceptions, but he omitted four other items which cannot fall on the voluntary schools. Such items as cookery, handicrafts, drawing, etc., are all special expenses. He also mentioned the item for scholarships, an item which is growing rapidly.
MR. LYTTELTON: Are the contracted-out schools to do without these advantages?
MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. We have Specially put in a clause in order that the local authorities may throw open their special facilities.
MR. LYTTELTON: Yes, "may."
MR. RUNCIMAN: We cannot take the local authorities by the throat and compel them to do for the voluntary schools what they are not compelled to do for their own schools. I do not think the local authorities will be at all captious over these facilities, for they are all only too anxious to see the children in their own localities properly educated. Moreover, it cannot be suggested there is a religious difficulty either in the handicrafts or the cookery centres. Then the items for erection and alterations should come upon capital account.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the contracted-out schools will never require alteration or enlargement?
MR. RUNCIMAN: No, but those are not maintenance, but capital charges. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is not going to suggest that the State ought to bear the capital charges of the voluntary schools. The wear and tear charges are not likely to be heavy. I cannot understand whether the right hon. Gentleman wishes to throw the administrative
1574
charges of these schools and these associations on the rates, and it surely cannot be solemnly suggested that we should vote money for the salaries and administrative expenses of the National Society. That is quite unreasonable, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman cannot have looked very closely into that item. I have never heard of a claim of that kind being put forward by any other portion of the voluntary schools. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to refer with a certain amount of brevity and reticence to a communication which passed to-day between the Archbishop of Canterbury and myself. In that letter the Archbishop of Canterbury relies upon the figures presented to him for 140 schools. These figures were presented to me not as a full statement of the case of the Church schools, as was done in the case of the Catholic schools, but as a sample of the case of the Church schools. [An HON. MEMBER on the Opposition Benches: "The full case could not be presented in regard to so many schools."] If it were done on behalf of the Roman Catholics, why could it not be done also on behalf of the Church schools?
LORD R. CECIL: How could they do it for 11,500 schools?
MR. RUNCIMAN: This does not apply to 11,500 schools. There are only 5,200 of these contracting-out Church schools. But I make no complaint. I only say if you are going to take a dipping sample of about 3 per cent. of the schools, you are not able to make a full and accurate statement of the position of the Church schools. The Archbishop was good enough to ask some of his experts to confer with us at the Board of Education, and go into the accounts of these schools. I refer to the 140 schools. We should have been glad to reconsider our grant if the case for these schools were substantiated, but it was not substantiated. Let me point out some of the discrepancies which came out during the discussion of these estimates. The Returns produced were not those of the actual annual expenditure, but were the estimate of managers of individual schools which, on the face of them, were quite unreliable.

1575
In the very first sheet that I examined I found among the items of annual expenditure a sum of £275 for rent. Rent is properly a capital charge, not a maintenance charge.
SIR HENRY CRAIK: No.
MR. RUNCIMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to know something about these charges.
SIR HENRY CRAIK: It is a maintenance charge.
MR. RUNCIMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed. It is a long time since the hon. Gentleman was at the Board of Education himself. I am giving the best possible information and giving it perfectly accurately. I say that rent is not recognised as a maintenance charge.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: No.
MR. RUNCIMAN: It is impossible to get on with a running fire like this. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we ought to pay the rent of the voluntary schools?
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I do not for a moment. But in the White Paper rent is put down as a charge of maintenance in the estimate of the general cost of the up-keep of council schools; and if rent is regarded as an element of maintenance in the case of council schools, it should be regarded as an element of maintenance in the case of the contracting-out schools also.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The local authorities who have administered the Act of 1902 have never regarded rent as a maintenance charge. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that every item which appears on the White Paper should be borne by the State? Of course not. I come now to the next item. It is said that when those schools in London which have been furnished by the London County Council contract-out, the County Council will withdraw the furniture and that they will have to be refurnished. Well, £300 for furniture was put down not for one
1576
year but as part of the annual expenditure of one of the schools. I am sure that no one will justify an item like that. There is an item for a football field. There is also a charge for school-attendance officers. They are paid for by the local authority. I found also a charge for medical inspection. That again is a charge which is borne not by the Church schools but by the local authority. I say it is impossible to accept estimates like these in support of a claim for larger grants from the Exchequer. They are not drawn up on a uniform basis; they contain optional as well as necessary expenditure; capital expenditure and maintenance expenditure; charges to be borne by the magistrates, charges to be borne by the local authorities; and the various items are so inextricably mixed up that it is impossible to accept the statement as a full and accurate presentation of the case of the Church schools
MR. LYTTELTON: I said I had no means of checking the returns in regard to those 140 schools. I mentioned that the Archbishop was so hurried that he could only get the figures in regard to these schools. What I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state now is what deduction from or addition to the 64s. l0d. per head he is prepared to make on the advice of his own experts?
MR. RUNCIMAN: When I have completed this part of my statement I shall be glad to answer the right hon. Gentleman. What I say is that estimates which are based on the accounts furnished by individual managers from all parts of the country, having no uniform principle running through them, are not sufficient to substantiate the case which has been put forward on behalf of the Archbishop. I do not blame the Archbishop, I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman. They relied on their experts, but I do think they have been badly advised, and I am quite sure that if their experts had dealt fairly with them they would not have made themselves responsible for statements such as those from which I have quoted this evening. The right hon. Gentleman relies on the White Taper. The right hon. Gentleman, if he had listened to the beginning of my speech, would know

1577
that we gave certain information from the local authorities—information that we had no right to demand and which some local authorities have refused to give—information in regard to some of the items. The item of 64s. 10d. is compared with 58s. 8d., but it is quite clear that the 64s. 10d. covers an entirely different set of items from those quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. You cannot add the cost of special subject classes scholarships, and there is no authority for knowing what the items cover. The right hon. Gentleman might throw up his hands, but where could we get the information? The local authorities decline to give it, and we cannot compel them to give it; they did not do it under his Bill; he had no statutory authority to require it. It is all very well to ask what is the use of the Board of Education; but the Board can only act on the authority it has under statute, and I think the right hon. Gentleman himself shared in the responsibility for the statute that set it up. I have given the basis on which we founded our calculation; there is nothing to conceal. We know the cost of the teaching staff, we have the power to find that out, and we have found it out. We know that the cost comes to £13,800,000, or an average of 52s. 3d. per child. It is high, and very largely because of the high salaries paid in London and the larger districts there is no cheap class of teachers. That is the amount, 52s. 3d. Now what other items fall on the cost of voluntary schools? There are fuel, lighting, cleaning, apparatus, books. Well, from all the information we can get under these heads I believe the cost works out at less than 8s. per child, that is to say, the total cost all over the country of Church schools that contract-out cannot exceed 60s. per child, and of Roman Catholic schools, 58s. 8d. Now what does that mean? The State actually under our contracting-out scheme provides five-sixths of the total up-keep of the schools, and we maintain that a sixth is not too large a proportion for the denomination to pay for the private management and private patronage they will enjoy. I might also say that on the
1578
other side we are giving a right of entry into county schools without charging a penny.
LORD R. CECIL: Our own schools.
MR. RUNCIMAN: I hope hon. Gentlemen will not put their claim too high. Is this proportion more than the Church of England can bear? Take the year 1901, the last year for which I have the figures, showing the amount of money coming from local sources towards Church schools. In that year the total grant amounted to, not 50s., but 35s. per child, and the amount coming from local resources to 10s. per child. We raised the grant subsequently to 47s., and then we raised it to 50s., so that with the grant we propose in this Bill we are making it possible for the Church schools to contract out without having to bear any greater burden than they had in 1901–2. The right hon. Gentleman may think we are cutting it rather fine, but that is not so, because that is on the assumption that every school will contract-out. The items do very nearly balance; but, as I was pointing out, there will be, under this Bill, a large number of Church schools which will be transferred. I am sure nobody will suggest for a moment that no Church schools will be transferred except in single-school districts. If that were so I should despair of any success coming to this Bill. If the Government had been under the impression that all the schools except in single-school areas were to contract-out we could not possibly have set our hands to this Bill. We have been told from the first by those who represent the Church of England that that Church looked forward to contracting-out being the exception and not the rule. If you are going to reduce that area, instead of having 5,200 schools outside, you will have 500 schools outside, and naturally the large sum of money which was at the disposal of the Church of England in 1901 would produce not 10s. per child but an enormously larger sum. If this Bill goes through, and the schools which are run now by the Church of England are to any considerable extent transferred, there is no reason why

1579
the Church of England schools should not be the most prosperous schools in England and Wales. It is quite possible that the subscriptions may have fallen in the interval, but they will have to cover a much smaller area than formerly, and I believe that those who hold so dearly to the principles of the Church of England are not likely to be less generous to the Church schools in 1909 than they were in 1901. One of the items which is missing from our Bill is a sliding scale for the future. I say quite frankly that we are prepared to put into the Schedule, if it is accepted in anything like a reasonable spirit, a Schedule which will provide that the contracted-out schools shall have a proportionate share in any increase above the grants under these proposals that may be made in Exchequer grants for the ordinary maintenance of public elementary schools. What I mean is this, we do not intend—and we would not like our successors—to give a larger Ex chequer grant to local authority schools than to contracted-out schools, and if the Schedule does not provide for that elasticity we are prepared to revise it. I can only say that the Bill and Schedule actually fulfil what was undertaken by the Prime Minister. We have given a right—a real and effective right—of entry into the council schools, which many of our friends much dislike. We have also given those schools which think they must contract out a reasonable chance of existence. We have increased the amount of the grant by 3s. If we had adhered to the 47s. proposed by my hon. friend I am sure he could have made out a good case for that amount. But we have gone up by 3s. in order to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite and those who represent the Church. We believe that our offer, if it errs at all, errs on the side of liberality. With all the information at our disposal we are forced to the conclusion that to give a material or even a moderate increase would actually put a premium upon contracting out. I know it is not the intention of the Archbishop
1580
of Canterbury, nor do I believe it is the desire of any sound educationist in this country, definitely to encourage contracting out. I admit that, with all its drawbacks, it may be necessary as an exception; I do not think it necessary as a rule; and, indeed, if we were materially to increase the grant we should actually destroy the very basis upon which this Bill is founded.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that the President of the Board of Education had attempted to show a discrepancy between the figure of £120,000 a year quoted by the hon. Member for Waterford as the annual burden on Catholic schools and that of £215,000 quoted by the noble Lord the Member for Chichester. The two were perfectly reconcileable, the one being based on present expenditure while the other was an estimate of the future burden which the Bill would lay upon the schools. Now subsection (1) of Clause 3 laid it down that the contracted-out school must comply with all such conditions of efficiency, as regards teaching staff, school premises, and secular instruction as were required by the Board of Education in schools provided by the local education authority, and, therefore, the only basis on which they could argue this subject was the difference between the cost of maintenance in the provided schools and the amount of the grant offered them under the Bill. How were they to arrive at that difference? They could only start on the basis of the White Paper. He thought it a little hard that the President of the Board of Education should base his case on odd accounts sent up by private managers under great pressure, by singling out particular items where the accounts were badly made out, and that he should try to destroy their contentions on those figures when it was the business of the Government themselves to supply statistics on which alone the House could be expected to judge of the matter.

1581
They must, however, go to the White Paper, and in reference to the figure of £215,000, that was based on the figure of the White Paper multiplied by the number of children in average attendance. He would like to take a smaller example for the sake of argument, and he would take the schools of the smallest religious community. In London there were some 6,700 children in average attendance in Jewish schools, and on the basis of the White Paper there would be a difference in round figures of 46s., which would appear to mean a charge on these schools of about £15,400 a year. What deductions were they to make from the White Paper? He invited the right hon. Gentleman to tell them tomorrow. In the case of these Jewish schools, a small number of schools all in the area of one local authority, these figures could be obtained as regarded London, and he thought that when they came to Clause 3 they ought to know what deductions were possible under the heads mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman from the figure of £15,400 which on the face of the White Paper would appear to be the sum which would have to be made up on the eight Jewish schools in London alone. To return to the figures of his own co-religionists, on the basis of the White Paper, the difference would come to £215,000. What deductions were they to make? He again invited the right hon. Gentleman to say. It could not be more than 4s. l0d. at the utmost, because under the right hon. Gentleman's own statement the 52s. plus the 8s. were chargeable in items which he himself admitted. He would make a very broad assumption for the sake of argument; he would say that these deductions might account for one-sixth of the difference. They thus got down to £179,000. Fees might have been charged in a very few schools before 1902, but he would make the assumption that £5,000 might possibly be raised in fees, and that got them Sown to £174,000. Then the
1582
right hon. Gentleman said that they would gain by the exclusion of scholars, which would get the schools on to a higher grant. They might gain infinitesimally per head, but they clearly would lose in the grant as a whole, and if economic laws held good with regard to the schools, the greater the bulk the cheaper the handling. Though they might, therefore, get a little more per child they would lose largely on the whole. With regard to pooling, he would not go into that, because it would in any case only be a slight shifting of the burden. Making every possible deduction, he put the future cost of these schools alone, on the present assured basis of expenditure, at £160,000 a year, exclusive of loan and administration charges. But, of course, there would be additions. In the first place, this 64s. l0d. was only an average, and in the second place the average varied, i.e., the 64s. 10d. was itself depressed by the fact that it included expenditure on voluntary schools, which had not come up to its natural level, because the increments of the teachers were only slowly, year by year, being earned. In London, the general expenditure was 94s. per child on the whole, but it was 99s. in the provided schools alone. Therefore, when the voluntary school teachers who were placed in the scale rose to their maximum the average would be 99s., instead of 94s., and the same thing was true of other towns. There must also be a large increase on administration. The handling of this very large though insufficient sum of money would require a large secretarial staff, and there would have to be auditors and branch officers in the provinces, and considerable travelling expenses. The administration charges generally were 3s. 5d. per child, but if he put them as low as 1s. per child that, in the case of these schools, would amount to £14,000 a year alone. They started with a minimum under the Bill of £160,000

1583
certain, which must be increased by the items to which he had referred, and taking the possible deduction and setting against them the certain additions, he could not make out that the expenditure of these schools could be less than £190,000 a year, and shortly might be £210,000. How could a difference like that conceivably be met? How were they to deal with that situation? Were they to refuse the increments already promised to their teachers, or were they to dismiss them? What was said about the right hon. Gentleman about elasticity was meaningless. It did not provide against an increase in rate charges. All he said was that if an increased grant were to be made from the Exchequer some proportion would go to these schools in the future, but that did not meet the point that with a limited grant the schools which contracted out would be condemned to an ever-growing and uncertain expenditure. It put them in the cruel dilemma that they were necessarily made to look with suspicion on all educational progress that was costly. If this scheme of contracting out was carried through, there would be many loyal subjects up and down the country who would feel a sense of the gravest hardship and intolerable wrong.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that as he listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman he continually asked himself—Is this a settlement? His whole tone was one of vehement and almost angry criticism of the figures submitted—
MR. RUNCIMAN: I did nothing of the kind. I was trying to give the House as full information as possible.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he would withdraw the word angry, but he was surprised as he reminded himself that he was listening to a discussion on a
1584
settlement that he himself had honestly endeavoured to work in favour of, and in which the right hon. Gentleman had borne an honourable part, because the whole tone of the right hon. Gentleman was extremely critical of figures submitted to him under great difficulty by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his advisers. What was the situation? The right hon. Gentleman had been negotiating for this settlement for months. The essence of the transaction, as in most of these transactions, after all was the money consideration in the case of the schools which would not come in to the general system. It was proposed that the denominations should surrender their schools to the control of the local authority, that they should receive in return a right of entry which they had been discussing more or less imperfectly for a day and a half, and that certain schools where the children were of one faith, and which could not come conscientiously under this system, should be allowed to contract out on terms which it was hoped would keep them not below the educational level of the rest of the community. On what grounds did he complain that the Archbishop's figures were ineffective and unconvincing? He was not sure that they were, but what was the position? The Roman Catholic denomination had 800 schools to deal with; the Church of England had more than 11,000.
MR. RUNCIMAN: Only 5,200 Church schools can contract out.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the whole cost of maintaining a voluntary school was surely an element of the calculation, and there were 11,000 voluntary schools in the country. In the estimate of the cost of maintaining a school all the schools were taken into consideration, and the schools which could not contract out were brought

1585
into the calculation. Under these circumstances it was not fair to say there were only 5,000 which would contract out when they used the other schools to lower the standard cost of maintenance. The right hon. Gentleman kept on alluding to one item after another and asking whether the Government was expected to pay this or that, as if the items submitted by the advisers of the Archbishop were items in a till. They were nothing of the sort. They were estimates of the expenditure which would fall on a contracted-out school, and they could not keep up to the educational level of the rest of the community without a larger demand than the Schedule allowed upon the Parliamentary grant. After all, what figures had they to go upon? The right hon. Gentleman produced a certain number of figures which he said had been submitted to him, and considered by his experts, and which he believed to overthrow the calculations of the Archbishop; but what had they had to go upon except his own White Paper? What were the shadowy calculations which he said had been submitted to him, and which had been produced under great pressure during the last two or three days, compared with the elaborate and considered estimate in the White Paper? It was very difficult to upset those figures. They showed the steady march of education. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman was familiar with the Report of the Departmental Committee which sat in 1906. The estimates for the cost of maintenance in London, in county boroughs and urban districts, were there given, and the White Paper showed a small, but very legitimate advance made on the cost of education for every
1586
one of those areas. Therefore, they might take it that the statistics of the White Paper were absolutely reliable, because the figures very nearly corresponded, just differing sufficiently to show the ever increasing cost of education in the country. Therefore, he entirely declined, and he thought those who were advising the Archbishop in these negotiations were entitled to decline, to consider figures for which they had no authority whatever, except the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that they had been considered in the course of the last few days at the Board of. Education, as against the authoritative document which was before the House. The White Paper made out a charge of 64s. 10d. a child. The right hon. Gentleman said that a great deal of the cost would not fall upon the contracted-out schools. He really doubted whether he was justified in striking out classes for special subjects. There was a Parliamentary grant for the special subjects and he presumed that the contracted-out schools would enjoy it, but he took it that the grant did not cover the whole cost, and that the local authority would make a charge upon the contracted-out school for the use of these classes corresponding to the expenditure out of the rates. Then with regard to scholarships. He did not understand also why contracting-out schools should not offer the same advantages to students in respect of scholarships as the local authorities' schools, nor why they should not estimate in their expenditure the scholarships that would be offered. The right hon. Gentleman had held up to ridicule the purchase of land, erection and enlargement, alteration and maintenance, of school

1587
buildings. If that was a fair charge to put down as an item in the maintenance of a council school, why was it to be unfair in the contracting-out schools? The contracted-out school would need to keep up its buildings, and from time to time to enlarge them just as much as the council schools, and those who had to bear the cost of the upkeep would also have to pay the rate which went towards the upkeep of the other schools in the county. Upkeep was an item which could not be left out of consideration nor could the cost of administration. It might very well be that the contracted-out schools would require officers to see to school attendance. If so, it was an item of cost in considering the financial position of the contracted-out schools. And when they came to the cost of administration the right hon. Gentleman forgot that he had put upon the Church of England the administration of, possibly, a couple of millions of money, which would have to be dealt with by apportionment to the contracted-out schools. Pooling, no doubt, did help where there was a great discrepancy in the case of one area as against another which was maintained at less cost, and which could help the one which was maintained at a greater cost. But he was afraid the contracted-out schools would always be found to be in areas of the same financial capacity, and that pooling would not be such an assistance as the right hon. Gentleman supposed. But, anyhow, the administration of this larger fund must be a considerable item of cost. That being so, they had the right hon. Gentleman's figures before them, which he would take as authoritative figures set forth in the White Paper, and they were not satisfied that the deductions
1588
which he proposed to make were justifiable. What was the upshot of the whole matter? How did they stand? The finance of the contracted-out school was really the essence of the transaction. The Roman Catholic schools had stated their own case. He was not prepared to be bound by the financial statement of the Roman Catholics. They might have their views as to the cost of maintenance and their own economy, which might not be that of other schools. At any rate, on the right hon. Gentleman's figures, it seemed to him that the Archbishop's contention that the grant must be increased by a sum of at least 6s. to make the financial position tolerable for the contracting-out schools was a minimum statement. He hoped that the financial question might be settled satisfactorily, but if it was not, he did not think that the fault would rest with the Opposition. The whole power of ascertaining the financial position of any school in the kingdom rested with the right hon. Gentleman. Under the Code he could get the figures of any school which he chose to ask for. He had had this matter before him for months. He had published a Paper, the figures of which they were prepared to accept. He disputed his own figures, and he disputed the Archbishop's figures, and under these circumstances he (Sir William Anson) was rather puzzled to know where they were, or what figures would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman as to the financial position of contracted-out schools. If he was a friend of the settlement he was no friend of contracting-out. If contracting-out, on the scale put forth in the Bill, was the last word of the Government, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Bill. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman

1589
might yet find it possible to enable him to support him, as he had hitherto done, in effecting a settlement which he believed he had at heart, but if his speech to-night
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 244; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 430.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Agnew, George William

Cross, Alexander

Illingworth, Percy H.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Crossley, William J.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Jackson, R. S.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jardine, Sir J.

Ashley, W. W.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Balcarres, Lord

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Baldwin, Stanley

Duckworth, Sir James

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Laidlaw, Robert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Lambert, George

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lamont, Norman

Barker, Sir John

Erskine, David C.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Essex, R. W.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Beale, W. P.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lehmann, R. C.

Bell, Richard

Fardell, Sir T. George

Levy, Sir Maurice

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Fell, Arthur

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Fletcher, J. S.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Bennett, E. N.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

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

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gardner, Ernest

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lyell, Charles Henry

Branch, James

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Glendinning, R. G.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Brigg, John

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Bright, J. A.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Maclean, Donald

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

Grant, Corrie

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

Gretton, John

M'Arthur, Charles

Bryce, J. Annan

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Callum, John M.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Guinness, Hon. R.(Haggerston)

M'Crae, Sir George

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

M'Laren, Rt. Hn. Sir C. B. (Leices.

Bull, Sir William James

Gulland, John W.

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Magnus, Sir Philip

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mallet, Charles E.

Byles, William Pollard

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Cameron, Robert

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Marnham, F. J.

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Massie, J.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Hart-Davies, T.

Menzies, Walter

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harwood, George

Molteno, Percy Alport

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Montgomery, H. G.

Chance, Frederick William

Helme, Norval Watson

Morpeth, Viscount

Cleland, J. W.

Helmsley, Viscount

Morse, L. L.

Clough, William

Henry, Charles S.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

Herbert, Co!. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J

Higham, John Sharp

Myer, Horatio

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

Hill, Sir Clement

Napier, T. B.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hills, J. W.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Courthope. G. Loyd

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Cowan, W. H.

Hooper, A. G.

Nield, Herbert

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Valentia, Viscount

Nuttall, Harry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Verney, F. W.

Paul, Herbert

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Vivian, Henry

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Walters, John Tudor

Percy, Earl

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walton, Joseph

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

Wardle, George J.

Pollard, Dr.

Soares, Ernest J.

Waring, Walter

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Spicer, Sir Albert

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Stadner, H. Y.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradf' rd, E.)

Stanier, Beville

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Rainy, A. Holland

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Watt, Henry A.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Rees, J. D.

Starkey, John R.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Whitehead, Rowland

Rendall, Athelstan

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmar'n)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Williamson, A.

Robinson, S.

Sutherland, J. E.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

Rose, Charles Day

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Thomasson, Franklin

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

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Younger, George

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

Thorne, G.R. (Wolverhampton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Tillett, Louis John

Seaverns, J. H.

Tomkinson, James

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw.(Stafford

Toulmin, George

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

NOES.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Black, Arthur W.

Hodge, John

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hudson, Walter

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Brace, William

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Chinning, Sir Francis Allston

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Seddon, J.

Clynes, J. R.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Shackleton, David James

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

Kekewich, Sir George

Snowden, P.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Summerbell, T.

Crooks, William

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Curran, Peter Francis

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Macpherson, J. T.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Maddison, Frederick

Walsh, Stephen

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Wilkie, Alexander

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Fullerton, Hugh

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gill, A. H.

O'Grady, J.

Yoxall, James Henry

Glover, Thomas

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Pirie, Duncan V.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Hutton and Mr. Clement Edwards

Hall, Frederick

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Renwick, George

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

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

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again"—(Mr. Runciman) —put, and agreed to.

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Agnew, George William

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Lehmann, R. C.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Erskine, David C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Essex, R. W.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lyell, Charles Henry

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lynch, H. B.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Everett, R. Lacey

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

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Fenwick, Charles

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Fletcher, J. S.

Maclean, Donald

Banner, John S. Harmood

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

M'Callum, John M.

Barker, Sir John

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Crae, Sir George

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Beale, W. P.

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Laren, Rt. Hn. Sir C. B. (Leices.

Bell, Richard

Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

Bennett, E. N.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Micking, Major G.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Glendinning, R. G.

Mallet, Charles E.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Black, Arthur W.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Bowerman, C. W.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Marnham, F. J.

Brace, William

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Massie, J.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gulland, John W.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Branch, James

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Menzies, Walter

Brigg, John

Hall, Frederick

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bright, J. A.

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Middlebrook, William

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc's)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Brodie, H. C.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn's-ssh

Molteno, Percy Alport

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

Hart-Davies, T.

Montgomery, H. G.

Bryce, J. Annan

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morrell, Philip

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Byles, William Pollard

Helme, Norval Watson

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard

Cameron, Robert

Hemmerde, Edward George

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Henry, Charles S.

Myer, Horatio

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

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

Napier, T. B.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nicholls, George

Chance, Frederick William

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncst'r')

Cleland, J. W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Norman, Sir Henry

Clough, William

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hooper, A. G.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

Nuttall, Harry

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Horniman, Emslie John

Paul, Herbert

Cooper, G. J.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Illingworth. Percy H.

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Cowan, W. H.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cross, Alexander

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Pollard, Dr.

Crossley, William J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

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

Lambert, George

Rees, J. D.

Duckworth, Sir James

Lamont, Norman

Rendall, Athelstan

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Watt, Henry A.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Whitbread, Howard

Robinson, S.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Summerbell, T.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Sutherland, J. E.

Whitehead, Rowland

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Rose, Charles Day

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

Williamson, A.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Thomasson, Franklin

Wills, Arthur Walters

Scott, A. H. (Ashtonunder Lyne)

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Seaverns, J. H.

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark

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

Shackleton, David James

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Tomkinson, James

Winfrey, R.

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

Toulmin, George

Wodehouse, Lord

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Verney, F. W.

Younger, George

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Vivian, Henry

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walton, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Soares, Ernest J.

Waring, Walter

Spicer, Sir Albert

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Stanger, H. Y.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Waterlow, D. S.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Nield, Herbert

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Nolan, Joseph

Ashley, W. W.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Balcarres, Lord

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.),

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Hazleton, Richard

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

Boland, John

Hills, J. W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hodge, John

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hogan, Michael

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hudson, Walter

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hunt, Rowland

Reddy, M.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Renwick, George

Clynes, J. R.

Keswick, William

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

Kilbride, Denis

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Cory, Sir Clifford John

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Crean, Eugene

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Crooks, William

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

Seddon, J.

Dillon, John

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Lundon, W.

Snowden, P.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Stanier, Beville

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Starkey, John R.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Macpherson, J. T.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Fell, Arthur

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

Ffrench, Peter

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Kean, John

Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Killop, W

Walsh, Stephen

Gardner, Ernest

Meagher, Michael

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

Gill, A. H.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Ginnell, L.

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Glover, Thomas

Mooney, J. J.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morpeth, Viscount

Guinness, Hon. R.(Haggerston)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donellan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Halpin, J.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

was the last word on the subject his hopes were sinking very low.
Question put.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July,
1592
adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at nineteen minutes before Eleven o'clock.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 31 (1908).
  Accessions of British Colonies, etc., to the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation between the United Kingdom and Bulgaria; signed at Sofia, 9th December, 1905. (See Treaty Series, No. 1. (1908).)

  FOREIGN IMPORT DUTIES, 1908.
  Statement of the rates of import duties levied in European Countries, Egypt, the United States, Mexico, Argentina, Japan, China, and Persia, upon the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
  Orders permitting the landing of animals—
  No. 7,608 (dated 24th November, 1908) at Deptford Foreign Animals Wharf (ss. "Crown Point").
  No. 7,608 (dated 24th November, 1908) at Birkenhead Foreign Animals Wharf (ss. "Armenian").
  No. 7,610 (dated 25th November, 1908) at Deptford Foreign Animals Wharf (ss. "Minneapolis").
  No. 7,611 (dated 25th November, 1908) at a foreign animals wharf in Great Britain (ss. "Manchester Trader").

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1894 TO 1906.
  Order in Council, dated 21st November, 1908, exempting German ships when in British ports from the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, relating to overloading upon certain conditions.
  NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
  Six Orders in Council under the Act.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD) ACT, 1907.
  Public Health (Foreign Meat) Regulations (Scotland), 1908. Public Health (First Series, Unsound Food) Regulations (Scotland), 1908.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1906.
  Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1908, (No. 2), dated 24th November, 1908.

  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853–1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licence granted by His Majesty to Emma Byron, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter the Lady Henry Somerset Home, Duxhurst, Reigate.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HOUSE OF LORDS.
  Report from the Select Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee and an Appendix) made, and to be printed. (No. 234.)
  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Joint Committee on the Companies (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.], the Post Office Consolidation Bill [H.L.], and the Statute Law Revision Bill [H.L.],. That the Statute Law Revision Bill [H.L.], ought to be allowed to proceed. The said Report (with the Proceedings of the Committee), to be printed. [No. 235.] Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out; Bill reported with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next; and to be printed as amended. [No. 236.]

MEDICAL INSPECTION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN.
VISCOUNT GALWAYrose to call attention to the fact that no grant had yet been received by county councils towards the expenses incurred for the medical inspection of children. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it may be thought that in alluding to the education question at the present moment I am raising a somewhat delicate matter, but I can assure the House and His Majesty's

1395
Government that it is not my intention to interfere in the slightest degree with a satisfactory settlement of this much discussed question if such a settlement can be arrived at. The point I wish to bring before your Lordships' notice is of a different character, and has reference to the cost thrown upon county councils for the medical inspection of children. The Act of l907 enacted that it was the duty of county councils to provide for the medical inspection of children immediately before, or at the time of, or as soon as possible after, admission to the public elementary school. Regulation No. 576 followed in November of that year, and in Paragraph 4 the respective duties of the Board of Education and the local education authority were clearly set out. That paragraph stated—
"The duties thrown upon the Board consist in advising the local education authorities as to the manner in which they should carry out the provisions of the Act, and in supervising the work they are called upon to do."
The next paragraph stated that—
"The duty of carrying out the actual inspection has necessarily been entrusted by Parliament to local education authorities and not to the Board."
Therefore it will be seen that the whole question of managing the medical inspection devolves upon the local education authorities. Further on, the Regulation stated that three inspections were advisable—one when the child entered the school, another about the middle of its school life, and again before it left school.
I should like to say that I have no wish to disparage the great value which the medical inspection of children may be to the nation, or to thwart its being properly carried out. My point is that these demands on the local education authorities seem to go on increasing. The form as to diseases, which has to be filled up in duplicate in regard to every scholar, throws enormous labour on the medical officers appointed to carry out this work and on the chief medical officer, and consequently adds to the cost to the ratepayers. The medical officer has to report on a variety of things, and it is also laid down that he shall report to the Board of Education if the] Schedules of the Board are not carried out faithfully. I may be wrong in my interpretation of
1396
the clause, but it reads as if the medical officer of the county council is to report to the Board of Education if their Schedules are not carried out. Surely the proper course would be for the Board of Education to make these inquiries through the proper channel—the clerk to the county council.
When the Act of 1907 was under discussion we were given to understand that county councils would get a substantial grant towards the extra charge which would be thrown on the rates, and a great many local education authorities hesitated to appoint officers under the Act until they knew what financial assistance they were likely to get from His Majesty's Government. As I have said, I do not wish to disparage the great value of this medical inspection, but it is of national, and not merely of local, importance, and it is, therefore, not unreasonable to hope that there will be a substantial contribution from the national Exchequer. I would ask His Majesty's Government to remember that every additional burden thrown on the ratepayers of the country is an additional burden also on the industries of the country, and thereby tends to the unemployment which we all so much regret at the present time.
There is one other point to which I should like to call attention. Section 10 of Regulation No. 576 says—
"The directions given in this circular as to the degree and frequency of inspection refer only to minimum medical inspection, the effectiveness of which will in future be one of the elements to be considered in determining the efficiency of each school as a grant-aided school."
I venture to think that if, when these medical inspection clauses were before Parliament, it had been clearly stated that medical inspection of children was going to be made one of the points on which the efficiency grant would depend, the medical inspection clauses would not have passed as they did. In this case we have another illustration of the Board making regulations beyond what Parliament ever contemplated or intended. It is not the first time we have had to complain of this, and I hope the tendency will diminish in the future. The question of medical inspection

1397
should be kept entirely separate from the education demands of the Board of Education, and it should not be allowed in any way to affect the efficiency grant. I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to give the House a distinct assurance on both of the points I have raised.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I should like to say a few words, not only to support what my noble friend has said, but also to point out what the exact position is with regard to the financial promises made on the subject of medical inspection. This matter, which is of the utmost importance to county councils, has been taken up by the County Councils Association, and there has been more than one deputation to the Minister in charge of the Board of Education. A very strong deputation from the County Councils Association waited upon Mr. McKenna in February last, and put before him the claims of county councils that medical inspection should be recognised as a national matter and that a grant should be made towards it. They pointed out how unfortunate it would be if, through the constant increase of the rates, the ratepayers got to dislike education, and as far as they could, refused to allow their representatives to spend extra money, especially on higher education. Mr. McKenna informed the deputation that he entirely sympathised with the view put before him. He said that medical inspection should be looked upon as part of the general charge for education, but he agreed that there was considerable ground for the View that the local education authorities should receive some grant from the Exchequer. He went on to say that he did not propose that that grant should be earmarked, but that a new grant should be given that would do far more than meet the cost of the additional requirements of the. Bill. He added that it would be possible for the deputation to meet their ratepayers with a substantial reduction in the rates. That was a promise of a substantial grant, not only to cover present charges for education, but to allow also a reasonable sum in addition for medical inspection.
1398
That sounded very satisfactory, but, when they looked into the figures the County Councils Association came to the conclusion, not only that there would be no grant for medical inspection at all, but that the grants that were going to be given would not be sufficient to cover the services of the Bill, and that, so far from being better off, the majority of the county councils would be worse off than at present. A deputation from the Association waited upon Mr. Runciman, who was then Minister for Education, and laid the figures before him. Mr. Runciman made certain criticisms regarding the figures. No doubt the figures were open to criticism, because they had been prepared by different counties, and were not, of course, on precisely the same lines. When those criticisms were made we at once offered to have new figures drawn up on the one basis, and to submit them to the Board of Education, whose officials could go thoroughly into them with the officials of the County Councils Association to see whether they might be taken as fairly representing the charges that would be thrown by the Bill on the county councils. Those figures were got out and submitted to the Board of Education, who were more than once asked to allow their officials to go into them. I regret to say that they did not see their way to examine the figures or to discuss them in any way; but the effect of those figures, which I contend are now unchallenged, is that upon every county council appearing in the list. I have in my hand a considerable extra charge will be thrown. That varies in a very marked degree. The extra charge placed upon my own county if these figures are correct, and they have not been disputed, would be something over £12,000 a year, or an extra rate beyond that now being paid of something like 3d. in the £, that is a 40 per cent. increase on the rates raised for education. It is natural, therefore, that we should feel very great anxiety as to whether we are to receive assistance towards the expenses incurred for medical inspection.
I do not wish to discuss matters which are before the other House and which will be contained in the Bill now under

1399
discussion there; but as Mr. McKenna said that the grant for medical inspection must be included in the general grant given by the Government, it is absolutely necessary to see whether that grant is sufficient, not only for the purposes for which it is intended, but also to meet the charge for medical inspection. That is the position in which we now stand, and I think we have a right to press for an assurance in some form or another that a reasonable grant will be given towards the cost of medical inspection, which admittedly should be largely a national charge. My noble friend has referred to the fact that we are threatened with the loss of the education grants if we do not carry out medical inspection efficiently. We have every wish to carry out this work, but while the Government holds its hand it is difficult to persuade the ratepayers to put their hands into their pockets and find money for the purpose.
There is another Circular—No. 596— to which my noble friend did not allude. It covers nine pages, and contains not only regulations with regard to medical inspection, but an immense clause—no other word can be used—setting out what the annual report upon medical inspection is to contain. It goes in the greatest detail into every possible consideration that a medical officer ought to have in view. I need only quote one short subsection. An account is asked for of the methods of inspection adopted, including—
"General review of the relation of home circumstances and social and industrial conditions to the health and physical condition of the children inspected, so far as facts bearing on this point have come under notice."
If you take that literally, it is a report on the home life and the health of every child in every school in the county. I do not desire in the least to criticise the Report asked for. I understand from those who have the technical knowledge that it is an admirable Memorandum for the purpose with a view to what may perhaps eventually be carried out, but that it is quite impossible at the present time that the Report can go into the vast number of matters mentioned. I am informed that it is not expected that county councils should make the reports in this detail in the
1400
earlier days. Indeed, the Board of Education seem to have been satisfied of the impossibility themselves, because they say—
"As regards the scope of the Report, however, the Board consider that it is desirable that it should deal with the whole subject of school hygiene, and should cover as much as possible of the ground indicated under the following heads. It is recognised that these heads suggest a degree of comprehensiveness which in many, and indeed in most, cases will not be immediately attainable."
That qualification points out that in a great number of these matters we are not to act at once. I hope an assurance will be given that no undue severity will be used against county councils in their endeavour to carry out the requirement as to these Reports. I am sure that the work will be better done if efficiency is reached by slow degrees rather than by attempting all that may be obtainable in the future at the first moment. If there is any dissatisfaction with the heavy cost of education, the higher and scientific education, which is of the utmost importance to the country, will be certain to suffer. I have ventured to make these remarks not in any spirit of hostility. This is not a political matter in any sense, and I cordially agree with my noble friend Viscount Galway in hoping that we shall see the Bill now being discussed in the other House brought to a satisfactory issue. But, in the meanwhile, the question of finance is a most urging and pressing one, and I therefore think that this is not an inopportune moment to bring this matter to the notice of His Majesty's Government.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I have been asked to reply to the question of the noble Viscount opposite and I make no complaint whatever either of his speech or of that of the noble Lord who has just sat down. At the same time, as I shall be able to show, and as I think the noble Lord himself is aware, there are circumstances connected with the discussion in another place which make it difficult to deal quite fully with the matter this afternoon.
As the noble Viscount said, the duty of medical inspection is thrown upon

1401
the local education authority by Section 13 of the Administrative Provisions Act, which we passed with great unanimity of feeling last year. The noble Viscount seemed to me rather to belong to the school which regarded this not so much as a matter of education as of public health, and I believe there have been all through people who thought that this burden never ought to have been placed on the education rate at all, and that the duty ought, in some form or another, to have been placed on the public health authority. However that may be, and I confess I do not agree with that view, in any case it would have caused great administrative inconvenience in the counties, because there, as we all know, the health authority is not the same as the education authority, and you would have started dual control of a very inconvenient kind. I might point out in addition that even before the Act of 1902 a good deal of very effective medical inspection had been carried out by school boards, and it was generally considered that it was rather a matter for the education authority than for the public health authority; that being so, it is clear that in the first instance, whatever may be done afterwards, the cost must fall on the education rate.
During the current year, as I understand, there has been a considerable outcry on the part of local authorities at the prospect of this expenditure falling upon the rates, and the whole matter has to be considered in connection with what has been said as to increased grants on behalf of the Board of Education by the former President. Your lordships will remember that early in this year—I think it was in March— Mr. McKenna issued a White Paper explaining the financial proposals of the Education Bill of 1908. The general effect was that the seven, I think they are, different kinds of grants now given to schools should be amalgamated, and only a single grant given. Mr. McKenna, made it quite clear, when he was approached by deputations on the question of this medical inspection, that if help was to be given from central funds for that purpose it must be given in the general grant, and that it was not the intention of the Government to start a special
1402
grant for that purpose. Indeed, I think it stands to reason that the moment at which you are doing away with the multiplied grants would be an unfortunate moment at which to start a new and separate grant distinct from the general grant.
Then, as your Lordships are aware, the Education Bill came to a pause, and in those circumstances the outcry of the local authorities naturally increased. The financial proposals were part of Mr. McKenna's Bill, and it seemed as though, if that Bill did not go through, the financial proposals would not go through either. Since then, however, as your Lordships all know, the situation has changed, and the financial proposals equally form part of the present Bill; and it is this fact which makes it difficult for me to enter into any financial details on the present occasion. I understand that the clause which embodies them will be considered, according to the allotment of business in another place, on Monday next, when the whole of this matter will be argued out. Therefore, I think noble Lords will see that it would be impossible for me to enter to-day into any detail with regard to the proposed grant. When Mr. Runciman's statement has been made it will be clearly open to the noble Viscount or the noble Lord to reopen the matter at any time on the question of the inadequacy of the grant to meet this particular charge. It is generally admitted—I think the Board of Education fully admit it—that this medical inspection, if properly carried out, must involve a new burden on the local authorities; but many of the figures quoted on the subject have been undoubtedly greatly exaggerated. The noble Lord mentioned, I think, the figure of £12,000 for Nottinghamshire—or was it £18,000?
LORD BELPER: The figure was £12,000. But that is not for medical inspection. Medical inspection was mixed up by Mr. McKenna with the whole of the grants. He said that the total grant would be more than enough to meet the expenditure and leave a great deal to spare. We say that we shall get £12,000 less in Nottinghamshire.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am glad to hear the noble Lord's explanation. I understood him to say that the amount chargeable in respect of medical inspection in Nottinghamshire would be £12,000 a year, which seemed to me a rather fanciful estimate. Although I can quite understand the anxiety of the county councils upon it, the matter is not actually an urgent one, because the amount expended anywhere in respect of the present financial year can only be very small. Very few, I think, of the local authorities got to work much before the middle of this year, and therefore the whole matter will be settled, we assume, by the new grant, whether noble Lords think it adequate or not, in the next financial proposals. The matter consequently is not, in point of cash, so immediately urgent as might have been supposed from the speeches of the noble Lords. On the question of exaggeration, a deputation from a great county borough which waited upon the Board of Education said medical inspection there would cost 2s. 9d. per child; but when they undertook it on a larger scale than was supposed to be covered by that sum the cost was somewhere between 6d. and 1s. Therefore I think we may venture to hope that some of the fears of local authorities as to the charges which are likely to be made under this head are somewhat groundless.
LORD BELPER: The cost of medical inspection, taken in the whole of the counties, is 1s. per child. That is for next year.
THE EARL OF CREWE: It is worked out for next year at 1s. per child?
LORD BELPER: Yes.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Exactly. The estimate that is made for the whole country is a farthing rate. It is perfectly true that in some districts the charge may be relatively higher than in other places. I am afraid that is all I can say, because it is quite clear that we cannot, in the present position of the Bill in another place, discuss anything in the nature of actual figures. But I can assure the noble Viscount that the Board of Education are fully aware of the importance
1404
of this subject, and they do recognise the fact that a very substantial charge must be placed upon local authorities by the Act of last year. I do not entirely follow the complaint of the noble Viscount as to the effect of this being regarded as a test of the efficiency of the school. If the noble Viscount looks at the Act he will see that, under subsection (1) of Section 3, it is the duty of the local authority to provide for the medical inspection of children under the conditions which the noble Viscount read. Well, if it is a duty and that duty is neglected, the Board of Education, I should have thought, could only show its sense of the fact that the duty had been neglected in the manner of which the noble Viscount complains. We cannot regard the whole business as being distinct from education for the reasons I have stated; and, that being so, it seems to me that the Board of Education is entirely justified in taking the view which the noble Viscount thinks an unreasonable one. I have nothing to add, beyond assuring noble Lords once more that the Board of Education is fully aware of the position, and that in considering the amount of the grant this question of medical inspection will be borne in mind.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, nobody will doubt the sympathetic tone with which the noble Earl has just spoken, but the fact that he has to defer to a future day anything beyond an academic expression of sympathy is not at all encouraging, and my noble friend Viscount Galway can hardly be expected to let the matter drop with any feeling of complacency and satisfaction. I do not know whether it is of any use; but I have, on one or two occasions, ventured to invite the attention of the House to the extraordinary anomaly of placing additional charges on local authorities without any previous consideration having been given as to how they are to be met. I speak with some feeling on this subject, because within the last few weeks the London County Council have had to pass a very large vote for an increase of staff, I think even for this year, amounting to something like £10,000, in order to begin to carry out this very heavy, though probably very desirable, duty.

1405
I ask your Lordships to consider the very different manner in which the public exchequer is protected as compared with the local exchequer. A Bill which even takes a ten-pound note out of the public exchequer has to be brought in in Committee of Supply; those provisions which involve a charge on the exchequer have to be specially underlined, and the House of Commons considers that point before it proceeds to the general consideration of the Bill. But when a measure is proposed which lays a considerable charge on local authorities it very often slips through Parliament without consideration, or, at all events, without the smallest estimate being asked for as to whether the charge is to amount to a 1d. rate, a 2d. rate, or a much higher rate. The House should bear in mind the enormous indebtedness of the local authorities, and the great pressure already existing on the rates. Some policy should be adopted of bringing these measures forward in a special manner before the notice of Parliament, and they should not be allowed to pass without being referred to a special Committee with orders to report as to the likely incidence of the charge. The medical inspection of school children, especially in view of the statistics which have been laid before us, is a matter of national moment and probably a national necessity; obviously, therefore, it should be a national and not a local charge. I did not rise to do more than throw out the suggestion I have made.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a minute, but I rise to reply to the statement of the noble Earl the Leader of the House that he could not understand our particular grievance in objecting to the Board of Education taking neglect on the part of the local education authority to have a proper system of medical inspection as a test of the efficiency of the school. The noble Earl said the duty is cast on the local education authority to do this, and therefore it is quite proper that the grant given to them should be stopped if they fail in their duty. But our grievance is this, that this duty was cast upon us because it was the most convenient way of having medical in-
1406
spection carried out. It was admitted on all hands that the object of the inspection was not purely educational, but partly national; therefore, it was something quite distinct from anything which the local education authorities ever thought to be part of their duty in providing educational instruction in the schools. The grants which have up to this point been given have been awarded invariably for educational work done in the schools or for the educational efficiency of the buildings themselves, and it is very hard that neglect of this new duty cast upon local education authorities should be met by taking off a grant which was given for a totally different purpose. We entirely deny that medical inspection is a form of education; it is a duty cast upon us for the national good, and we maintain that the National Exchequer should assist us, and that the Department should not adopt the expedient of cutting off grants for which services have been already rendered.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, although we have not obtained quite as satisfactory an answer from the noble Earl as we should have wished, we at any rate have the admission that this work of medical inspection does demand some contribution from the National Exchequer. As to stopping the grant in respect of the efficiency of the school, I should like to have had some assurance that in the present transition stage there will be no question of withdrawing the grant from county councils, at any rate for another year, while they are appointing inspectors to carry out this work.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, the question which the noble Viscount opposite has brought before the House, and in regard to which he has received the support of my noble friend who is chairman of the County Councils Association, is undoubtedly one worthy of the attention of Parliament; but the Government feel that owing to the course of business, especially in regard to education, they are not in a position to make a statement in every way as satisfactory as could be wished. Naturally, it was our hope that the financial proposals which were an integral part of the

1407
educational proposals of the Government might, with others, have received the sanction of Parliament, and in that case the matter, even if it had been urgent, still would not have been as urgent as undoubtedly it is at the present moment in the eyes of local education authorities. I certainly can say that, in regard to the policy of the immediate future, the Board of Education will bear in mind the financial complications of this matter. At the same time, we feel that physical training, of which medical inspection is really at the root, is a matter of great urgency and importance, in some ways as important almost as education itself. Indeed, the two things are so closely connected from a scientific point of view that it is not necessary for me to labour that point. I think this particular question has also been unfortunate in that it has arrived in the world of local finance at the same time as other questions which have not been the result of the policy of the Government or of any desire on the part of the local authorities themselves to spend more money upon what may be called ancient services, but which have been entirely due to causes beyond the control of Parliament and the local authorities. I refer to such matters as the greatly increased cost of the upkeep of roads and highways. This additional expenditure, coming simultaneously with the increase in educational charges, has exasperated the local authorities, and I could only wish that the whole situation was more under the control of the Government than it is. But, clearly, the great increase in the cost of the upkeep of our roads through motor and similar traffic is not a matter for which the Government has any responsibility. I am afraid that what I am saving is rather cold comfort; but noble Lords opposite know that, as a former chairman of a county council, I am entirely in sympathy with them, and I can assure them that in regard to the immediate future the Board of Education will do its best to recognise the difficulties of local education authorities in the matter.

INCEST BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I think I shall best commend this Bill, the subject of which is of a very painful and distressing nature, by self-restraint and reserve rather than by any force of words. The object of the Bill is to make incest what it is in Scotland, what it is in a number of our Colonies, what it is in certain of the States of America and in a large number of civilised countries, but what at the present moment it is not in England—a crime.
The Bill enacts that any male person who has carnal knowledge of a female person, who is to his knowledge his granddaughter, daughter, sister, or mother, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and upon conviction thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the Judge of Assize, to be kept in penal servitude for any term not less than three years, and not exceeding seven years, or to be imprisoned for any time not exceeding two years with or without hard labour. All else is detail, which can be better discussed in Committee than on Second Reading. The special reason for introducing the Bill, which has already passed the House of Commons, is the great frequency of incest. It appears, from a communication made to the Home Office by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, that the society has records of no less than forty-two cases brought to their notice in the last twelve months, some of which are described as being of the most appalling nature. The Home Office, I am also informed, has been told that the Birmingham education authority know of eleven cases of persons living under these circumstances at present in that city, ten being cases of father and daughter and one of brother and sister. I am further told that, as regards cases of rape and carnal knowledge of girls which came before the Home Office on petitions for remission of sentence, it was found that in no fewer than fifty-one out of 193 cases the criminal intercourse was incestuous. Thirty-six cases have also come to the notice of the Metropolitan Police alone, and twelve to the notice of the Liverpool police.
I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice would have been able to be present to-night to support this Bill. He is, however,

1409
detained at the Assizes at Birmingham, but he has sent me this telegram—
"You can state that I support the Bill. I have received and sent to the Home Secretary presentments of grand juries pointing out the urgent necessity for an amendment of the law, in consequence of the frequency of assaults by fathers on their daughters."
These, my Lords, are facts which speak for themselves, and, I venture to think, justify this Bill. There are objections which might, perhaps, be taken, such as the objection to the evil of publication; but I am told that in Scotland, where incest has been a crime for more than three centuries, the newspapers treat these cases with very great discretion and that no real evil has arisen. It may be said, again, that this would offer opportunity for blackmail. I reply that this is not the experience of Scotland; and, further, if this is to be made a reason of itself against the Bill it is surely a reason also against dealing with any of the offences included in the Criminal Law Amendment Act. I venture to think that the frequency of this terrible form of crime, as I hope it will be now formally made in England, justifies this measure; and, without further language, I will move its Second Reading, in the hope that the Bill, which has passed through the other House with the good wishes of both sides, may receive similar treatment at your Lordships' hands.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of St. Albans.)
THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I think all your Lordships will agree that we owe a very great debt of gratitude to the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken. As he very rightly said, this is not a pleasant topic or one which any member of your Lordships' House would wish to discuss at length. My chief object in rising is to say that while His Majesty's Government do not think this is a matter which they would be justified in bringing to your Lordships' notice or taking full responsibility for, yet the Home Secretary and the Home Office hope that your Lordships will see your way to pass the Bill into law. They are convinced of the necessity for legislation to deal with this evil, and, there-
1410
fore, they hope the Bill may become law during the present session. I do not know that it is necessary to add much to what was said by the right rev. Prelate, but this, however, I might say. In a certain number of crimes of a similar character it might be argued that it would be desirable not to take steps with regard to them, because they affect nobody but those immediately concerned; but your Lordships will see that that is not the case with regard to crimes of this character, and that there are, as the result of intercourse between the various people mentioned in the Bill, offspring on whom the punishment chiefly falls. In these circumstances I venture to hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the mischief aimed at by this Bill, is one which your Lordships must all admit to be a very serious and grave one; and not in this House, or I should think anywhere in the country, are there two opinions as to the desirability of reducing that mischief. But, personally, I have some little hesitation in feeling certain that a Bill which turns this particular mischief into a crime in the eyes of the law will necessarily reduce it. I do not know the statistics, but I cannot help thinking that the amount of the mischief is really very small, and that in the great majority of families in this country such a mischief as is aimed at by this Bill never enters into the heads of anyone. Newspapers may exercise, in regard to trials of this kind, a very proper discretion, but you have people in Court, the jury and neighbours, and there is the danger of something which had never entered the heads of people being put there by proceedings of this kind. I think I remember that the noble and learned Earl the ex-Lord Chancellor used sometimes to express doubts as to the wisdom of legislation of this character. I agree that this particular Bill, if it is desired to deal with the matter by legislation, is drawn in what I venture to say respectfully is, perhaps, the best possible way that it could be drawn, and meets the mischief in the best possible manner; and in the subsidiary clauses, as to the custody of the children, I am sure your

1411
Lordships must all concur. I cannot help myself feeling some doubt as to whether the measure will in the end prove remedial. The matter is one which it is obviously difficult to discuss, but I would venture to suggest that if the Bill is read a second time it should be sent to a Select Committee, so that the evidence of those who have to deal with the administration of the law may be obtained as to the best way of dealing with this matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I rise to state in two or three words my own view about this matter. I do hope that, whatever the House does, it will not send this Bill to a Select Committee. That would only mean the destruction of the Bill by a side wind. If it is wrong, it is much better to throw it out now and be done with it. The question is whether this will be an effective remedy. There is no other remedy known to the law except to punish people who commit acts which are considered to be crimes. I cannot help thinking that it is better that the community should stigmatise as a crime that which is a crime in substance, seeing that it produces not only moral depravity but also physical deterioration. I hope your Lordships will see your way to give the Bill a Second Reading.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I wish to add one word to what has fallen from other speakers on this Bill. The course of legislation dealing with this exceedingly unpleasant subject has been a peculiar one. A Bill was introduced in the last Parliament by the noble Earl opposite, Lord Donoughmore. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, rose, I think at once, and strongly objected to the Second Reading of the Bill—I have every reason to believe he still maintains that opinion—and a general agreement was expressed in the House that it should not be proceeded with. Therefore, the practical unanimity with which the Bill has been received on this occasion is, in itself, perhaps, rather singular. I somewhat differ, with great respect, from my right hon. friend the Home Secretary, as regards the advantage of passing a measure of this
1412
kind, mainly on the ground that I am under the impression that a very large proportion of the cases—90 per cent. or more—can already be dealt with either under the Cruelty to Children Acts or under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. I also to some extent share the opinion expressed by the noble Earl behind me. I do not, however, desire to oppose the Second Reading. Perhaps this is one of the cases where the Bill might with advantage go to the Standing Committee, where its consideration could be more freely and profitably carried on than in Committee of the Whole House. I therefore hope the Bill will be allowed to go to the Standing Committee when the time comes.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

THE ALIENS ACT.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORErose "to call attention to the administration of the Aliens Act; and to move for Papers." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have not placed this notice on the Paper with the intention of in any way raising the policy of the Aliens Act, or troubling your Lordships with any lengthy observations upon the general question of whether or not we should exclude aliens from this country. I rather wish to take the view that the Act is on the Statute-book, and that it is one of the few great Acts of their predecessors which His Majesty's Government are not busily attempting to modify by new legislation. I therefore accept the Act as a starting point. I do not desire in any way to go into its merits. At the same time I am sure noble Lords opposite will allow me to say that a new theory has been imported into the administration of this country during the last few years. I do not think the Home Office were the originators of it. I think the Irish Office can claim that distinction. But a new idea seems to be abroad that it is the duty of the Government not to administer Acts as they find them, but in a way as favourable as possible to their own personal opinions, even though it may be contrary

1413
to the intentions of Parliament. That is what has taken place undoubtedly in the case of the Aliens Act. In fact, by its administration it has been turned into a farce.
May I, very briefly, remind your Lordships of what is, after all, the salient point in the working of the Act? One of its most important clauses defined an immigrant ship—and the Act applies to no ship that is not an immigrant ship—as a ship arriving with twenty steerage passengers or such smaller number as the Secretary of State for the Home Department should determine. Inquiries made between the passing of the Act and the coming into office of the present Administration evidently convinced the Secretary of State for the time that twenty was too large a number if the Act was to be made effective, and twelve was therefore substituted. That was in December, 1905; but in March of the following year the present Home Secretary changed the number again to twenty. Thus all that the most criminal or most diseased alien has got to do is to wait in one of the large ports abroad and keep his eye steadily glued on vessels leaving for England, and when he finds a ship leaving with only eighteen steerage passengers he can join it, knowing that the Act would be unable to keep him out of this country. The result has been that the traffic has been regularly organised, and whereas the sheep, as I may describe the desirable aliens according to the Act, are fully inspected by medical and immigration officers, the goats—those aliens whom it is known are unlikely to pass such inspection— are sent over to this country in batches of nineteen or less, and in that case the medical officer makes a merely formal examination of them, and there is absolutely no power of rejection.
According to the latest Return, 61,758 aliens arrived in this country last year, a decrease of 2,555 as compared with the total for 1906. Owing to the fact that 20,564 arrived in non-immigrant vessels, the number inspected was 41,194, a decrease of 3,089 as compared with the number inspected in the previous year. Of 6,143 passengers who arrived in London only 2,354 were inspected, more than one-
1414
half of the total number having arrived in non-immigrant ships. The result must be that large numbers of aliens are coming in whom the Act was intended to exclude and who ought to be excluded in the interests of the community.
Two cases will show how the Act is working. The first was the well-known case of twenty-six German gipsies who, having been rejected at Hartlepool, left, and, dividing themselves into two parties of fourteen and twelve respectively, landed at Leith about two years ago. The Secretary of State, when questioned on the subject in the House of Commons, pointed out that the objectionable practice on the part of shipowners of dividing a party in order to secure entry was contrary to the spirit of the Act, and as regards the ships of the firm concerned, the Secretary of State cut down the number from twenty to two, and claimed that his action in that case prevented any further entry of undesirables. Those twenty-six persons, who had been stamped by the officers at Hartlepool as undesirables, roamed about the country, causing a nuisance in many places and putting the local authorities to considerable expense. In Cheshire it was found necessary to tell of? 159 policemen for special duty in regard to aliens who had been allowed to land before the Home Secretary's Special Order was issued. The country has been saddled with the presence of these aliens, who could and should have been kept out if the Act had been carried out in a proper spirit, and twelve had been allowed to remain the number of steerage passengers constituting a vessel an immigrant ship. The second case is known as the Hull case, and in that instance four Russian-Jew immigrants who had been refused permission to land were promptly landed from a non-immigrant ship. The Home Secretary stated that he had little doubt that such a practice was carried on in a, systematic way at Hull, and he told us that it was engaging his attention. So far as we know, it is still engaging his attention, and presumably this infamous practice still remains possible.
The only remedy is to cut down the number of steerage passengers who constitute the vessel carrying them an immigrant ship, and render the passengers

1415
subject to inspection in accordance with the Act. In regard to the Leith case, the Secretary of State claimed that by cutting down the number from twenty to two any further entry of these undesirables has been prevented; and I submit that there is no reason for the Government refusing to adopt a similar procedure in all the ports in the kingdom to which this Act applies.
Moved, "That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the administration of the Aliens Act."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the noble Earl has directed attention to one feature in the administration of the Aliens Act, and to one alone. There is, however, another feature in connection with which, I hope, he thinks His Majesty's Government does deserve some credit. I allude to that part of the Act which has reference to the deportation of aliens whose expulsion has been recommended by various Courts of justice throughout the country. I hope the noble Earl will kindly look at the Reports which have been laid on the Table of your Lordships' House, and I am sure he will be satisfied with the action taken by the Home Office in that regard. Admittedly, prevention is better than cure; but if aliens want to enter this country, it is possible for them to find more than one way of evading the Act. Take, for instance, the case of first-class passengers. First-class passengers can enter without let or hindrance, for the provisions in the Aliens Act apply only to steerage passengers. I cannot help being struck by the fact that the noble Earl has mentioned the cases of only thirty undesirable people having come into the country during the period of two years and nine months that the Act has been in force. With regard to the case of the German gipsies, I would point out that there is no immigration officer or medical inspector at Hartlepool, because it is not an immigration port, and therefore those gipsies could not have been stamped there as undesirables. But supposing the course recommended by the noble Earl had been taken and the number of passengers reduced from twenty to twelve, it would still have been
1416
possible for those gipsies to have divided themselves into three parties instead of two and thus to have evaded the Act. It is perfectly true that the Secretary of State made an order reducing the number to two in the case of a particular line of steamers, and I think the action of my right hon. friend in that case shows that it is within the power, and that it is the desire of the Secretary of State to prevent such aliens from coming into this country. I am informed that these gipsies to whom the noble Earl referred have all since left the country. In the case of the systematic importation of destitute alien to Hull from a particular port abroad on a particular line of ships, the Home Secretary has been enabled to take such steps as have led to the cessation of that traffic. The fact is that the machinery of this Act, with its constant statistics which are always coming to the notice of the Home Office, enables the Secretary of State to keep in touch with the constantly varying features of this alien traffic, and to strike whenever any necessity is really shown. I think we may fairly claim, on behalf of the Government, that the Home Secretary has exercised his powers fairly and fully, and, I hope, to the entire satisfaction of the two Houses of Parliament.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, as far as I understood the speech of my noble friend who initiated this discussion the two specific cases that he raised were given as instances, and not as in any sense a representation of what is really happening. The noble Earl the Lord Steward has not, I venture to say, given any reason why the Home Office regulation should not have fixed, if not two, at any rate twelve, as the number under the clause in question. I find, from a perusal of the figures, that in certain ports of the kingdom the proportion of immigrants who come in in non-immigrant ships is larger than it was, and that in some cases there are actually more immigrants coming in in non-immigrant ships than in immigrant ships. The Home Office have only to alter the number in order to turn these nonimmigrant ships into immigrant ships and thus have these people investigated. There is, too, a distinct increase in the number of aliens to whom poor law

1417
relief has been granted, and in particular there is a large proportionate increase in the number of aliens of unsound mind who pass through the hands of the Poor Law authorities. Are not those the kind of undesirable aliens for instance of whose entry the Lord Steward asked? I cannot help thinking that at this particular time, when unemployment is so serious a question that His Majesty's Government are driven to adopt special measures to deal with it, the Government have at least one remedy for that evil to their hand, for they can, by a stroke of the pen, render ships which are non-immigrant ships, whose undesirable aliens are not properly investigated, immigrant ships, whose passengers could be investigated. It might be that you would not thereby keep out a great many more, but perhaps you would. It is a mere matter of administration; and surely His Majesty's Government might try it. It does not conflict with any principle, but is, as I have said, merely a question of altering the number by a stroke of the pen; and I venture to think the noble Earl has given no reason why, in the present state of affairs, the Government should not take this very simple and obvious step. It might do some good, and obviously it could not do any harm.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the noble Earl who represents the Home Office may very fairly take credit for the manner in which the Act has been used for what always seemed to me one of its most valuable objects—the expulsion of undesirable people who had settled in this country. With regard to the turning back of such persons when attempting to land on these shores, I think my two noble friends have shown that there is reason to suppose that a little more vigilance is required than has yet been exercised. It is, of course, true that many people disliked the Aliens Act and were doubtful as to the wisdom of any measure of the kind. But, now that it is on the Statute-book, it seems to me obvious that it should be administered in such a way as to make it really effectual for the purpose for which it was designed. And, at this moment, there does seem to be something almost farcical in the
1418
way in which the Act is put into operation. You have a state of things under which the same individual can be turned back if he happens to form one of a party of twenty-one persons, but cannot be turned back if he happens to form one of a party of nineteen. And then, again, as I understand it, the same ship becomes an immigrant ship if she happens to have twenty steerage passengers, whereas she ceases to be an immigrant ship if, on the next voyage, she has only fourteen or fifteen. I do not say it is very easy to deal with these points, but I do think that just now, in particular, the matter should be watched, because, obviously, it is not beyond the power of these people, and of those who endeavour to land them in this country, so to organise the traffic that they will altogether elude the meshes of the Aliens Act. I do not know that we can take the matter further this evening. I would only express my hope that the evidence that has been produced will be carefully considered by the Home Office, and that whatever can be done to meet this difficulty will be done.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE, who had the following Question on the Paper—namely: "To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what Government measures are likely to be submitted to this House during the remaining days of the session; and whether he is able to state approximately the amount of time which His Majesty's Government propose to allot to each of those measures"—said: My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl to whom I am going to address this Question will complain of me on the ground that it is in any way irrelevant or even premature. Indeed, many of my noble friends on this side of the House have, I know, for some time past, been extremely anxious that information should be elicited from His Majesty's Government as to the probable course of events during the remainder of the session, but I certainly felt that, so long as the Licensing Bill was still in suspense, it was not fair to invite His Majesty's Government to make any statement of the kind to the

1419
House. Now, however, we are able to count the measures which still remain undisposed of, and, also, to count the days which will be available for dealing with them on the assumption which, I notice, is freely made out-of-doors, that the appropriate date for prorogation will fall before the arrival of Christmas.
I see that, of the Bills mentioned in the King's Speech, the following have still to come before your Lordships' House. In the first place, there is the Education Bill, which, of course, is not the Bill which came before Parliament earlier in the session, but an entirely new measure of which we are all aware. Then there is the Bill dealing with the hours of labour in coal mines. There is a Bill dealing with the Housing of the Working Classes and Town Planning. That, I may mention, is a Bill covering thirty-three pages besides six schedules—a Bill in which many of your Lordships take a great interest. There is the Port of London Bill—another very lengthy Bill, covering fifty-three pages and dealing with an expenditure of no less than twenty-three millions of money. Besides these, there is a Bill dealing with the Irish land question, and there are the two Scottish Bills which were revived this year— the Bills which your Lordships dealt with during the last session of Parliament. And to these there have been added several other Bills, one dealing with Scottish Education, one with the Prevention of Crime, and a Bill dealing with the use of White Phosphorous, in which, I am told, much interest is taken. The only Government measure which is now down on your Lordships' Paper is the Scottish Education Bill, which, I understand, will come on. on Monday next. According to my calculations, and on the assumption which I made just now, there will be thirteen working days left for this House between Monday next and Christmas Eve, and what I wish to elicit from His Majesty's Government is some information as to the manner in which those few days are to be turned to account.
I will venture to make one or two observations. In the first place with regard to the Education Bill. This is a Bill which, I will take it upon myself to say, is regarded in this House with the most intense interest. The subject
1420
is one with which your Lordships have had a great deal to do, and this particular Bill, I might almost say, had its origin in this House, because I doubt extremely whether we should ever have heard of it had it not been for the initiative of the most rev. Primate, whose efforts to bring about an amicable settlement of this difficult question have elicited the sincere admiration even of those who do not entirely agree with him. I am told that the earliest date on which the Education Bill can come up to your Lordships' House is Monday, the 14th of this month. The usual sources of information acquaint us that upon that evening the Secretary of State for India intends to make a statement of the very utmost importance to your Lordships, but, assuming that the Secretary of State's statement does not prevent our commencing operations with the Education Bill, I do not think it is too much to assume—indeed, I do not know whether I have any right to make such an assumption—that the Education Bill, if it is to be at all discussed, would take the whole of that week. It comes to us recommended as an amicable settlement of the education question, and for that reason we shall all of us, no doubt, approach it with a favourable predisposition. But we shall most certainly expect to have time to consider it fully and to discuss it, not only in the debate on Second Reading, but on the Committee stage. Therefore, I think I am not making an extravagant assumption, when I assume that at least the whole of the week beginning 14th December will be required for the Education Bill.
How, then, shall we stand at the beginning of the following week—Monday, the 21st? We shall be within four days of Christmas Eve, and we shall still have to deal with the whole of the other Bills I have mentioned—the Coal Mines Bill, the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, the Port of London Bill; I do not refer to the Irish Land Bill because, I take it, it is not seriously intended that it should be persevered with at present. It is, I think, pretty obvious that it will be a physical impossibility for your Lordships' House, even if we proceed with the extraordinary expedition which sometimes characterises

1421
our debates at the end of the session, to undertake the consideration of all these important measures, and I want to ask the noble Earl whether he can tell us how His Majesty's Government suggest we should proceed. They must obviously have had this matter under their consideration. They must have plans of some kind of their own. We have had in the past many protests and many promises in regard to this subject, but I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that at this moment the prospect is more hopeless than it has ever been towards the end of a session. We were asked to meet again in the autumn with the idea of giving more time to the discussion of public business. The only result, so far as I can see, is that still further measures have been added to those which were already before Parliament, and that the congestion of business, instead of being less, is greater than it was before.
I can assure the noble Earl opposite that I raise this question without any desire to make party capital out of it. The difficulty is one which confronts noble Lords opposite at this moment, but it is a difficulty which has confronted, and must confront again whatever Government is in power. It arises from several causes. One of these, if I may say so without disrespect, is the voracious appetite for legislation which prevails at the time in which we live—an appetite which the Government of the day must endeavour to some extent to satisfy. Another cause is the extreme length and complexity of the Bills which are presented to Parliament. That, again, is perhaps, inevitable, because it seems to me to stand to reason that the more Bills you place upon the Statute-book the more complex and intricate become the Bills which succeed them, and which, in most cases, amend or modify them. And in the third place there is another obvious cause, which is the desire of Members of, Parliament in both Houses, to take more part than they used to do in the discussion of public business. I say, therefore, that both parties are interested in discovering some means of relieving this congestion, this intolerable pressure, which arises year after year, and, although
1422
this is not the occasion for making suggestions—it would not be our business to make them—I will take upon myself to say that I do not believe that it should be beyond the power of Parliament to discover some means of solving this difficulty. I observed the other day that a distinguished colleague of the noble Earl, the Irish Secretary, made an intimation to the effect that if any Bills were to be carried over this session he expected his Bill, the Irish Land Bill, to be carried over. I do not know whether that revealed a glimpse of the intentions of His Majesty's Government —I do not pursue that suggestion further—but I am deeply convinced that, if both Houses and both political parties set their minds to it, it should be possible to discover some reasonable means of relieving Parliament of the necessity of doing twice over, in two successive sessions, work which has been done in the previous session, and of, at any rate, relieving this House from what I think I have before described as the scandalous situation in which we too often find ourselves placed in the expiring days of the session.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am afraid I am not able to give a very full reply to the Question asked by the noble Marquess for reasons which I will explain in a moment. I desire to say at once that, in my judgment, nothing could have been fairer than the tone or temper in which the noble Marquess has approached the subject, which is itself one, as we all know, of extreme difficulty. In regard to the work at the moment it is the case, as the noble Marquess has said, that the Scottish Bill is the only Government Bill of any importance which is likely to be before the House in the immediate future. The Second Reading has been put down for Monday next. Therefore, this week and next are not fully occupied. The noble Marquess has supplied a reason for that in alluding to what I cannot help thinking he somewhat facetiously called the state of suspense in which the Licensing Bill was supposed to be. These are the days in which you would naturally have been giving consideration to that Bill in Committee had it passed a Second Reading. Unfortunately, as I have

1423
said, I am not able to give a full account because I cannot anticipate the statement which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister will make in another place, and which, I understand, he may not be able to make this week. But I can say that, in addition to the Scottish Bill, I should hope that the Port of London Bill will reach its last stage in another place some time in the middle of next week, and it will then, of course, be available for our discussion. If the Education Bill finds a successful passage through another place it would be read there a third time on Saturday, the 12th, and a sitting would be held here to read it a first time upon that afternoon. That would enable the Second Reading to be taken on Tuesday, the 15th. I do not quarrel with the noble Marquess for saying that at any rate the greater part of that week, even if we were to sit, as I think the House might be disposed to do, both on Friday and on Saturday, if necessary, would have to be given to the discussion of the Education Bill. At the same time I think it is reasonable to point out that the subject is so exceedingly familiar to the House from the various occasions on which it has been discussed here, that discussion upon it ought to pass more rapidly than would naturally be the case with a Bill of that length and importance. At any rate the whole terminology is known to everybody—even to the point, I should imagine, of disgust—and discussion may therefore be fairly supposed to be more concentrated than would otherwise be the ca8e. I am not in a position to-day to mention any more measures. It is perfectly true, as the noble Marquess points out, that all the measures mentioned in the King's Speech cannot possibly become law during the present session. It is, of course, our hope and desire that the prorogation should take place before Christmas, and supposing we sat on Friday and Saturday, it would leave nine working days from Monday, the 14th. I can at this moment only leave it to noble Lords to imagine how much more work besides the Education Bill can be included in those nine days.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, these discussions upon the time which is available for business have long ago
1424
lost the attraction of novelty for me, as I presume they have for everybody else. I have sat in this House now for ten years, and I have a distinct recollection of hearing similar speeches made from both sides once if not twice in the course of the year. The only difference between the discussion on this occasion and similar discussions in previous years is that what I would venture to call the Parliamentary harlequinade is to take place at a more appropriate season than usual. There is only one really effective means of dealing with a situation of this kind. I do, as a matter of fact, remember one occasion on which it was effectively dealt with, when noble Lords on the other side of the House succeeded, much to their credit, in talking out the Finance Bill. But there is a heroic method by which the difficulty can be confronted if necessary. I would remind the House of a Resolution unanimously passed by your Lordships' House on 6th April, 1905. It ran—
"That this House, recognising its duties as a deliberative Assembly, protests against the practice of introducing Bills into it under conditions which afford insufficient time for their consideration, and declares its intention to refuse to consider any Bill unless sufficient opportunity be afforded for due deliberation thereon."
This appears to me to be an admirable occasion on which to put this Resolution into force. There is one important measure in the Government programme in which I take a personal interest. It is the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill. The noble Earl has preserved a judicious silence about the fate of that measure, and I would be much obliged if, before we separate, some light could be thrown on what is likely to happen to it. I do not wish to add my voice to the general grumble on this occasion, but I would venture to point out that there is no use in passing blood-and-thunder Resolutions of this kind unless you are prepared to act up to them. At the present moment I am afraid that if we were to act up to this Resolution our attitude would be liable to misrepresentation. We should be accused of being actuated not so much by want of time as by want of sympathy with the measures brought up. But if we on this side do ever sit upon the opposite side of the House again, I hope we shall act in a

1425
different way, and that if our own party send up Bills of great importance in the last days of the session, allowing practically not much more than a few minutes apiece for consideration, we shall decline to consider them. I submit that it is not much use making these protests unless we are in earnest, and the best way of showing that we are in earnest is to pursue when we are in office the policy I have indicated.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, one Bill has entirely escaped notice. I refer to the measure to consolidate the Agricultural Holdings Acts of Scotland, which has been down for some time on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture. I think the fate of that Bill can be decided pretty easily one way or the other. I understand it has not been through the other House of Parliament, and it is not entirely a Consolidating Bill, there being new matter in it. In these circumstances, I suggest that either the Bill should have been brought on for consideration in this House before now, or we should be told that it is not to be carried through this session.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I will bring the matter to the notice of my noble friend, who, I am sorry to say, is not in his place to-day.
LORD NEWTON: What is the position of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill?
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid I am not in a position to inform the noble Lord. I should be very glad to, if I could.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.