Sitting of 24 February 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
New Writ for the Borough of Hastings, in the room of Harvey Du Cros. esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Mr. Henry Forster.)
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 62 has been complied with, viz.,:—Seaham Harbour Dock Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill the Standing Orders have not been complied

  1309
  with, viz.,:—London United Tramways.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS].
  Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the following cases, viz.:—Croydon and Southern Districts Tramways; West London, Barnes, and Richmond Tramways.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Croydon and Southern Districts Tramways [Lords]; West London, Barnes, and Richmond Tramways [Lords]
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Bromley and Grays Gas Bill; Draycott Gas Bill; Gosport Gas Bill; Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill; North Eastern Railway Bill; Southwell District Gas Bill; Tyne Improvement Bill.—Read a second time, and committed.

  MADRAS RAILWAY COMPANY (PURCHASE) [ANNUITIES].
  Resolution reported:—"That it is expedient to authorise the creation of Annuities to be charged on and payable out of the Revenues of India in lieu of the sum of money amounting to twelve million eight hundred and nineteen thousand five hundred and fifty-eight pounds, six shillings, and three pence agreed upon for the purchase by the Secretary of State in Council of India of the undertaking of the Madras Railway Company, and the payment of any costs and expenses incurred by the said
  1310
  Secretary of State under any Act of the present session for vesting the said undertaking in the said Secretary of State in Council of India, and also any costs, charges, and expenses of obtaining and passing the said Act not provided by the surplus profits arising from the said undertaking for the half-year ending the 31st day of December, 1907."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Madras Railway Company (Purchase) Bill that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.—(Sir Henry Fowler.)

PETITIONS.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation: From Brough and Bury St. Edmunds; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Batley (two); Hanwell; Ruardean Hill; and Southall; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Islington, in favour to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LAND FORCES (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 20th February, 1907; Mr. Bowles]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 67.]
  EAST INDIA (BOMBAY POLITICAL DEPARTMENT).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 26th July, 1907; Bit Seymour King]; to lie upon the Table.

  COMPENSATION ON NON-RENEWAL OF LICENCES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 10th February; Sir Thomas

  1311
  Whittaker]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 68.]

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Draft Rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Prison Act, 1898, and The Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, for the Treatment and Custody of Appellants not admitted to bill [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 69.]
  NATIONAL DEBT (SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
  Annual Account presented, for the period ended 20th November, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 70.]
PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  LUNACY.
  Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made and the number of Patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending on 31st December, 1907 [by Act].
  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing the number of National Schools in Ireland; the number of managers, clerical and lay, of the various denominations; and the forms of agreement they have executed with their teachers."—(Mr. Hugh Barrie.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Imports on Cereals.
  Mr. HAY MORGAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what quantities of the following classes of cereals were imported into this country during the year 1902–3, and what duty was paid per cwt. and in the aggregate on each class: wheat (grain), wheat (meal and flour), barley, oats, oatmeal, maize, maize meal, peas, beans, and other corn and meal.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I would refer my hon. friend to the 47th Report of the Board of Customs, for the year ended
  1312
  31st March, 1903, Command Paper 1753, which contains in Table XI., Appendix I., on pages 58 and 59, the information desired in respect of corn and grain, etc, charged with duty for home consumption from 15th April, 1902, to 31st March. 1903.

  Telegraphists and Postal Duties.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To-ask the Postmaster General whether the question of telegraphists being compelled to perform postal duties, which was discussed at a recent interview between the secretariat of the Post Office and the executive of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, is still under his consideration; and whether, pending his decision, he will instruct the surveyor for the Northampton district not to seek explanations from any individual member of the Northampton telegraph staff.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) At the interview in question the representatives of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association urged that at offices where division of the staff into postal and telegraph classes is not possible the amalgamation should be real throughout, and that opportunities should be given to each man to qualify in all the duties. Full opportunities have been given at Northampton, dating from the beginning of 1905, with the object of real amalgamation, and the postmaster of Northampton therefore acted correctly in calling for an explanation from those officers who had, in his opinion neglected the opportunities afforded them for qualifying.

  Piece Work and Day Work Rates at Hollo-way and Mount Pleasant Factory.
  Mr. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster General how many men have gone short of their day-work rate while working piece-work at Hollo-way Factory and Mount Pleasant during the last year, and the amount of their weekly loss; and will he take steps to see that a man after giving a week's work receives a full week's pay, in view of the fact that the piece-work prices are adjusted too low.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The average profit on piece-work at

  1313
  Mount Pleasant as compared with day-rates, works out at about 30 per cent.; and it does not appear, therefore, that the piece-work prices are adjusted too low. The number of men who have suffered a loss on their day-rates in any particular weeks during the past twelve months in connection with piece-work operations at the two factories is forty-five and their total losses amounted to £31 0s. 3½d. The total approximate value of piece-work performed in the same period was over £39,000, and those who sustained a loss in certain particular weeks earned on the average considerably more than their day-rate.

  County Medical Officers of Health.
  DR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any, and if any, which of the county councils in England and Wales, have not appointed a medical officer of health; whether any and if any, which county councils have appointed medical officers of health giving part time service to the duties of the office; and whether he has considered the advisability of initiating legislation requiring every county council to appoint a medical officer of health who shall not hold any other appointment or engage in private practice.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) According to the latest information in my possession there are thirty-two county councils who have not appointed a medical officer of health. The last Parliamentary Return on the subject (316 of 1904) shows that there were then twelve cases in which a county medical officer of health was not required to devote his whole time to his duties. I will send my hon. friend a list of the county councils above referred to. The matter to which he alludes in the last part of the Question is receiving my consideration.

  Overcrowding at Renfrew Road Workhouse.
  DR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the Report of the Workhouses Committee of the Lambeth Board of Guardians, stating that in the Renfrew Road Workhouse
  1314
  there were 141 beds above the certified accommodation, these beds being placed in the gangways of the dormitories, and in four of the dormitories the fire escape exits were blocked up with beds, and these exits could not be used; whether the accommodation is apportioned on a basis allowing a minimum amount of air space in respect of every person sleeping in the dormitory; whether he can state what is the air space per bed required by his Board, and the amount per bed in the overcrowded dormitories in the Renfrew Road Workhouse: whether he has any power to require the regulation amount of air space per bed being maintained; and, if so, what he intends to do in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have seen the Report referred to. There is, I regret to say, considerable overcrowding in this workhouse, but I understand that all the beds but one have now been moved from positions close to the fire escape exits. Account is taken of the minimum air space in the dormitories in certifying the accommodation, and the air space required varies according to the class of inmate. In general the Board require: 300 cubic feet for each healthy person: 500 to 700 cubic feet for each infirm person; 850 cubic feet for each ordinary sick person; 1,200 cubic feet for each sick case of a special character. The actual accommodation for which the workhouse is certified in the present case is 1,221, but I understand that in the opinion of the medical officer the dormitory space would permit of a total of 1,264 persons. It is difficult to insist on the regulation amount of air space here at the present moment; but the guardians are using every effort to find accommodation elsewhere, and I am giving very careful attention to the matter.

  Proceedings against Mr. Harry Persse.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any proceedings were instituted against Mr. Harry Persse, J.P., Woodville, Loughrea, by the Excise authorities in the year 1906 for having in his possession and using a gun without any authority to do so, and with what result; and whether Mr. Persse subsequently took out a gun licence.

  1315
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary has asked me to reply at the same time to the similar Question which the hon. Member addressed to him. I am informed that Mr. Persse was prosecuted, in April 1906, for killing game without a licence, and was fined £5. He subsequently took out a licence.

  Administration of Charity of John Wild.
  Mr. BRANCH: To ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, if his attention has been called to the administration of a charity at Edmonton, in the county of Middlesex, left by John Wild in the year 1662 for the repairs of the parish church and for distribution to certain poor residents; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made to ascertain if the present proceeds of the charity are being used in accordance with the terms of the bequests.
  (Answered by Mr. Trevelyan.) John Wild gave by his will certain property to trustees upon trust to apply the income as follows: £8 for educational purposes, £6 for apprenticing, £8 for almspeople and poor sick persons, £6 for ecclesiastical purposes, £2 for a poor person to let the water off the highways into the ditches, £3 for an audit dinner and for the trustees for their trouble, and the residue for the reparation of the parish church. The amount given for educational purposes is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners, but is under that of the Board of Education. The fixed sums given for apprenticing and ecclesiastical purposes are still applicable for those purposes. The other fixed payments are applied under a scheme of the Commissioners of 18th July, 1902, with other funds, for almspeople and pensioners. The residue of the income of the charity is applied, according to the terms of the will, for the reparation of the parish church.

  Exemption of Scottish Members of Parliament from Jury Service.
  MR. GULLAND: To ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that in Scotland Members of Parliament are liable to be summoned to serve on
  1316
  juries, though Peers and many other classes of the community, including the officers and men of the new Territorial force, are exempt from such service, and that in England Members of Parliament are exempt; and whether he will introduce legislation to remove this difference and so allow Scottish Members of Parliament to devote themselves uninterruptedly to the interests of the nation.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) The fact appear to be as stated. In the Criminal Procedure Bill, which the Government propose to bring in on an early date, I am hopeful of introducing certain provisions for the Amendment of the Law as to juries in Scotland. This may afford an opportunity of redressing the grievance complained of by my hon. friend.

  Increased Pay for Irish Sub-Postmasters.
  Mr. N. J. MURPHY: To ask the Postmaster-General, when sub-postmasters in Ireland may expect to receive an increase of salary and commission, as recommended by the Hob-house Select Committee.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have arranged to receive a deputation from the National Federation of Sub-postmasters early next month, and I hope shortly after that meeting to make an announcement on the subject of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants which affect sub-postmasters.

  Purchase of Postal Orders Free of Poundage by Sailors.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask the Postmaster General whether the privilege long accorded to men employed on His Majesty's ships of war of purchasing postal orders at their face value, free of poundage or commission, has been withdrawn; and, if so, whether with a view to encouraging home remittances, he can see his way to restore the privilege.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The privileges of the Admiralty postal order service have not been withdrawn. In order, however, to prevent an abuse of that service, the purpose of which is

  1317
  to enable seamen on the high seas to make small remittances to their friends in this country, it has recently been arranged with the Admiralty that the amount of a single remittance shall not exceed £3 3s.

  Pay of Postal Servants.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in fixing the maximum pay for postmen at Leicester at 27s., he took into account the average wages paid to other workmen in the town; and whether, in reducing the postmen's maximum to 27s., he was aware that he was bringing them on a level with unskilled labourers.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) As I stated on the Supplementary Estimates, I have adopted the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee which deal with questions of remuneration. They recommend certain scales of wages for postmen, and they also recommended reclassification of all the towns for the purpose of assigning to each its proper scale of wage, on an uniform basis, following the classification for sorting clerks and telegraphists, as modified by the reduction of the number of classes. The actual position of each town was, therefore, to depend on two factors. First, the volume of work, and secondly, on the cost of living as ascertained by the Board of Trade. In the case of Leicester the number of units of work is 1,441, which brings it into Class 2, the limits of that class as regards volume of work being 800 to 1,700 units. The index number, representing the cost of living is ninety-three, the average being 100. Leicester, therefore, remains in Class 2, and comes under the scale recommended by the Committee for that class. It is obvious that a reclassification, such as that recommended by the Committee, must lead to some towns going up in class and some down in class. But, as I have already stated, any reduction in the scale of a class applies to new entrants only and not to existing members of the class. The cost of living is ascertained by the Board of Trade, and I receive their results. But I am willing to forward to them any representations which may be made to me to show that their estimate of the
  1318
  cost of living in any particular town is unduly low or high, and to these they will give consideration. As regards the question of the maximum, I would point out that the figure of 27s. quoted by the hon. Member is not the real remuneration received. To this must be added other advantages, such as boot allowance, Sunday pay, uniform, medical attendance, pension, etc., bringing the total value up to about 36s. Further a postman obtains if well-conducted, six good-conduct stripes, equivalent to 6s. a week. His total emoluments and privileges as a postman of Class 2 should, therefore, at their maximum, be valued not at 27s., but at about 42s. It must also be remembered that his employment is regular and permanent.

  Training of Boy Artificers.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why boy artificers are being trained at such great cost whilst the number of applicants for the rating of engine-room artificer is in excess of requirements, and can be obtained at no cost to the taxpayers fully equipped for the duties likely to devlove upon them
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The system of boy artificers was established by the Admiralty of 1903 in order to obtain an alternative source of supply to that by direct entry from the shore, which is fluctuating and uncertain. The two systems were meant to run concurrently, and more than half the number required next year will be entered direct from the shore.

  Vacancies for Engine Boom Artificers.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the eleven appointments of engine-room artificers, reported to the House in June last as being vacant out of 248 allowed to certain ships and establishments, have been filled up; and what others of the total number are now vacant, and is it proposed to fill them with mechanicians.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. There are four vacancies for engine-room artificers in the submarine

  1319
  service, but volunteers to fill these vacancies have already been selected and will join on 1st March. The Answer to the third Question is in the negative.

  Irish Land Finances.
  Mr. BARBIE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects to make a statement to the House in reference to the finances of The Land Act, 1903 (Ireland).
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject, but I hope to be able to do so at an early date.

  Assistance for the Cultivation of Beet Sugar.
  MR. FELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the fact that beetroot sugar to the value of over £16,000,000 was consumed in the United Kingdom in the past year, he would be prepared to assist the persons proposing to put up factories in Suffolk and Lincolnshire for the manufacture of beet sugar by giving them the assurance that an Excise duty will not be imposed on the sugar they may produce, at any rate for a term of years.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) No, Sir.

  The Hop Industry Inquiry.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state the reference and the composition of the Select Committee on the Hop industry, which he offered during the debate on the Address, as the need for prompt action is extremely urgent.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am not able to make a statement at the present moment, but I hope that my right hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will be in a position to move for the appointment of the Committee at an early date.

  Glanders.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his attention has been called to the
  1320
  report of the inquest on James Shaw who died on 8th February from glanders, and to the evidence which stated that deaths of human beings from this disease were much more frequent than was supposed; and whether he will now make a grant to the local authorities of the country from the National Exchequer in order to facilitate the stamping out of this terrible scourge to man and beast.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I have seen accounts of the case referred to in the public Press. Under the new Order, which came into operation on the 1st proximo, the disease is now being dealt with much more effectively than in the past, and I trust that the steps which are being taken will prove efficacious in stamping it out altogether. The statutory duty of dealing with the matter rests with the local authorities, and the efficiency of the measures taken has no direct connection with the question of incidence of charge as between local and Imperial funds. This latter question must be considered on its merits in connection with the relations of local and national finance generally.

  Bonuses and Income-Tax.
  Mr. WATT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, if income-tax is paid by employers on profits estimated before bonuses are distributed to the heads of their departments, the tax is again exigible when these employees are presented with the bonuses.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Bonuses paid to employees are usually deducted as a business expense in estimating the assessable profits of the employer. If, however, the Board of Inland Revenue are satisfied that the employer has paid the tax himself the practice is not to-charge the bonus again in the hands of the recipient.

  Productions and Imports of Yeast.
  Mr. LEA: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will give a Return shewing the quantity of yeast produced in the distilleries of the United Kingdom, and the quantity imported annually for the last five years.

  1321
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) There are no official statistics of the quantity of yeast made in this country. The quantities imported annually are shown in the published Customs Returns.
  MR. LEA: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is aware of the fact that the provisions of Section 14, Sub-section 5, of the Act 61 and 62 Vict., c. 46, hamper the progress of the yeast industry in the United Kingdom by restricting the proportion of yeast which distillers may separate from their wash; and if he will see that the percentage of yeast which distillers may separate be raised from 15 to 20 on the whole wort brewed in the brewing period.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am not aware that the present restrictions with regard to the removal of yeast from the wash by distillers hamper the progress of the industry. If, however, a representation were made by the general body of yeast distillers in favour of a relaxation of the law, the matter would be considered.

  Distilling Regulations.
  MR. LEA: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is aware that distillers are prevented from distilling until a certain interval of time has elapsed from the end of the brewing period; whether, in consequence of this delay distillers possessing ripe wash sustain additional loss by way of acetification, etc.; and will he state what object is served by the enforcement of this regulation, and the number of instances of fraud on the Revenue brought to light within the last ten years by the application of this restriction.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The replies to the first and third questions were contained in my Answer to a Question which the hon. Member asked on the 6th inst. As regards the second Question, it is possible that in some cases this may occur to a very limited extent. As regards the fourth question, no instances of fraud have occurred in the last ten years.

  Extra Police at Gort.
  Mr. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of
  1322
  Ireland, how many policemen are stationed in the town of Gort; how many of them are classified as extra police, and will any portion of the cost be charged to the local rates; and, having regard to the peaceful state of the town, will he consider the advisability of withdrawing the extra force.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The number of policemen at present stationed at Gort is 42, which includes a district inspector and two head constables. Twenty-six of these are extra police, in respect of whom the statutory charge will be made against the county council to be levied off the county at large. The present state of the district of Gort is not such as would justify the withdrawal of the extra force.

  Sale of the Butson Estate, County Gal way.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHE: To-ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the sale-of the Butson estate, county Galway, has been completed; and, if not, can he say when it may be.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Butson estate, county Galway, is for sale in the Land Judge's Court. The question of purchasing it under Section 7 of the Act of 1903 has been under the consideration of the Estates Commissioners, who hope-to make an offer to the Land Judge for the whole estate at an early date.

  Purchase of the Estate of the late Captain Segrave, County Galway.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Estates Commissioners have entered into negotiations for the purchase of the estate of the late Captain Segrave, in the county of Galway; and, if so, whether the sale is likely to be completed in the near future.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The-Estates Commissioners approached Captain Segrave upon the subject of his untenanted land, and were informed by him that the untenanted land in his. possession formed part of his demense. No proceedings for the purchase of.

  1323
  Captain Segrave's estate have yet been instituted before the Commissioners.

  Purchase of Untenanted Land in County Leitrim.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased any untenanted land in County Leitrim since the passing of the Land Act of 1903; and, if so, from whom it was purchased, the quantity purchased, and the price paid for the same.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners have purchased untenanted land in County Leitrim from one proprietor, namely, Miss M. A. Crofton. The land, which consisted principally of mountain land, comprises 1,229 acres, and the price paid for it was £248.

  Ballinamore and Ballyconnell Navigation Bate.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he has received from the County Leitrim County Council a copy of a resolution passed by them at their meeting, held on 12th February, protesting against the payment of £42 19s. 5d. in connection with the Ballinamore and Ballyconnell navigation district; and, as there is no navigation whatever in this district, if steps will be taken to prevent the trustees of this so-called navigation district from levying in future this rate on an already over-taxed district, particularly when no benefit accrues to the people from it.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The navigation of the Ballinamore and Ballyconnell Canal was abandoned in 1865 owing to the absence of trade. The canal is not now maintained for navigation, but there is some necessary expenditure for other purposes, such as the protection of property liable to be injured by neglect of the navigation works. This expenditure must be met by the counties of Leitrim, Cavan, Roscommon, and Fermanagh in the proportions assigned by the award made on the completion of the navigation scheme. The case of the canal and the question of its improvement
  1324
  for drainage or navigation purposes have been brought before the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways, and any recommendation which the Commission may make regarding it will, of course, receive full consideration.

  Evicted Tenants—Application of Patrick Phelan.
  MR. N. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that an evicted tenant named Patrick Phelan, of Newchurch, County Kilkenny, made application to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement in his original holding, which holding is still untenanted; and whether the Estates Commissioners have refused to entertain his application; and, if so, on what grounds.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners have received from Patrick Phelan an application for reinstatement, and have had inquiries made into the matter. The Commissioners are informed that the farm formerly held by the applicant is at present used by the landlord in connection with his demesne. After full consideration of all the circumstances the Commissioners have decided to take no action in the case.

  Eviction of Timothy Murphy.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Millstreet Rural District Council condemning the action of Messrs. Thompson and Orpen in persisting with the eviction of Timothy Murphy, of Collykerane, a future tenant, after excluding him, through a technicality, from availing of the benefits of the Irish Land Commission, and calling upon the Government to refuse the assistance of the forces of the Crown in carrying out this eviction, particularly as Mr. Murphy made a most reasonable offer with a view to the purchase of his holding; and whether he intends to accede to the request of the district council as herein set forth.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Resolution has been received. The Government have no knowledge of the merits of

  1325
  the case in question; but, in any event, if a decree for eviction should be obtained, it would not be legal for the Executive Government to refuse the assistance of the forces of the Crown for the protection bf the sheriff when engaged in the execution of the King's writ.

  Evicted Tenants—Restoration of Edward O'Brien.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners propose to exercise the compulsory powers vested in them to restore Edward O'Brien to his former holding on the estate of Mr. J. H. Nichoson, Balrath, Kells, County Meath; and it not, what is their objection to doing so.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners are not prepared to answer this Question at the present stage. As the hon. Member has already been informed, the case has been referred to an inspector with the object of providing O'Brien with a holding. Upon receipt of the inspector's Report, the Commissioners will consider what further steps they should take in the matter.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of James Gore.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners, before finally deciding that the whole farm from which James Gore was evicted on the estate of R. B. Balfour, Rathkenny, County Meath, would be too large for him, will take into account the assistance which his family and relatives are prepared to give him in the cultivation of the land.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that before coming to a decision in this case they will fully consider all the circumstances including the fact stated in the Question.

  Purchase of Untenanted Land in County Limerick.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners are taking any action towards the purchase
  1326
  of untenanted lands in the county of Limerick; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have approached 106 owners of untenanted lands in the county of Limerick. Of these six have agreed to have their lands inspected in order that the Commissioners may estimate the prices which they could offer, and seventy-seven have expressed their unwillingness to sell. In nine cases the owners have not definitely stated their wishes in the matter, and in the remaining fourteen cases replies have not yet been received. In addition, proceedings for sale have been instituted before the Commissioners in the case of sixteen estates in the county which contain untenanted land.

  Writers at the Army Clothing Factory.
  Mr. B. S. STRAUS: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that writers in the Army Clothing Department are doing work formerly performed by civil servants, but that they (the writers), are not entitled to a pension as their predecessors were; and will he consider their case for pension rights.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Certain of the Second Division clerks in the Army Clothing Department have been replaced by foreman writers. Foreman writers are entitled to pensions. No Civil Service clerks have been replaced by writers.

  Inland Revenue Returns and National Prosperity.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue reported in 1903 that it is by the figures 'of gross income that national prosperity is to be measured; and whether he can give the figures of gross income for the United Kingdom in 1897 and the latest available, date.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George). The statement referred to relates to the relative value as a test of national prosperity of the gross amount of incomes brought under the review of the Inland

  1327
  Revenue Department for purposes of income-tax assessment and the net income on which income-tax was received. It does not relate to the gross national income, of which no official particulars are available. The gross amount so brought under review in the financial year commencing 1st April, 1897, was, as stated in the Reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, £734,461,246, whilst for the financial year commencing 1st April, 1905, the latest year for which the information is available, the corresponding figure was £925,184,556.

  The "Kilmorack."
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his Department has received a copy of a letter from one of the crew of the Glasgow steamer "Kilmorack"; whether he is aware that the firemen allege that the vessel is undermanned in consequence of there being too many fires to attend to for the number of men employed; whether he is aware that the men allege that the master has failed to provide them with the necessary provisions as contained in the provision scale of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906; whether he is aware that the men allege that the boilers of the "Kilmorack" are defective and that there has been some tampering with the steam guage; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into these allegations at once, as the vessel is due to arrive at Ardrossan on or about the 22nd or 23rd of this month.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have no information in the case referred to in the Question, but inquiries are being made, and the result shall be communicated to my hon. friend as soon as possible.

  Telephone Rates in England and Norway.
  COLONEL IVOR PHILIPS: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state the approximate average annual cost for a telephone installation in a house 100 miles from London when within a telephone exchange area and outside such area but within three miles of an exchange, respectively, and the charge for a call to London in each case;
  1328
  and what are the approximate corresponding charges for a like service in the kingdom of Norway.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The minimum charge at small post office provincial exchanges is £5 a year for an exclusive line, and £4 4s. a year for a two-party line. The calls of subscribers very seldom exceed the minimum numbers allowed for these sums. These rates cover connections within one mile of an exchange. An additional charge of £1 5s. per quarter mile, measured radially, is made for extra distances. In Norway the charges for an independent circuit in places outside Christiania vary from £2 4s. to £3 18s. a year, but there are usually entrance fees also to be paid, and additional payments have to be made for double wire circuits. The radius is less than one mile. Beyond this radius subscribers pay the capital cost of constructing their lines. There are also additional charges for maintenance of lines outside the radius, and in some cases subscribers provide and maintain their own instruments. I cannot say exactly what the cost would be of a circuit to a place three miles from an exchange. It must be remembered that in Norway materials and labour are much cheaper than in England, that the standard of construction is much simpler and less costly, and that there are fewer wayleave difficulties. The cost of a trunk call to London from a place 100 miles distant would be Is. In Norway the corresponding charge would be 9½d. for the ordinary service, but about 2s. 4d. for an urgent call. Ordinary calls take effect only when there are no urgent calls on hand. In rural districts the users of trunk lines have to find office room and attendance free for the Government.

  Inadequate Accomodation at Margate Post Office.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether he has received complaints that the present head post office for the borough of Margate is quite inadequate to deal with the requirements of the town, particularly in the summer months; and whether he can hold out any hope that the demand for a more commodious building will be favourably considered.

  1329
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A scheme for providing a more commodious building has already been sanctioned, and it is hoped to commence operations in a few months time.

  Postal Deliveries at Churchill and Letterkenny.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether he has received a memorial from the inhabitants of Churchill, Letterkenny, and surrounding districts, praying for a Sunday delivery and a daily mid-day delivery of letters; and whether he is now able to give effect to the wishes of the memorialists.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have received the memorial referred to; but, as I explained to the hon. Member in December last, the postal service in the district in question is already being carried on at a loss, and I should not be justified in incurring additional expense for the provision of the improvements desired.

  Irish Historical Manuscripts.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what Irish historical manuscripts are now engaging the attention of the Historical Manuscripts Commission; and when they propose to publish them.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that two collections of manuscripts which may be regarded as specifically Irish are now engaging the attention of the Commission. These are—1. The MSS. of the Marquess of Ormonde, Vol. VI. of which is almost completed at press, and will, it is hoped, be issued before the end of the session. 2 The MSS. of the Earl of Egmont, Vol. 2 of which is also at press, but is not so far advanced. There are also, I understand, Irish papers in the Eyre-Matcham MSS., the Knox MSS., and the Calendar of Cecil MSS., but I am unable to say when they will be published.

  Fireproofing of National Gallery Extension.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: To ask the First Commissioner of Works, what firm is

  1330
  being employed to do the fireproofing of the National Gallery extension; and whether the design and estimate were submitted to competition.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) In the National Gallery extension there will not be any special contract for fire-proofing. Reinforced concrete construction for both roofs and floors will be employed, and the work will form part of the ordinary building contract.

  Imprisoned Women Suffragists.
  Mr. ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of women have gone to prison during 1908 in consequence of disorderly conduct in Downing Street, Parliament Square, or other places and buildings thereabouts; how many of such persons have been discharged on promise of good behaviour; how many have served their sentences; and how many are now in gaol.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The total number of such persons received into prison in 1908 is seventy-two. Of these sixteen have been released on entering into recognisance to be of good behaviour, and three on payment of their fines, five have served their sentences, and forty-eight are now in prison.

  Increase of Factory Inspection Staff.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the date of the last increase in the number of the staff of male and female inspectors, respectively, and assistant inspectors of factories and workshops, and what was the extent of the increase in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The last increase was in 1906, when four junior inspectors, four inspector's assistants, and three lady inspectors were added to the staff.

  Accident at Messrs. Atkinson Brothers' Works at Sheffield.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the death of a boy,

  1331
  Ernest Helliwell, fourteen years of age, who, while standing in front of the fire was struck by a flying piece of a bursting grindstone at Messrs. Atkinson Brothers' grinding wheel in Sheffield on 30th January last; whether the grindstone was running in front of the fireplace; and, if so, whether the requirements of the law were carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone) I have made inquiry into this case, and from the report which I have received it appears that the grindstone which caused the accident was not running before the fireplace in the sense in which the words "before any fireplace" in the seventh paragraph of the Third Schedule to the Factory Act have always been interpreted, i.e., within the space between lines drawn at right angles to the wall from each edge of the fireplace. No breach of the Act has therefore been committed.

  Navigation of the River Avon between Christchurch and Salisbury.
  MR. A. ALLEN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been directed to steps which are being taken by a certain riparian owner to stop the free navigation of the River Avon between Christchurch and Salisbury; whether the Act of 16 and 17 Car. 2, c. 12, still remains in force; and what steps, if any, he will take to protect the rights of the Crown and the public in the free navigation of the Avon.
  (Answered by Sir William Robson.) My attention has not been directed to this matter except by my hon. friend's Question. It is for the parties or authorities affected by the alleged obstruction to take proceedings, if they decide to do so, by way of action. The matter will probably come before me on an application for my fiat, which I shall be glad to consider.

  Post Office Savings Bank.
  Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that in each of the last five years there has been a deficiency in the income account of the Post Office
  1332
  Savings Bank, varying from £88,000 to £119,000; whether a valuation of the assets of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund at market values would disclose a deficiency of more than £10,000,000 in the capital account; whether, seeing that the taxpayers year by year make good the deficiency in the capital account, he will consider the advisability of giving full official information as to the financial position of the Post Office Savings Bank, and, if a valuation of the assets at market prices is held to be misleading, will he devise some other method by which the taxpayers may be informed as to the financial position of the institution.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The deficiencies on the income account of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund in the last few years have been as stated in the Question. I am unable to say what would be the result of a valuation of the assets of the fund at current market prices, because the practice of publishing such a valuation has been discontinued under the Savings Bank Act, 1904, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1902, who described that method of valuation as misleading. It is impossible in the nature of things to devise any method of valuation which would show whether any burden will hereafter fall upon the Exchequer in respect of the capital liabilities of the Post Office Savings Banks and, if so, the amount of that burden, everything depends upon the dates at which it may be necessary to realise the securities on behalf of the fund and on the prices which may then be obtainable for those securities, things which cannot be foreseen.

  Criminal Cases disposed of by European Collector Magistrates in India.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, without imposing undue labour upon the authorities in India, it would be possible to obtain a rough approximation of the proportion of the criminal work, original and appellate, disposed of by district and other magistrates in whose case revenue and magisterial functions are combined, and of the proportion of such work disposed of by

  1333
  magistrates who do not exercise revenue and otter administrative powers; and whether he will consider the desirability of obtaining such information, in view of the fact that a very small proportion of the criminal work is in fact disposed of by the European collector magistrates.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Money.) I will ask the Government of India whether they can supply the desired information without undue labour.

  Irish Land Purchase—Application for Grant.
  MR. J. MUKPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners can give any assistance to Miss Bridget Leahy, of Inchincummer, county Kerry, a purchasing tenant on the estate of Major Gordon Leahy, who is without any stock.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estate Commissioners inform me that they cannot trace the name of Bridget Leahy as that of a purchasing tenant on the estate referred to.

  Compensation for Criminal Injury in Ireland.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he proposes to take steps this session to amend the Law in Ireland as regards compensation for criminal injury claims.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The reply is in the negative.

  Navigation Works on the North East Coast of Ireland.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the Government propose to introduce their Bill to facilitate the construction of marine works on the North-East Coast of Ireland; and whether in that Bill further financial assistance will be given to those county councils who contribute towards the construction of such works.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) My right hon. friend informed the hon. Baronet on the 17th instant that the possibility
  1334
  of introducing legislation on the lines of the Navigation Works Bill was under consideration. It would be not possible at present to say when such legislation could be introduced. The contemplated measure would not impose further burdens on the Exchequer.

  Irrecoverable Rates.
  Mr. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Galway County Council issued circulars to rate collectors of the county on 6th November, 1907, requesting them to forward claims for refunds of irrecoverable rates under Article 92 of the Public Bodies Order of 1904, and that a promise was given last year that precautions would be taken by which rate collectors would suffer no hardship through the enforcement of the Public Bodies Order; and whether, seeing that irrecoverable amounts lodged for the half-year ending 30th September last to the credit of the county council have not yet been refunded, he will give instructions to have collectors promptly refunded irrecoverable amounts and paid their poundage in future without unnecessary delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer to his Question of 9th May, 1907 on this subject. The Local Government Board inform me that it is the fact that the Galway County Council issued circulars calling attention to the rules regarding irrecoverable rates, as stated in the first part of the Question. The county secretary has stated that he is not aware that any promise on the subject was made to the rate collectors. The Local Government Board are not prepared to give the council any such instructions as are suggested in the Question. Under the council's management the collection of the rates in the county has this year been most satisfactory, and in the circumstances the Board will not interfere with the council's arrangements, or do anything to lessen their authority over the collectors.

  Government Grant for Irish Primary Education.
  MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of

  1335
  Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Coleraine National Teachers' Association relative to the proposed Government grant for Irish primary education; and when he hopes to make a statement to the House on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) This matter is under my right hon. friend's consideration. He cannot say at present when it will be possible to make a statement on the subject.

  Congestion of Business at County Dublin County Court.
  MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to litigants at the county Dublin County Court held at Kilmainham, owing to the sittings there being so arranged that the cases cannot be disposed of and are adjourned from one sitting to another; and if the Recorder of Dublin, as County Court Judge for county Dublin, has not time consistently with the discharge of his duties in the city of Dublin to hear the cases at Kilmainham, will the Lord-Chancellor appoint a deputy to dispose of the arrears now long pending at Kilmainham, and make some arrangement to enable future cases at the court to be properly heard.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I understand that several defended civil cases at Kilmainham were adjourned from the last January sessions to the March sessions. The adjournment was unavoidable owing to the want of time to complete the sessions at Kilmainham, arising from the necessity for opening the sittings in Green Street for criminal and civil business. I understand that under the existing arrangement, having regard to the very large number of sessions which the Recorder holds both in the city and county, it has not been found practicable to arrange the sittings so as to avoid the necessity for such occasional adjournments. But I am informed that it is intended to apply to the Privy Council for liberty to hear the Kilmainham civil business in Green Street Courthouse, with the object of expediting the hearing and disposal of
  1336
  such cases. The Recorder sits almost continuously during the year, and has a very extensive jurisdiction. The power of appointing a deputy is regulated by statute, and only extends to cases of illness or unavoidable absence.

  Purchase of Estate of Mrs. G. C. P. Mahon of Stokestown.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many of the 172 agreements lodged by Mrs. Grace C. P. Mahon, Stokestown, county Roscommon, with the Estates Commissioners on 25th April, 1906, are applications for an advance in respect of holdings not in the occupation of the applicants; is he aware that there are upwards of eighty tenants on this estate who have not been allowed to sign purchase agreements, and that middlemen are receiving benefits in their payments as interest on the agreed purchase money of holdings not in their occupation, which the law does not entitle them to purchase; whether he is aware that middlemen on this estate are not allowing their sub-tenants any reduction in their rents, but are persecuting them by having processes served for half-year's rents, and that agreements have been lodged for advances at twenty-five years purchase of non-judicial rents; and whether, having regard to the hardships imposed on a number of the tenants on this estate, he will ask the Estates Commissioners to have an immediate inspection made or suggest some remedy for the redress of such grievances.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that 470 purchase agreements in all have been lodged with them in respect of the estate in question. The agreements have not yet been analysed nor has the estate been inspected, and the Commissioners are therefore unable to say in how many cases applications have been made for advances in respect of holdings not in the occupation of the tenants, or how many sub-tenants there are on the estate, or whether any of the agreements lodged are for advances at twenty-five years purchase of judicial rents. The Commissioners, moreover,

  1337
  have no knowledge of any dealings between the middlemen and their subtenants. In order to obtain complete information upon these various points at once it would be necessary to direct an inspection of the estate out of its order of priority, and the Commissioners, after full consideration, do not see any sufficient reason for adopting that course. The case of this estate will be dealt with in its proper turn.

  Purchase of the Estate of Mr. Arthur O'Connor.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the reason why the agreement of the tenants to purchase their holdings on the estate of Arthur M. O'Connor, Esq., the Palace, Elphin, county Roscommon, fell through after the matter had been in the hands of the Commissioners for three and a half years; and whether there is any prospect of the question of the sale and purchase of the estate being reopened.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) In the case of the estate referred to in the Question, the Estates Commissioners were of opinion that the turbary in the owner's hands should be divided amongst the tenants who required the same. To this course the owner would not agree. Moreover, the Commissioners refused to make the advances applied for certain of the cases, such advances being in excess of the amounts for which the holdings would, in the Commissioners opinion, afford security, and the owner declined to sell the holdings at the sums which the Commissioners were prepared to advance. The Commissioners accordingly refused to declare the lands to be an estate, and the agreements for purchase were dismissed. The Commissioners are not aware whether the owner intends to approach them with a view to reopening the question of the sale of his estate.

  Purchase of Farms at Lacken and Tromore, County Roscommon.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations are
  1338
  now going on between the Estates Commissioners and the landlords of the farms, Lacken (estate of W. F. B. Handcock) and Tromore (estate of Major Lloyd), both in county Roscommon, for the purchase of the said farms for distribution amongst the holders of non-economic holdings in the neighbourhood; if so, whether he can state when the negotiations are likely to be brought to a close; whether he can state how many other non-residential farms there are in the same district; and what action, if any the Commissioners propose to take with regard to them, in view of the desire which exists on the part of the people to secure possession on fair terms of economical holdings in the locality.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners are at present negotiating for the purchase of the estate of W. F. D. Hancock, county Roscommon, including the farm of Lacken, but are not in a position to say when the negotiations are likely to be completed. The Commissioners are unable to identify proceedings in respect of the farm of Tromore referred to in the Question, and are not aware what other non-residential farms may be situated in the district in question. In pursuance of Regulation V. the Commissioners are engaged in making inquiries with the object of acquiring untenanted land throughout the country generally.

  Deposit of Refuse on Vacant Ground at Shore Road, Belfast.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belfast Corporation is at present filling up vacant ground opposite Seaview, Shore Road, Belfast, with filthy refuse; whether the medical officer of the district, Dr. Ferguson reported to the Corporation that the depositing of this filthy rubbish was dangerous to the health of residents in the vicinity; whether the Corporation have refused to take any action either to discontinue or to mitigate the nuisance complained of; and whether, in view of the high death-rate in Belfast, he will order the Local Government Board to take immediate steps to protect the health of the residents affected.

  1339
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Local Government Board nave referred this Question to the town clerk of Belfast who has informed them, in reply, that the medical officer of health and the city surveyor have examined the place referred to in the Question, and found nothing there but ordinary street sweepings and a small quantity of horse manure which had apparently been swept off a car stand. The town clerk adds that action had been taken in the matter before Dr Ferguson reported, and that no nuisance exists at the place.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Black Watch Volunteer Battalions.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what reductions are contemplated with regard to the Volunteer battalions of the Black Watch under the new Territorial Army scheme.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): As I have already explained to the House in reply to similar Questions, I am not yet in a position to give any detailed information of the character required by the Question. The Question is founded on a misconception.
  LORD BALCARRES: Are not the Associations directed to produce a certain number of men, and are they not, therefore, obliged to make a certain reduction?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, certainly.

  Shambles Barracks, Galway.
  Mr. GWYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government has concluded any sale of the old Shambles Barracks in Galway, which was offered for sale by private tender last year; and whether his attention has been called to the annual cost in rates and upkeep of two virtually disused barracks in the county.
  MR. HALDANE: No sale of the old Shambles Barracks in Galway has been
  1340
  concluded. The negotiations. for sale-have been suspended as it is possible that the barracks may be required for War Department purposes, as more accommodation may be required for the Special Reserve. A decision will be arrived at shortly.
  MR. GWYNN: Is it proposed to rebuild these barracks or to utilise the space on which they stand?
  MR. HALDANE: I cannot say. The decision will be arrived at very shortly.

  Officers of the Militia Submarine Miners
  Mr. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when will the decision of the War Office be made known regarding the case of the officers of the Submarine Miners (Militia) Royal Engineers, it now being nearly twelve months since the War Office called for a list of those desirous of being retained; and whether these officers were not permitted to attend courses of instruction or to be trained in any way during 1907, although a sum of £1,000 was voted for their training (Appendix 5, page 179, of the Army Estimates for 1907–8).
  MR. HALDANE: A Royal Warrant will shortly be issued dealing with Special Reserve officers. Suitable officers of the Submarine Miners (Militia) Royal Engineers will be asked to join the Special Reserve of officers. As regards training in 1907, it must be remembered that the whole question of the organisation of the reserve of officers was under consideration, and it was held that pending a decision on the main question it was undesirable to tram these particular officers who were no longer required for submarine mining.

  Volunteers and the Conditions of Enlistment.
  MR. PARTINGTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, looking to the fact that the proposed changes of enlistment and liabilities under the Territorial Forces Act are regarded in many quarters with dissatisfaction, he will consider the advisability of allowing Volunteers to continue their service for one year, so that they may have a longer period in

  1341
  which to see "how the new conditions will affect them.
  MR. HALDANE: My hon. friend is evidently unaware that while units of the Volunteers will be transferred to the Territorial Forces on 31st March, when the new system takes the place of the old, iudividual ex-Volunteers will be given up to 30th June to decide whether they are willing to accept the new conditions of service. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that this date will give them ample time to understand the new terms of service.

  Thanksgiving Church Parade
  Thanksgiving Church Parade-MR. ARTHUR LEE: On behalf of the right hon. Member for Croydon, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the War Office circular, dated 28th January, and addressed to lords-lieutenant of counties, and containing a suggestion by the Secretary of State that a special parade of the Territorial Army should take place on 5th April next, for the purpose of giving thanks to Almighty God for the patriotic spirit which has hitherto imbued the Yeomanry and Volunteers, to ask the blessing of God on the Territorial Force and on the men who are to direct and compose it, and to offer the prayers of the nation for the continuance of the blessings of peace, has been followed by the issue of an order for the parade referred to; and whether it is proposed that such a parade shall in fact take place.
  MR. BLACKwas understood to ask, as we cannot claim to have a monopoly of the Almighty's favour, would it not be better to have kept His name out of the question.
  MR. HALDANE: I think that would involve dissociating all religion from the army and navy. As the suggested Church Parade is a purely voluntary one, no order will be issued from the War Office on the subject. Although 5th April was proposed as a suitable date, the parade, if considered desirable by Associations and the Commanders of units, may be held at such times and places as the various local conditions render
  1342
  advisable. The suggestion is that of the Chaplain-General on behalf of the chaplains of all denominations, made with my full assent and approval, but as a suggestion merely. Complete liberty is left to the Associations as to whether they will adopt it.

  Reduction of the Volunteer Force.
  MR. ARTHUE LEE: On be half of the right hon. Member for Croydon, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the net reduction of the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, respectively, of the Volunteer Force, since 1st October, 1905.
  MR. HALDANE: The difference between the figures of 1st October, 1905, and 1st January, 1908, amounts to seventy-one officers and 12,800 men. The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless recollect that there is always a considerable diminution of the Volunteer Force in the month of October.

  Royal Garrison Artillery Volunteers.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War with respect to Royal Garrison Artillery Volunteers transferring into the Territorial Army, how many drills will be required by recruits and trained men, respectively; and what will be the minimum attendance required in camp each year.
  MR. HALDANE: The number of drills which recruits of the Territorial Garrison Artillery will be required to attend will be forty-five, as for the present Volunteers. They will also attend camp unless excused by the General Officer Commanding. Trained soldiers of the Territorial Garrison Artillery will be required to attend twenty drills annually in addition to the annual training in camp which will be from eight to fifteen days. A pamphlet setting forth the requirements of training for all arms will be issued shortly.
  MR. FELL: When will it be available?
  MR. HALDANE: I hope in a few days.

  Woolwich Ordnance Factories.
  Mr. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the average number of men employed in the Ordnance Factories at Woolwich in the year 1898 was 15,293, and at the present time less than 9,000, whilst the expenditure on the Army and Navy in the past year exceeded the expenditure in 1898 by £15,000,000.
  MR. HALDANE: The figures for 1898, quoted by the hon. Member, include the numbers in the Building Works Department and the Central Office. The corresponding figures at the present time amount to over 11,000. The figures given in regard to Army and Navy expenditure are approximately correct.
  MR. FELLasked whether there was a considerable reduction in the output of materials of war, or whether there was a great accumulation in hand.
  MR. HALDANE: There is a very considerable diminution in the demand for munitions of war. We get from this establishment as much as we want and more with the numbers now employed.

  Territorial Army Field Batteries.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the special duties which field batteries of the Territorial Army are expected to perform in the event of an invasion; and in what particulars do they diner from the duties to be performed in war by field batteries of the Regular Army.
  MR. HALDANE: The duties required of field batteries of the Territorial Force in the event of an invasion differ in no respect from those of the Regular Field Army.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: When does the hon. Member expect the invader? Who is to be the invader? Is it the German Emperor?
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the opinion of the Army Council that Territorial field batteries, armed with guns inferior in range, accuracy, rapidity
  1344
  of fire, weight of projectile, and number of bullets in shrapnel shell, and manned by a comparatively untrained personnel can properly be placed in the field against the modern quick-firing batteries and highly-trained personnel of a Continental regular army.
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member is introducing into a Question matter that can only properly be dealt with in debate and would better be raised on Army Estimates. I may, however, point out that it was necessary to make a start in arming the Territorial Force with guns and that there was a large stock of 15-pounder guns available. These are good guns, nearly equal to the Field Artillery of some of the greatest Continental Powers in range, muzzle velocity, and weight of projectile. They have fewer bullets in the shrapnel than the 18-pounder, but on the other hand, they are mobile and better adapted for use in an enclosed and wooded terrain such as the Territorial Army would generally operate in. I may observe that, notwithstanding the great knowledge of the hon. Member, I doubt whether he has applied his mind to the artillery conditions which would obtain in regard to the operations of an invading force coming to these islands. The ground for the most part would be wooded and enclosed, and if the hon. Member would refer to the valuable book of Colonel Caldwell on the tactics of home defence, it is the fortieth chapter I think, he would see why it is absolutely vital for such a purpose that the artillery should be of the most mobile character, with the range of the guns necessarily short.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman wished the House to understand that the gun which he proposed to arm the Territorial Army with was to be more suitable for the conditions of war in England than the guns which would be brought against us.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: We are not at war; we are at peace.
  MR. HALDANE: I do not know what the hon. Member is driving at. Suppose you compare the German with

  1345
  the English guns, which is what is probably in the hon. Gentleman's mind. The 15-pounder gun has a muzzle velocity of 1,581 feet as against the German muzzle velocity of 1,525 feet. The effective range of the 15-pounder gun is 5,900 as against 5,500 with the German gun. The number of bullets in the shrapnel is slightly less. It is 230 against 300 on the German side, and the weight of the projectile is 14 lb. as against 15 lb.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Hear, hear! The Empire is safe.

  Volunteer Battalion Debts.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government will assume the debts and expenses properly incurred by the various battalions of Volunteers, and which their remaining funds on 31st March next are insufficient to discharge, and including the repayment of any moneys they may have had to borrow from their bankers; whether the same assumption will equally apply to those battalions which may be disbanded by the War Office; whether the Government will take over the drill halls and armouries connected with the Volunteer Force, and repay any moneys which may be due in respect to such buildings; and whether, in the event of the Government declining to assume any such debts, the commanding officer, or any other members of the corps, will be held to be responsible.
  MR. HALDANE: A special grant will be made from Army funds where necessary to commanding officers of Yeomanry and Volunteer corps, which are to be transferred to the Territorial Force or disbanded, sufficient to enable them to discharge all liabilities on the public funds of the corps which have been properly incurred and 'cannot be met from credit balances remaining on 31st March, 1908, except loans which have been raised for purposes contemplated in the Military Lands Acts, and are secured on corps property. The drill halls and armouries which are corps property, acquired under the Military Lands and other Acts, will, in the case of corps passing into the Territorial Force, be transferred to County Associations,
  1346
  together with any mortgage secured on them. The property of disbanded corps will, as provided under the Military Lands Acts, vest in the Secretary of State subject to repayment of money borrowed for its purchase, etc. Property vested in trustees for the benefit of corps will be dealt with as the circumstances of each case demand.
  In reply to a further Question,
  MR. HALDANEsaid it was exceedingly difficult to distinguish between money voluntarily subscribed locally for drill halls and the Government contributions, in cases where five-sixths of the money was public money, but in cases where the drill hall had been bought from voluntary funds it would remain private property. It would only be taken over by the County Association when it had been made absolutely the property of the corps.

  Yeomanry Horses.
  LORD BALCARRES: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Medway Division of Kent, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether members of the Yeomanry will, under Territorial Army regulations, continue to be allowed to provide their own horses for annual trainings, receiving as hitherto an allowance for doing so.
  MR. HALDANE: A grant of £5 per horse is made to County Associations for the provision of horses; and in the case of officers or men riding their own horses, the £5 will be paid over to the officer or man on the same terms as those on which the Association receives it.
  COLONEL SEELYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the possibility of instructing the Government to continue to pay compensation for the loss of horses when on service, as in previous years, instead of laying the loss on the men.
  MR. HALDANE: That is a question of policy, which I must consider.
  COLONEL SEELYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would take into

  1347
  consideration that it was much cheaper for the Government to insure, all the horses than it was for a private individual or an Association.
  COLONEL HERBERTasked whether the yeoman would get the £5 in full or less the cost of insuring. Could not the Government take any responsibility for insurance?
  MR. HALDANEsaid that the provision of horses was left to the Association. The Government furnished the money, the amount of the grant being £5, and the Association would then take steps with regard to insurance if it thought right to do so. The Government never insured: it was very bad business for the Government to insure.

  Army Reservists Abroad.
  LORD BALCARRES: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Medway Division of Kent, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any, and, if so, what, limit has been set upon the number of Army Reservists who may receive permission to reside abroad and in the Colonies.
  MR. HALDANE: No limit has been fixed. The return showing the number of reservists residing abroad and in the Colonies is reviewed periodically.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Does the light hon. Gentleman anticipate any difficulty in regard to these men returning from the Colonies?
  MR. HALDANE: No, our experience is that they come back very readily.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Do they have to pay their own fare back?
  Mr. HALDANE: I suppose so.

  Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers.
  Mr. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers arrived at Southampton from Egypt on the 14th instant, their destination being Dublin, not many hours sail further on; whether he is aware that this battalion was disembarked at South
  1348
  ampton, put into a train for Holyhead re-embarked there, and, after a very bad passage, arrived at daylight and marched through Dublin at 6 a.m. in pouring rain to Portobello Barracks; and, considering that the growth of military expenditure in recent years precludes ecomomy being alleged as a ground for any acts of mal-administration by the military authorities, why these officers and men were put to such an amount of discomfort, with probable injury to health, considering the battalion was fresh from a hot climate, when the ship might have been sent on direct to Dublin; and will he say what would have been the extra cost, if any, if the transport had been sent on to Dublin to disembark the men, and what was the cost involved in transporting this regiment from Southampton to Dublin in the manner actually carried out.
  MR. HALDANE: The facts are as stated in the Question. My hon. friend is, however, apparently unaware that the "Soudan," a vessel of 6,600 tons, cannot be berthed at Dublin Port. The cost involved in sending the regiment by rail from Southampton was £550. If it had been possible to send the vessel to Dublin the extra expense would have been £475.
  MR. LEA: Is there any reason why the troops should not have been sent to Kingston and disembarked there?
  MR. HALDANE: I do not know if there would have been any saving by that.
  MR. LEA: It is not a question of saving; it is the discomfort and hardship imposed on the men I am thinking of.
  MR. HALDANE: I cannot say if more discomfort was involved in the route taken.

  South African Garrison.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's Government have decided to reduce the troops in South Africa by some 4,000 men and 600 horses; and, if so, whether he can state what

  1349
  troops of each arm will be maintained in the various British South African Colonies, inclusive of local forces.
  MR. HALDANE: It has been decided to withdraw from South Africa one regiment of Cavalry and four battalions of Infantry. As regards the last part of the Question, I am not at present in a position to state the detailed redistribution of the troops.

  Rifle and Bayonet Lengths.
  *MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can furnish any information with regard to the comparative lengths of rifle and bayonet in present use by other great Powers, Germany. France, Austria, Russia, and Italy, with the rifle and bayonet about to be issued to our troops; and whether he can inform the House what are the advantages claimed for the British weapon.
  MR. HALDANE: The comparative lengths of rifle and bayonet in present use by Powers are as follows: Germany, 5 ft. 9¾ in.; France, 5 ft. 11 in.; Austria, 4 ft. 11½ in.; Russia, 5 ft. 9 in.; Italy 5 ft. 2¼ in.; Great Britain, short rifle with new bayonet that is to be issued, 5 ft. 1¾ in.; Great Britain, short rifle with present pattern bayonet, 4 ft. 8¾ in. Great Britain, long rifle with present pattern bayonet, 5 ft. 1½ in.; Japan, 5 ft. 5½ in. The advantages claimed for the new bayonet are: (a) That its extra length and shape make it a better weapon for bayonet fighting; (b) That its shape is better adapted for such subsidiary purposes as cutting brushwood, etc., than the present service pattern.
  *Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Then are the rifles and bayonets to be served out to our troops shorter than the majority used by foreign troops'?
  MR. HALDANE: Some are shorter, as in the case of Austria, others are longer, as in the case of Germany.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon Gentleman following precedent place samples of the weapons in the Tea-Room for inspection?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, Sir.

  Mortality in the Band Mines.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, what is the death rate for 1907 and to the present period for Chinese in the gold mines of the Rand and for natives recruited in Nyassaland for the gold and diamond mines of the Transvaal, respectively.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The average death rate per 1,000 per annum for Chinese on the Rand gold mines for 1907, is, I believe, 16·085. The death rate of Nyassaland natives on the Premier Mine for the twelve months ended June, 1907, the latest figures available was 106·6. I should add that a high rate of mortality has prevailed for the period among all the native labourers employed on the Premier Diamond Mine, as is shown by the fact that the rate amongst British Basutos and East Coast natives on the Premier Mine was 52·8 and 42·35, respectively, compared with a rate of 20·3 and 33·1 on other mines in the Transvaal. The Secretary of State does not underrate the serious nature of these figures and Reports. The subject has been engaging the attention of the Transvaal Government and steps are being taken to carry out the recommendations of a medical board which investigated the causes of this high rate.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether His Majesty's Government would bring reasonable pressure on the Transvaal Government to carry out the express opinion of the House of Commons that recruiting from Nyassaland ought to be stopped in the interests of humanity.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have no reason to believe that any pressure is necessary to make the Transvaal Government take all the steps they can to reduce this lamentable mortality. With regard to recruitment in Nyassaland, one of the principal reasons that induce the Government to sanction this recruiting is that the natives in any case make their way down habitually, and that no arrangements for the control of recruiting can be enforced.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Cannot you prohibit the natives from sacrificing themselves in this fashion?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am informed that if no recruiting were allowed a considerable number of natives would make their way down independently, although suffering frightful hardships on the road. But I agree that I do not think that reason altogether satisfactory.
  *MR. REES: Is there any reason to believe that many of the natives of Nyassaland are finding their way down?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, as a certain number are allowed to be recruited.

  Dinizulu.
  Mr. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his legal advisers and friends have free access to Dinizulu for the purpose of assisting him in his defence.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have no information that any restrictions beyond those required by the ordinary regulations are imposed. Under these the access of legal advisers and friends is by the authority of the magistrate.
  MR. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Colonial Office have now received from the Natal Government the information requested by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 2nd January, in Telegram No. 102, Cd. 3888. as to the refusal of the authorities to allow Miss Colenso to visit Dinizulu and in that case what were the grounds of refusal; and whether the Natal Supreme Court made any order in the matter, and what were its terms.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Information has now been received in a despatch from the Governor showing that the Minister of Justice in an affidavit declared that his reason for refusing to let Miss Colenso see Dinizulu was that he believed that she desired to see the prisoner for the purpose of publishing in newspapers
  1352
  accounts of her interviews and that in view of a statement with regard to bribing gaol attendants attributed to her, the restrictions should be upheld. He further made various allegations against her action in regard to natives particularly in reference to her school at Bishoptown. The Supreme Court held that the Minister of Justice had not the right to overrule the written pass given by the magistrate under a statutory power, but the existing pass being a fortnight old the Judge refused to order that access should be given upon it and directed Miss Colenso to apply again for a pass to the magistrate. Miss Colenso subsequently visited the gaol and saw Dinizulu.
  MR. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, having regard to the fact that the telegram from Miss Colenso to Dinizulu, urging him to surrender and assuring him of fair trial and assistance in his defence, was transmitted through the Colonial Office, any specific steps have been taken by that Department to secure these ends; and, if so, what is their nature.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is expecting a telegram on this matter and I had hoped it would have arrived this morning; but it has not, and I must ask my right hon. friend to postpone his Question to a later date.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the law of Natal, and especially the Act No. 22, of 1896, governing the procedure in magistrates' courts, prescribes that the proceedings shall be in public; and if so, by what authority having the force of law has the preparatory examination of Dinizulu been conducted in secret.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The provisions referred to relate to the trial of prisoners, not to the preparatory examination preliminary to commitment for trial. Under Section 4 of the Law No. 16 of 1861, for improving the administration of criminal justice, the magistrate has full power to order that no person shall have access to or remain in the room in

  1353
  which the examination is held and which is not to be deemed an open court if it appear to him that the ends of justice will be best answered by so doing. I would remind my hon. and learned friend that much the same provision exists in the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, Section 19.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Did the magistrate give any reason for thinking the ends of justice were served by holding this inquiry in private?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot say without notice. It was purely a matter of magisterial discretion under the law.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the law of Natal governing the procedure in criminal cases before magistrates, and especially the Ordinance No. 18, of 1845, prescribes that the preparatory examination of a prisoner shall be based upon a definite charge from information upon oath; whether, in the warrant for the arrest of Dinizulu or at any time since, any definite charge upon a sworn information has been made; and, if not, upon what grounds have the Government of Natal justified the arrest, imprisonment, and prolonged criminal proceedings against Dinizulu.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Ordinance contemplates the apprehension of an accused person upon information taken upon oath that there are reasonable grounds of suspicion against him. In the case of Dinizulu the arrest was made on a warrant specifying high treason. Some of the sworn information on which the Natal Government rely will be found printed at length in the Blue-book Cd. 3888.
  MR. MACKARNESS: What act of high treason was specified in the warrant?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know if any special act was specified, but of course the evidence would turn on that.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Do the Government intend to assent to the continuance of this practice of investigating charges
  1354
  against a person without giving him the details of the charges?
  MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to reply that this was a matter of constitutional procedure. The Government would, of course, do all they could to have it properly carried out.

  Martial Law in Zululand.
  Mr. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is entirely within the authority of the Governor of a British Colony to proclaim martial law in that Colony, or to revoke such proclamation at any moment; whether the Governor of Natal has expressed his disapproval of the proclamation and continuance of martial law in the province of Zululand; whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies-has informed the governor of his opinion that it is unjustifiable to maintain martial law in that province for the purpose of arresting criminals and searching for arms; and whether, under the existing conditions, it is possible for Dinizulu to obtain the evidence necessary for his defence.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Martial law was proclaimed in December on the advice of Ministers, as it was in 1906, and is being maintained on their advice. The Governor and Secretary of State have expressed the opinions attributed to-them. With regard to Dinizulu's defence I would remind the hon. Member that, as I informed the House recently, the Natal Government declare that any allegations which may have been made against them as to the collection of evidence or difficulties thrown in the way of the prisoner's witnesses for his defence are false.

  British East African Protectorate.
  *SIR SCOTT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the estimated native population in the-British East Africa Protectorate; how many of the natives are believed to possess firearms; how many white troops and police are there in the entire territory whether in the Kenya Province, with a native population officially estimated

  1355
  at 600,000 men, there are under 200 native police and only five or six white officers; and does the Colonial Office propose to constitute a Department of Native Affairs, under the direction of a native Commissioner with South African or other Colonial experience.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The native population has been estimuted at 4,000,000, but this must be regarded as a very rough estimate; only a very small number of the natives are believed to possess firearms; there are no white droops and about twenty white police in the entire territory; I am unable to state the exact number of native police and white officers at present in the Kenya Province but I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the hon. Member's figures; the Secretary of State has already appointed a Secretary for Native Affairs who has a large experience of local conditions and is at present attached to the Lieutenant-Governor's and Secretariat Department.
  *Sir SCOTT ROBERTSON: May I ask how many were killed and wounded in the recent disturbances?
  *Mr. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that.
  *Sir SCOTT ROBERTSON: How many of the native population are subjects of His Majesty from India?
  MR. CHURCHILL: A very small proportion, not more than 20,000, I think.
  *Sir SCOTT ROBERTSON: And what are they? Soldiers, policemen, farmers, traders or coolies?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot be expected to be possessed of all those particulars. There are no Indian soldiers there.

  Persia and Turkey.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the frontier disputes between Persia and Turkey have been settled or are in process of being settled.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,; for Sir Edward Grey): The Turco-Persian Frontier Commission is still at Urumia and discussing the question.

  Falkland Islands.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any recent correspondence with the Argentine Government with regard to the Falkland Islands; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: There has been no recent correspondence on the subject of the Falkland Islands. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to tell my right hon. friend privately on what information his Question has been founded that my right hon. friend may form an opinion as to what it refers to.

  Deaths under Anæsthetics
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any statistics of the number of deaths under anæsthetics administered for the purpose of an operation occurring annually in the United Kingdom or any part thereof; whether he has information in the Home Office, or at his command, from which such statistics can be compiled; and, if not, will he take steps to obtain this information in future.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The number of deaths under anaesthetics administered for the purpose of operation which occurred in England and Wales in the year 1906, was 183. The figures will be found on pages 413 and 419 of the last Report of the Registrar-General. These returns are collated from the verdicts of coroners' juries in cases in which inquests are held, and from the certified causes of death in cases where no inquest is held.

  London Tailors Workshops.
  Mr. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the

  1357
  Home Department whether his attention has been called to the number of complaints made respecting alleged breaches of the Particulars Clause in tailoring workshops in London during 1907; and whether he will take the necessary steps to secure the enforcement of the clause.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My attention has not been specially called to this matter; and I find on inquiry that only nineteen complaints were received during 1907 by the London inspectors of breaches of the Particulars Order in tailoring workshops. Proceedings were taken in five cases and a conviction secured in each case. In the enforcement of these Orders, the inspecting staff must necessarily rely to a considerable extent on information received from the workers themselves. Any complaints made to them will be inquired into and, I may add, will be treated as confidential.

  Factory Inspection in West London.
  MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the inconvenience experienced by trade organisations and the workers generally, by reason of the difficulty of ascertaining who the responsible inspectors for the West London district are, owing to the uncertainty caused by divided and overlapping authority, a consequence of which is that offences are not discovered nor dealt with; and whether it is possible to arrange the duties of factory inspectors (male and female) in such a way that overlapping in the tailoring trade could be effectually obviated and the position of the inspectors made intelligible to both employers and employed.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No suggestion that any inconvenience is caused by the existing arrangements has been made to me prior to the hon. Member's Question, nor do I quite understand what is the overlapping or difficulty to which he refers. The name and address of the inspector for the district is stated in the copy of the Abstract posted in every works, and also the name and address of the principal lady inspector; and special complaints relating to the employment of women and girls can, if desired, be made to the latter, other complaints to
  1358
  the former inspector. The Abstract is required to be posted where it can be easily read by the workers. As regards trade organisations, the names and addresses of the responsible inspectors can always be obtained through the workers, or from the published reports of the chief inspector, or by inquiry at the offices of the district inspectors. I may add that laundries and milliners' and dressmakers' workshops in West London are specially assigned to the lady inspectors, but no confusion should arise-as their names alone appear in the Abstract.
  MR. CURRAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain complications have arisen owing to the male and female inspectors visiting factories where both classes of garments are manufactured, and that the organised workers complain that a certain amount of inspection has been neglected through this unsystematic form of overlapping?
  MR. GLADSTONE: If the hon. Member will give me information, I will inquire
  MR. CURRAN: I will give specific cases.

  Sunday Trading.
  Mr. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends this session to introduce a measure dealing with the question of Sunday trading, on the lines of the recommendations of the Joint Committee of 1906.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I am afraid that I see no prospect of doing so.

  Dartmoor Convict Mutiny.
  Mr. HAY MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to certain grave allegations recently made with regard to a mutiny at Dartmoor Prison; whether any independent inquiry has been or will be made in reference to them, and, if so, will he state the result of such inquiry, and whether, if the allegations are false, he will place them before the Attorney-General for the purpose of considering whether proceedings should be

  1359
  taken against the persons responsible for circulating them.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; my attention had not been drawn to these allegations until my hon. friend mentioned them; but I have received a full Report from the Prison Commission as to the recent occurrence at Dartmoor, and I am satisfied that there is absolutely no foundation for the statements and insinuations which have been made. It would, in my opinion, be undesirable to call further attention to them by taking criminal proceedings or other steps. The staff of His Majesty's Convict Prisons are carefully selected men of high character, and they carry out their extremely difficult and trying duties with remarkable patience and humanity.

  Laundry Inspection.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether before issuing Order No. 1,010 regarding the separation of departments in laundries, he consulted representatives of the workpeople engaged; whether any district inspectors have certified laundries under the Order, and what number of applications have been made by proprietors for such certificates; whether the effect of the Order is to allow laundries to work between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., with three different batches of workpeople working for different periods in the same laundry; and whether factory inspectors have frequently reported that under such conditions they find it impossible to check the number of hours worked by the individual employee.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; before the Order was issued it was published in draft and in accordance with the practice now followed as a result of consultation between the Department and the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress, copies were sent to that committee for communication to the representatives of the workmen concerned. I am informed that 334 applications have been received in the different districts (excepting three from which Returns have not yet come in) and 230 certificates have been granted. The Order will allow different periods of employment to be
  1360
  worked in the different departments, and in the Metropolitan area where the period of employment from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. is permissible it would be possible for work to be going on in the laundry from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., but not, of course, in the same department or for the same worker. The Answer to the last paragraph of the Question is in the negative, and I do not anticipate that any difficulty will arise under the Order.

  Bottled Milk.
  Mr. BRANCH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that machines are being sold for automatically filling bottles with milk, such bottles, which are sold retail, containing less than the standard quantity of milk; and whether he can take steps to ensure that the use of such machines and the sale of milk from such bottles shall be illegal.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): There is no standard bottle measure, and the use for trade of bottles not marked with a legal denomination is lawful under Section 22 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878.

  Census of Labour.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will arrange that at the taking of the next Census the information as to occupation shall be indicated in such a way that the numbers of skilled and unskilled working men, and their proportions to the adult males of the population, be recorded.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): The Registrar-General informs me that there does not appear to him to be any practical method by which the desired information could be obtained by means of the next Census. The difficulty lies in framing a definition which would in practice enable it to be determined whether particular men are to be classed as skilled or unskilled in relation to the various employments in the country. I recognise, however, the object which the hon. Member has in view, and if he has any suggestions

  1361
  to mike on the point I have mentioned, the Registrar-General will be happy to consider them.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Are the resources of the right hon. Gentleman's Department exhausted?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: By no means, but it is impossible to make precisely the definition which the hon. Member seeks to obtain. If it can be done it will be done.

  The Royal Commission on Whisky.
  Mr. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the reason why no representative of Ireland has been appointed on the Royal Commission to inquire into the manufacture of whisky; and whether, in view of the fact that the question is of vital concern to a number of whisky manufacturers and traders in Ireland, he will consider the advisability of giving Ireland adequate representation on the Commission.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. I communicated with the Irish Local Government Board before the Royal Commission was constituted. They nominated Professor Adeney, the curator of the Royal University of Ireland and a leading examiner in chemistry, to act on it, and he was appointed accordingly. I may add that it was not intended that the manufacturers and traders should be represented on the Commission. They will be asked to give evidence before it.
  MR. J. DEVLINasked whether it was not a fact that the appointment of this gentleman had given rise to the greatest dissatisfaction in all parts of Ireland; that no one had ever heard of him until his appointment was announced; and that Professor Adeney was not an Irishman at all.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My information is that the appointment of the Commission as a whole has given general satisfaction amongst those who know most about both pot-still and patent-still whisky, and, until this Question was put
  1362
  on the Paper, I had received no complaint as to either its constitution or its personnel.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen protests in different parts of the country—in the Daily Independent and even from the Irish correspondent of the London Times—and are those who are not interested in this question those who are to be consulted as to the character of the Commission?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My information does not altogether tally with that of the hon. Gentleman, for a London paper this morning [Cries of "Which "]—the Standard, which in this matter is, I should say, as authoritative as The Times—says, "Pot-still distillers would prefer the Commission to be impartial and remote from the trade."
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I say that we on these benches desire that the Commission should be impartial, and the right hon. Gentleman should endeavour to get the name of some Irishman who will command the confidence of all parties in Ireland instead of allowing the Local Government Board in Ireland to nominate a gentleman of whom nobody ever heard in Ireland, and against whom, both in Belfast and in Dublin, there have been strong protests?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have taken every step that one could reasonably take to ascertain the qualifications of this particular gentleman for this particular purpose, and I have received this letter from a gentleman who, on this matter, I consider to be as authoritative as anybody else in Ireland:—"I have no knowledge of Professor Adeney's politics, religion or parentage, but he has been in Ireland practically all his life, and I fancy upon the particular question of the distinctive differences in the chemical composition of genuine and adulterated potable spirits his knowledge is equal to that of any expert in the United Kingdom, as he has made a special study of this subject. His degree of Doctor of Science of the Royal University was conferred upon him by the

  1363
  Senate on account of his researches in bacterial fermentation, among other allied chemical objects. He had a very distinguished college career, and he has held various posts in connection with chemistry and research, and is now an examiner in chemistry and curator of the science department of the Royal University of Ireland. He has been vice-president of the Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain and Ireland, and has represented Ireland on the council of that body." May I add myself, as a lifelong abstainer from both pot-still and patent-still, that I thought this man the best man to appoint?
  MR. J. DEVLIN: Is he an Irishman, and is the writer of that letter Sir W. S. Gilbert?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: No; Sir Henry Robinson.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Oh! Sir Henry Robinson.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Why is this Commission composed mainly of Englishmen, seeing that whisky is manufactured mainly in Ireland and Scotland, and that Englishmen know nothing about whisky except the consumption of it?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Jersey Fodder Importation Regulations.
  Mr. HALPIN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that six years ago, a mild outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease having been reported as prevailing in some French departments adjacent to those from which fodder was being shipped to Jersey, the State forthwith passed a law prohibiting the importation of fodder from the whole of France, and that, although, according to French official statements, the infected departments have been free of the plague for some considerable time, the prohibition remains in force and the law was renewed at this last 1907 legislative session; and will His Majesty's Government pass a law prohibiting Continental fodder coming into Great Britain and Ireland.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY.): I understand that the importation of fodder into Jersey from France has been prohibited since 1900, and that in 1907 the prohibition was extended to fodder brought from Guernsey and its. dependencies. The suggestion that similar restrictions should be adopted in the United Kingdom is under consideration.

  Foreign Animals' Wharf at Alderney.
  MR. T. DAVIES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board are-opposed to the establishment of a foreign animals wharf at Alderney, on account of the danger of introduction of disease into Great Britain and of the practical evidences of the insufficiency of any system of quarantine to prevent its-introduction into this country; whether as regards a business which is now carried on at Antwerp, similar in all respects to that proposed in Alderney, the Board of Agriculture is satisfied that the regulations of the Belgian Government and the sanitary precautions taken by them afford a sufficient safeguard against any danger of infection to British cattle; and why the regulations and precautions, satisfactory when carried out by a foreign Government, would be insufficient when laid down and supervised, as proposed, by the Board of Agriculture itself
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. We are not satisfied that the sanitary precautions taken by the Belgian Government afford sufficient security against the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease into this country, and the importation of cattle from Belgium is therefore prohibited. The admission of animals into the Channel Islands from countries affected with foot-and-mouth disease would, we believe, be attended with considerable danger, inasmuch as experience has shown that nothing short of the absolute prohibition of importation from infected countries will prevent the introduction of disease. Section 25 of the Diseases of Animals

  1365
  Act, 1894, makes it incumbent upon us to adopt this course.

  Hay Imports and Glanders.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that hay imported into this country is the medium by which glanders is spread and kept alive; whether the disease is confined principally to stables where large studs are kept and where imported hay is used; and will he cause inquiry to be made.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Our veterinary officers are satisfied that glanders is not spread or kept alive in the manner suggested, and their experience does not go to show that the disease is confined principally to large studs for the feeding of which imported hay is used. In these circumstances my noble friend does not think that any useful purpose would be served by an inquiry into the matter.

  Milk-Blended Butter.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can say whether the Board of Agriculture still approves of the name of Pearksown and the other names to which Pearks is added, for milk-blended butter, having regard to the fact that a firm of the name of Pearks and Company, Limited, manufactures and sells this article.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Yes, Sir.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the name "Pearksown" leads purchasers to believe they are buying butter?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I am not aware of the fact. If the hon. Member can give me any information I will consider it.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Would not common sense tell the hon. Gentleman it is a fact? Will the hon. Gentleman
  1366
  do away with the name which' misleads the public?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: It is a question for the President of the Board of Agriculture to consider.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: You have said that before.
  MR. BYLES: In view 'of these difficulties of nomenclature why not on the principle of calling a spade a spade call this article milk-blended butter?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Because it would be illegal.

  Imports of Foreign Fodder.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can say whether the Board of Agriculture has yet come to a decision with regard to the importation of foreign forage into the United Kingdom, owing to the existence of foot-and-mouth disease among cattle in the Netherlands.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: No decision has yet been arrived at in this matter.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: How long will the Department think before they come to a decision in the matter? Is it the view of the Board that this disease can be kept out of the United Kingdom without preventing foreign forage coming into this country?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The President of the Board is considering the question.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: He has been doing so for the last fortnight and has not yet come to a decision.

  Cattle Importation Regulations.
  MR. T. DAVIES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will inquire as to how far the restrictions imposed on the importation of cattle for slaughter into Great Britain by the Board of Agriculture are being

  1367
  kept up for a protectionist purpose, and not solely for the purposes for which powers were given by the Board of Agriculture by Section 25 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. My hon. friend will not expect me to assert that we have done more or less than our duty under the statutory provisions to which he refers.
  MR. T. DAVIES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that in consequence of the restrictions imposed on the importation of foreign cattle for slaughter into Great Britain, of 470,212 cattle imported in 1907, 344,461 came from the United States, and that of live and dead beef, including frozen and chilled, the United States provided 241,441 tons and Argentina 134,577 tons out of a total of 451,322 tons imported; and if he will cause inquiries to be made as to whether the imports of beef from the United States and a large proportion of those from Argentina are controlled by a few firms of Chicago meat packers.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The statistics cited by my hon. friend are practically correct. There is evidence to show that the reply to his second inquiry is in the affirmative.

  Scottish Fishery Regulations.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if whaling companies will be notified that if they infringe the rules and regulations made by the Fishery Board, especially as regards killing whales within the forty mile limit, their licences will be forfeited.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The issue of the licences will be subject to the proviso that the Whale Fisheries Act, 1907, must be complied with in every respect. A copy of the Act has been sent to the representatives of each company, and they are therefore well aware of the regulations to be observed.

  Scottish Congested Districts Board.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the Local Government Board has ever been called on to express any approval or otherwise of the guarantee given by any individual on which the local authority has undertaken any work subsidised by the Congested Districts Board.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Answer is in the negative. The Congested Districts Board are concerned only with the guarantee as to maintenance given to them by the local authority responsible for the particular work in question.

  Scottish Cattle Sale Yards.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state whether the police have received instructions at any time to report on the number of diseased dying cattle exposed for sale in public sale yards in Scotland.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have no know-I ledge of the existence of such practice as is referred to by my hon. friend.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the truth of the statement? I have seen dying cattle exposed with my own eyes.
  MR. SINCLAIR: If my hon. friend will be good enough to give me information, I will inquire.

  Glasgow Cattle Sales.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state how many cattle sold by public-auction or privately in Glasgow have been, after slaughter, condemned as being unfit for food; how many on an average have been condemned as being unfit for food before slaughter; and if the inspectors have sufficient technical knowledge to enable them to condemn at any rate some percentage of animals dying of tuberculosis before they are purchased for food.
  MR. SINCLAIR: It is impossible to obtain all the information asked for by the hon. Member. As regards the first

  1369
  part of his Question, I am informed that in 1906 the figures of the animals

  Class of animal.

  Number slaughtered.

  Number condemned (wholly or partly) for all causes, including tuberculosis.

  Number condemned (wholly or partly) for tuberculosis.

  Cattle

  43,895

  2,967

  2,194

  Sheep and Lambs

  254,635

  421

  1

  Pigs

  45,456

  2,258*

  2,141*

  Calves

  4,087

  57

  19

  * Include 2,034 heads.

  No animals were condemned in 1906 before slaughter under Section 437 of the Public Health Act. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's Question, the medical inspector of the Local Government Board for Scotland reports as follows:—"The inspection of all animals slaughtered in the city, both home and foreign, is a searching one. I know of no place in Scotland where the detailed examination of all carcases is equally thorough."

  Barlinnie Gaol—Discharge of Prisoners.
  Mr. SWIFT MACNBILL: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that prisoners, on the expiration of their terms of imprisonment in Barlinnie Prison, Glasgow, are not liberated at the gate of the prison, but are conveyed in company in corporation trams from Barlinnie to Cathedral Square, Glasgow, in charge of warders, and there liberated in view of a curious crowd of men, women, and children; whether prison officials have any legal control over prisoners when they leave the precincts of the prison on the day of their discharge; whether he will consider the advisability of securing the immediate liberation of prisoners on leaving the prison and giving them, if need be, their fare or a token by which they could travel free by tram to any quarter of Glasgow to which they desired to go; and whether, having regard to the demoralising effect on the prisoners, who, whether old offenders, first offenders, or juveniles, are herded together in the
  1370
  slaughtered in the public slaughterhouses are as follows—
  same tramcar, and on the public by the continuance of the present system of gaol discharge, steps will be taken for its discontinuance.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Prisoners on leaving Barlinnie Prison are free, but arrange ments have been made whereby they are taken into Glasgow by special tramway cars. The prisoners leave the car in an open part of Cathedral Square, not far from the other Glasgow prison, and near the Discharged Prisoners Aid Society's offices. A warder accompanies the prisoners on the journey, but they are not in his charge. This arrangement was come to in order to meet other complaints in which objections were made to the course suggested by the hon. Member. The prisoners when in the special tram-car are seated so far as circumstances allow so as to separate first offenders and juveniles from habitual offenders. The journey lasts for only twelve minutes but the warder is there, and the agent of the Discharged Prisoners Aid Society joins the car on its way to meet the men who need help. The prisoners have some friends meeting them but the number could not be called a crowd.

  No Licensing Bill for Scotland.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he intends to introduce a Licensing Bill for Scotland during the present session; and can he say at what stage of the session it will be introduced.
  Mr. SINCLAIR: It is not possible for the Government now to promise to introduce a Licensing Bill for Scotland this session.

  Illegal Trawling in the Moray Firth.
  *CAPTAIN WARING: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that between 6th and 20th February trawlers have been constantly at work in the Moray Firth about ten miles off Buckie, and that on 14th February two trawlers were at work west of Lybster and four miles off Castle of Dunbeath; whether these cases have been reported; and, if not, where the fishery cruiser was on these dates.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The specific cases referred to by my hon. friend have not been reported to the Fishery Board. H.M.S. "Ringdove" was in Devonport during the whole of the period mentioned; the "Freya" was in Aberdeen on 6th and 7th instant (in connection with the trial of the master of the trawler "Strathdon"), and she was cruising to Shetland on 7th and 8th instant; she was in Shetland and west coast waters from the 8th to 18th instant, and patrolling the Moray Firth on 19th and 20th instant.
  CAPTAIN WARING: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland a Question of which I have given him private notice, viz., whether his attention has been drawn to an outrage committed in the Moray Firth; when, on the night of Wednesday, 19th February, the fishing boats "Paramount B.F. 628," from Portgordon, was fishing four miles south-east of Wick Bay, a trawler "S.D. 12" passed through her nets destroying four, and on being accused of this sailed alongside the "Paramount" and fired two gun shots into her; whether he will cause inquiries to be made which will lead to the apprehension of the offenders, and what steps he will take to prevent the recurrence of such an outrage.
  MR. SINCLAIR: My attention has been drawn to the circumstances referred to by my hon. friend, and the matter is now under inquiry.

  Irish Agricultural Inspectors—Mr. Porter's Salary.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether Mr. T. S. Porter, one of the inspectors of agriculture in the employment of the Department, is paid a salary of £1,000 a year, with first-class; railway fare; and, if so, will he state the duties Mr. Porter discharges in return for this salary.
  *THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): Mr. Porter has a salary of £800 a year with £200 subsistence allowance, from which a sum of £45 12s. 6d., Naval pension, is deducted. When travelling, first-class railway fare is allowed, as in the case of other agricultural inspectors. Mr. Porter's work at the present time is being re-arranged owing to the severance of the connection between the Department and the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, but his duties are connected with the Department's agricultural schemes and the marketing of agricultural produce. The appointment is statutory, Mr. Porter having been transferred with the salary named from the Land Commission to the Department under the Act of 1899.
  MR. MOONEY: May I ask if this is the same Mr. Porter about whom the Member for South Tyrone interrogated Mr. Bryce, in 1906, alleging that he was doing the same work as the other inspectors whose salaries were £400 a year, and can the hon. Gentleman say whether since he became the head of the Depart ment he has discovered any reason why this gentleman should be given double their salary for doing the same work?
  *Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: With regard to the Question in 1906 it was stated there I were five agricultural inspectors with; salaries ranging from £500 to £300 a year. Mr. Porfer was transferred under the Act and I have no power to alter the terms of his appointment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is not his chief qualification that he is a son-in-law

  1373
  of Mr. Commissioner Wrench and that he is a Horace Plunketeer?
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOE: Has the Vice President in his Department any more scandalous jobs of this kind?
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I hope I have made it clear that the appointment is a statutory one, and that I have no responsibility for it.
  MR. FLYNN: Is this Mr. Porfer receiving £1,000 a year for supervising the expenditure of £3,000 a year?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No, £5,000.
  [No Answer was returned.]

DIVORCE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading upon Friday read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

NEW BILLS.
  POLLING DISTRICTS AND REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To confer upon county councils in Ireland the power to alter the Polling Districts and alter the method of compiling lists of Voters," presented by Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh; supported by Mr. Walter Long, Mr. Joyce, Lord Arthur Hill, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Captain Craig, Mr. Thomas Corbett, Mr. Devlin, and Mr. Kennedy; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MOKENNA,), in asking leave to introduce a Bill to regulate the conditions on which public money may be applied in aid of elementary education in England and Wales, and for other purposes incidental thereto, said:—The indulgence of the House may be asked for any Member who is responsible for the introduction of a Bill,
  1374
  but most of all if its subject relates to education. He cannot flatter himself that he is writing on a clean slate. He has to bear in mind opinions, principles, and even prejudices which he must allow for, and somehow adjust if he hopes to make any advance. Those of us who have been ten years in this House have witnessed victories which have led to further strife and repulses which have left the defeated armies in the field. We have learnt our lesson ill if we still think that a mere victory over opponents is worth having, and that a mere obstruction of changes which are inherent in the policy which Parliament has already approved will check those changes in the long run. I do not propose to enter now into the general aspects of this question. There will be other opportunities in the course of these debates. But I would wish to say one word more by way of preface. We are approaching this subject now for the second time in this Parliament, and I think I am speaking for more than one party when I say that in the interval for reflection since the last effort the desire for a settlement has greatly increased. The public watch with growing indignation and impatience the continuance of these religious dissensions. They feel that the sand is running out in regard to this controversy. If every solution presented to Parliament is to be rejected because it does not give to a church or a denomination all that it wants, the public will feel that the religious controversy is insoluble, and that if we are again to have any hope of peace or of denominational advancement we shall have to remove the religious controversy out of the schools. If we fail once more, if we continue to disagree, we shall have given the most powerful impetus in our generation to the opinion that religion in the schools is a lost cause.
  Before I proceed to an outline of the Bill I must say something as to the reason of the Government for departing from the plan proposed two years ago by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. In my opinion there could be no better or fairer proposals than he then made, and but for the experience we have had of the reception those proposals received in another place, I do not think the Government could have adopted

  1375
  now any wiser course than to tread the same path as my right hon. friend. He based his proposals on the two governing principles of public control of public elementary schools and no tests for the teachers in those schools. But so far as was consistent with those principles, and subject to them, he endeavoured to secure the identity and special characteristic of those denominational schools which were proved by the wishes of the parents to have good ground for their continued identity. So long as my right hon. friend had the execution of this plan in his own hands, supported by the majority in this House, he conducted it with an ability which is the despair of one who has to follow him, and with a fairness towards the denominational system which resulted in the largest majority for the Third Reading of so controversial a measure that this House has ever seen. But when that Bill passed from this House to another place his whole plan was turned upside down. Although it was defended there by Lord Crewe with an ability and a fairness which were acknowledged on both sides, the majority in that House overlaid the measure with a series of Amendments which entirely spoilt the original plan. Every security which had been given by my right hon. friend for the protection of denominational teaching was made a jumping-off ground for renewed and fatal attacks upon the governing principles of the Bill. It is true that those principles were accepted in the other place in theory, but in practice it was found that they were utterly incompatible with the Lords' notions of the necessary securities for denominational teaching. Compromise on the basis that was then proposed by my right hon. friend has been shown to be impossible, and the Government, therefore, have not adopted the course of reintroducing a measure with the certain result that it would be smothered under the piled up Amendments made in another place.
  Now let me for a moment touch upon the educational position as it now stands. As the House knows, there are two great Acts governing our educational system. If I were to select a cardinal feature from each, I should say that in Mr. Forster's Act it was the
  1376
  establishment of local representative authorities for the provision of school accommodation and the administration of elementary education. In the Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition I should say that the cardinal feature was the co-ordinating of grades of education under a single local authority. Both those Acts effected a. great work in the respects which I have named, and in so far I think they will both be permanent. Under Mr. Forster's Act a type of school was established which experience has proved to be admirably adapted to its purposes. We hear complaints of the council schools, but I think those complaints usually emanate from people who do not use them, and they give satisfaction to the people who do. But under Mr. Forster's Act the council schools, or, as they were then called, the board schools, were only a supplementary part of the national provision. He found and he left a large system of voluntary schools, receiving grants but no rates. These voluntary schools had been founded, in the main, on denominational' principles. But children were obliged, under Mr. Forster's Act, and down even to this moment, to attend those schools, whatever the religion of their parents might be. It may be legitimate that grants should be paid to schools which really respond to the wishes of the parents, but I cannot conceive that it is a sound principle that public money should be employed in the maintenance of schools giving denominational instruction which is repugnant to the parents whose children have to attend those schools. Under Mr. Forster's Act a very great multiplication of voluntary schools took place, not, as I have said, in response to any special desire of the parents, but partly from the benevolent zeal of Churchmen for the propagation of their own doctrines, and partly from the thrift of the ratepayers, who found voluntary subscriptions less expensive than school rates. This multiplication of voluntary schools proved the undoing of the system—subscribers began to complain of the intolerable strain. Such was the condition of affairs when the right hon. Gentleman opposite introduced his-Bill in 1902.
  Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman at that time did not ask himself the question whether very large

  1377
  numbers of those voluntary schools ought ever to have been brought into existence at all, or certainly whether they ought ever to have been allowed to continue to exist. It was notorious at that time that throughout great tracts of the country parents were complaining bitterly that their children were bound to attend these schools. It would have seemed that the proper course in 1902 would have been to find some remedy for that state of things. The right hon. Gentleman provided a remedy for the intolerable strain on the finances of his friends by imposing an intolerable strain on the convictionsof his Opponents. He charged the maintenance of the voluntary schools on the rates, and he thereby for the first time laid upon the public the whole responsibility for maintaining institutions which were under private control and for the first time permitted religious tests on the appointment of teachers, all of whose salary was paid by the public. I claim that the majority of the nation have recognised that the Act of 1902 inflicted a grievance for which Parliament is bound to find a remedy. As to part of that grievance I can quote the right hon. Gentleman himself as my authority. Speaking of the grievance as it affects single school parishes, he said in this House on 23rd July, 1906—
  "The solution both of 1870 and of 1902 had this great disadvantage, that it left certain grievance practical grievances in some cases, theoretical grievances in many cases unredressed. It left the Nonconformist in a single school area, where there was only a Church school, face to face with the necessity of sending his child to that school, or to no school at all."
  Here was an admission.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Did not I say there was another grievance?
  MR. McKENNA: Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman said there was another grievance on the other side. That was a grievance which it was open to him to remove. The grievance which he admits requires a remedy at this moment. The problem, then, with which we are confronted is how to find, without any revolutionary proceeding, by a measure expressed in clear and unmistakable terms, the acceptance without hesitation or wavering of the principle of public control of our public elementary schools
  1378
  and of the abolition of tests for teachers in those schools, and at the same time to have regard to the history of existing institutions, and to the varied traditions, habits, and beliefs which exist amongst our people, which to so many are the dearest part of their lives. That is the problem which the Government have to face.
  Now let me endeavour to explain to the House very briefly the measure by which the solution of that problem is sought. May I put a question first I What is the characteristic mark of a public elementary school? What is it that distinguishes it from any other kind of elementary school? I take it to be that it is a school which any child who is not otherwise efficiently educated may be compelled to attend. Down to 1902, and at this moment, there are two kinds of public elementary schools, the provided school and the non-provided school. Under this Bill it is proposed that in future there shall be but one type of public elementary school provided by the public, controlled by the public, managed by the public, and that the teachers in them shall be appointed without religious tests. The House is familiar already with the type of public elementary school which is proposed in the Bill. It will be in every particular the old board school or the present council school Such a school may be provided by the local authority for every child whose parent wishes it to have accommodation in such a school, and no child can be compelled to attend any other kind of school. That is the new cardinal principle of this Bill, and I hope that principle will receive the acceptance of this House and of Parliament. The religious instruction in this school will be the same as that which has been given in the council schools under the law for the last thirty-eight years. There will be no change except a clear enunciation of the principle that there must be no test on the appointment of the teachers. Now, I think in this proposal the Government are following the road of experience. I do not think it can be disputed, taking the whole period for which we have known these council schools, that the mass of the nation have been satisfied with the kind of education

  1379
  given in them. They have been established in every variety of district, urban and rural, and amongst every variety of local habit, tradition, and political feeling, and nowhere do we find that the parents have complained of them. It will be said that objection has not been taken to these schools in the past because there has been an alternative type of education offered to the parents. That alternative has been more apparent than real. Over considerable tracts of the country there has been no alternative to the council schools, and yet we find the council schools, which have been established here, there, and everywhere merely because there was not sufficient existing accommodation, have in fact given satisfaction.
  It will be said also, and I know it will be said by a great many of my hon. friends on this side of the House, that this proposal does not offer the only final and acceptable solution of the difficulty, and that the only logical basis upon which our national system of education can be established is the basis of purely secular schools. Well, Sir, I say it, I confess, with as many apologies as may be necessary, that the argument that a particular proposal is the only logical one does not carry great weight to my mind. What we have to inquire into is, what is the system that is practically adapted to the needs of our people? What do we find has been justified by experience, and what has been condemned? If we have a convenient and practicable system which is logical, so much the better; but if it be not logical, nevertheless do not sacrifice your own convenience. Let us make sure beyond everything else that the parents get the kind of education which they need for their children. [OPPOSITION cheers.] I welcome those cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite, for I can assure them that I am endeavouring now, for the first time, to recognise the wishes of the parents. As I have said, this Bill establishes only one type of school, the council school. From these council schools as many Godfearing children are sent out year by year I as from any other kind of school, and the religious instruction given them does not revolt or shock the consciences of the
  1380
  parents. We should make a great mistake if we were to leave on one side all the lessons that we have learned during the last thirty-eight years, and for the sake of some ground of logical necessity adopt a system which the great majority of our people do not want.
  Having said so much of the schools under what I term the national conditions, I think the House will agree that it is impossible to ignore the fact that large sections of our community desire a type of instruction in which more definite denominational teaching is given than in our existing council schools. I recognise clearly that great sacrifices have been made in the past by devoted men and women in founding and maintaining these voluntary schools, and I am aware that, if the State were to refuse to recognise these schools in any form or shape, it would be regarded by very many people as an act of pitiless injustice. The moment voluntary schools are no longer public elementary—the moment they are no longer schools which any child need attend, then, I think, we may begin to consider that the position has changed and that there is room for generous treatment of them. These voluntary schools, if they are to receive Exchequer grants, will have to satisfy all the requirements of the Board of Education. Their standard of education will have to be precisely the same as in the public elementary schools. They will not be allowed to be too small, because efficiency cannot be secured in too small schools. Therefore they will be limited to schools with an average attendance of at least thirty. [Laughter.] My hon. friends laugh, but in the rural districts it is not always easy to maintain schools even of that size. They will further not be allowed to exist, at any rate, with the support of public money in single-school parishes. They must not be carried on for profit, and they must not have a fee of more than 9d. a week. Those are not very severe restrictions to put upon voluntary schools, but they will have this restriction which they have not-had before, that they will only exist if the parents wish them, for any parent who does not wish his child to attend such a school can call upon the local authority to find accommodation for his child in a local authority school, and as

  1381
  such schools will not be allowed in single-school parishes there can be no danger of pressure being put upon parents in our rural hamlets to compel them to refrain from asking for a publicly provided school. With regard to single-school parishes, I think it has been generally recognised that those parishes are properly a subject for special treatment. I have already quoted the Leader of the Opposition on that subject. I have not quoted him on the other half of the subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwas understood to indicate that what he said on the other subject should also be quoted.
  MR. McKEENA: I have not the quotation with me. I was under the impression that the other part dealt with another part of the subject. I am quite aware that individual exceptions can be pointed out, but as a general rule a single-school parish is one in which there are only enough children to justify on educational grounds the existence of one school. In these parishes there must always be a public elementary school, as I have already said, and if in addition to a school of that kind we were to have a multiplication of small rural schools the only object which we should be certain to secure would be the complete destruction of the efficiency of the education. Public money ought not to be spent, whether through rates or through grants, in fostering schools which must be educationally inefficient, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to go beyond the educational argument to justify the proposal in the Bill, that in single-school parishes the State will recognise no other than the public elementary school. From what I have said the House will perceive that the proposal of the Government is that the two kinds of schools shall receive State recognition. One, and that the predominant type, will be the public elementary school publicly supported and publicly controlled, and that alone will receive rate aid. The second, and the exceptional type, will be the voluntary school which will receive grants but no rate aid, and which will be what it has hitherto not been—voluntary in fact as well as in name. It will be supported by volunteers. It will be made grants, but maintained by volunteers, and it will be attended by children whose parents voluntarily wish them to attend.
  1382
  I have to turn now to a branch of the subject on which I must claim the special indulgence of the House—namely, the financial proposals of the Bill. Of the proposals themselves I shall not attempt more than a brief summary, as I could not hope to make myself intelligible unless hon. Members had in their hands a detailed statement showing precisely what these proposals are. Such a memorandum will be supplied with the Bill, and will give all necessary information. It has been borne in upon me during my short tenure of office how much local administrators are harassed at every point and turn by the unwillingness of the ratepayers in the heavily rated districts to meet the expense of much needed educational improvements. Highly influential deputations representing all the county boroughs, all the counties and boroughs and urban districts, have represented to the Board that the Exchequer must come to the aid of the distressed ratepayers, and that the growth of the education rate must be checked. Medical inspection of school children has added a new charge to the cost of education. It has come on the top of heavy additions to the rates consequent on the Act of 1902. The present Bill does not merely provide means to meet any cost which it may itself entail, but it also gives promise of some relief to the ratepayers, and particularly to the ratepayers in the heavily rated districts. When my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who has ever been indulgent to the claims of education—gave me some assurance of Exchequer assistance for carrying out the proposals of the present Bill, I turned my attention at once to the question of how to find better means of distributing the Exchequer money than we have at present. We see in different areas at the present time most surprising variations of the rates. In one district it runs as high as 3s. Id. in the £ in another it is as low as a penny in the £. These anomalies are very startling and indicate the varying degrees of oppressiveness on the ratepayer, a matter on which the ratepayer is never silent. Now I confess I was ambitious, and I endeavoured if I could to discover a plan more equitable with the view to greater equalisation of the rates. I confess that for a long time I sought for some automatic test of poverty which would be a

  1383
  guide to the Exchequer in the distribution of the grant. It has been alleged, for instance, that one of the main grounds for the heavy rate in a particular district is because the child population in that district is very large in relation to the general population, and very large in relation to the rateable value of the district per head. I have had innumerable sets of figures made out by the officials of the Board of Education, to whom the House will permit me to take this opportunity of tendering my sincere thanks for the elaborate care with which these have been made out. But, unfortunately, I found that this automatic test was of no value at all. Some districts which at the present moment are lowest rated appear from that test to be the very poorest, and I should have been wasting public money, or, at any rate, giving it where it was least wanted in many cases, if I had distributed the grant on that system. After examination lasting many weeks, the only certain factor which I could find at the present time was the expenditure on buildings, and accordingly I have adopted that factor, at any rate, as one of the features in the new proposals for the distribution of the grant. How much is it which each locality spends on new buildings either by way of loan charge or in any other way? But a final solution, I have had reluctantly to come to the conclusion, is impossible at the present time. We have not, in fact, the means of knowledge. Until the present Bill has been in operation for some time it will be quite impossible to see the precise degree in which it may affect particular districts, and to make a fair calculation of the weight of the burden over the country. We cannot say what the burden will be in a particular district. But there is another and a greater issue. We do not, in fact, at present know what is the true rate-burden in any area, and until we get a reform of the system of valuation all over the country we do not know how much we are paying. All we do know is that a Is. rate in one district is no heavier than a 9d. rate in a second, and no lighter than a Is. 3d. rate in a third. Until we have the reform in the system of valuation which will be brought about under the measure which my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board has now in hand it is impossible to get a final solution. I have had, therefore,
  1384
  to fall back upon the present basis, unsatisfactory as it is, as the basis of future distribution; but with this warning, that the present proposals are only-temporary, and that a distribution on a more rational and equitable basis will be found as soon as once the materials are placed at the disposal of the Board.
  The Bill, in the first place, repeals the-Aid and Fee Grants, thus placing at the disposal of the Board of Education the whole of the money voted by Parliament in the same way as is now the case in regard to the annual grant. Insofar as-the buildings are concerned that is all that is done by the Bill. Further explanation will be found in the Memorandum already spoken of and which will be circulated to Members with the Bill. I first compute the actual amount which was received by a local authority in the last year, and I divide that amount by the number of children in average attendance. This will give a certain amount per child in each area. To that amount I add 2s., and the whole of this becomes a new standard or block grant for the area. To the old grant plus 2s. per child I add further one third of the annual cost of the existing loan charges, and one third of the cost of any future loan charge, including in those loan charges any amount which is paid for rent of land or buildings. To this I further add in the case of heavily rated districts which have been receiving a special grant for the last two years, one half of the amount of grant that they have been so receiving. Those three items, taken together, are subject to certain limitations. First, no area is to-receive less per child than 4s. more than it now gets, so that every area, even that which is worst treated under this proposal, will be 4s. per child better off under this Bill than at the present moment. Another limitation is that no area is to-get more than 6s. per child more than now. There is a further restriction that no area is to receive more than 75 per cent. of the whole cost of its elementary education. All these benefices added together will cost to the Exchequer something over £1,400,000 a year. If I add to this amount the sum now distributed in grants and divide the total so obtained by the number of children in average attendance, it works out at an average of 47s. per child, and accordingly 47s. per child is-the amount which it is proposed to give

  1385
  in grants to voluntary schools. The voluntary and the county council schools will be placed on exactly the same footing; they will receive like grants, and the Board of Education will demand precisely the same standard of secular education from both. We will make sure that with the public money so expended on voluntary schools we meet with a good return in the shape of secular instruction. Let me repeat that I put forward this proposal now only as a temporary scheme of distribution, and it must be reconsidered as soon as a more stable condition of affairs of elementary education is reached and a basis obtained for determining the assessable value, and it is proposed that the scheme will be revised certainly not later than the year 1911. I must apologise for dealing at such a length with a matter which I regret to say is necessarily dry and in many respects tedious.
  It remains for me to explain how I propose to deal with the transfer of existing voluntary school buildings which the trustees do not propose to continue as voluntary schools. In the case of all other than single schools in single-school parishes, and even in those parishes in the case of schools with trusts which are not purely educational, the trustees are to be allowed to transfer the buildings to the local education authority if they wish to do so, either absolutely or to such an extent, as may be agreed upon and on such terms as may be arranged This, I admit, will be an interference with trusts; but I have an example for that in previous legislation in 1870 and 1902. Complete freedom will be left to either party. With regard, however, to schools under tight trusts in single-school parishes the case is different. It must be remembered that in those parishes no public money of any kind is to be spent under this Bill upon any other than a public elementary school. Therefore, if the trustees of a tight trust school in a single-school parish wish to carry on that school they will be at liberty to do so, but they will be obliged to do it out of their own resources. In a great majority of cases the trustees will have no sufficient funds to enable them to carry on the school, and therefore the trust must fall for it purpose unless some arrangement is made under this Bill to deal with them. We must not overlook
  1386
  the fact that these tight trusts are partly educational and partly denominational. How can we now in the best possible way execute the original purpose of these trusts, having regard to the fact that the school can no longer be kept on or continued on its old lines I will explain. The reason of that is educational. We do not wish for a multiplication of small schools. Now it is quite clear, in so far as the trust is educational the local authority will execute that part of it by giving elementary education in the school five days in the week. In so far as the voluntary school is under a denominational trust, it can be carried, and properly carried out, on the remaining two days of the week, viz., Saturday and Sunday, and further by giving denominational instruction out of school hours, of course by some teachers other than the regular teachers in the school, during five days in the denominational tenets of those parents who desire-their children to receive it. This, I say, will be a complete execution of the trust in its principle and purpose—such a complete execution as will be alone possible if the trust cannot execute itself. For if the State is to be asked to pay for the elementary education, it is entitled to take a share in laying down the position. In the case of tight trusts where the trustees cannot themselves carry on the schools, the school buildings shall be transferred to the local education authority, who will undertake to keep them in good repair, furnished, cleaned, lighted, warmed, and placed at the dissposal of the trustees for the giving of denominational instruction five days in the week out of school hours, and entirely at their disposal on Saturday and Sunday for such denominational purposes as the trustees think fit. I further propose that in order to give every security that the buildings will be used for these purposes, including religious teaching, that the trustees may make it a condition of transfer that Cowper-Temple instruction shall be given in such schools. It will be agreed that a-transfer on these terms will be the-nearest execution of the trust that is possible under the circumstances, and that therefore no question of rent can possibly arise. Before I leave this subject, let me say upon the question of facilities that where these are proposed to be

  1387
  given for special religious instruction in single-school parishes—because in these parishes voluntary schools will not be allowed—it is not proposed under the Bill to allow the facitities to be given for special religious instruction in other than "ingle-school parishes, because in other than single - school parishes special religious instruction may be given in the voluntary schools. The trustees of any existing school buildings who desire to transfer their buildings to the local education authority on such terms and rent as may be agreed upon, may make it a condition that in these schools Cowper-Temple instruction shall always be given.
  To return to one aspect of this matter which I cannot help mentioning—cannot help regarding with other than sincere regard—that is, that every change in our educational system must for the time being cause very great anxiety to the teachers employed in the schools. I am glad to say that it has been always a custom whenever voluntary school buildings have been transferred to the local authority, for the local authority to take over the schools as a going concern, and to continue the school teachers and to pay them not less than their former salaries. I cannot conceive that any variation of this custom is likely to take place under the new system; but in order to relieve the teachers of any anxiety it is proposed to embody in this Bill Clause 7, subsection 3, of the Bill of 1906. Provision is also made to continue the payments to the Annuity Fund for one year so as to safeguard the interest of teachers who may find themselves out of employment. The effect of the Bill, as a whole, is to bring a larger number of schools, and consequently of teachers in those schools, directly under the local authority than is now the case. Though I am aware that there must be anxiety among the teachers as to what will happen to them in the voluntary schools, I would remind them that the amplitude of the grant that is now proposed to be given to the schools is a sufficient security for them, and that there will be funds for paying them an adequate salary.
  I think that I have now completed such a preliminary account of this Bill as is necessary to explain its terms.
  1388
  I commend it to the favourable consideration of the House, with the prayer that it may be a settlement of this vexed question. It was with no wish of my own that a year ago I found myself placed at the Board of Education. I was taken from a position, humbler and less conspicuous, but one in which I found myself very happily placed, and in which there was no religious controversy. If I refer to myself now, it is only to say that, coming as I did to the Board of Education with no wish of my own, without any special aptitude for the work, it is impossible for anyone to be there any time without having two great facts borne in his mind. The first and most satisfactory one is that we have in this country a very great number of earnest, zealous men and women, who are giving the best energy of their lives in promoting the cause of education in their own districts. I have met them by scores and hundreds. They have come up to the Board on deputations; and I can assure the House that nothing would please these men and women more than that the path of educational improvement should be made clear before them. I believe that this Bill will help them. The second great fact is that, while the field of possible educational improvement is so unlimited as to offer a boundless prospect of benefit to the nation, we are at every point and at every turn hindered and delayed by this intolerable quarrel over the religious question. I can assure the House, after a year's experience, that I cannot find words that express my sense of the discouraging drag which this long-lasting controversy has plated on educational progress. The Board of Education would ask for nothing better than that their work should be removed from the distorting medium within which a subject of heated political controversy in this House is disposed to centre, and to be allowed to continue their work of educational reform, at any rate, more unobserved than they are at present. They have a great task before them. No office is better equipped with men of ability, energy, and industry. The Board will perform their task, if Parliament will only agree to rescue the question of education from partisan controversy and come to some common agreement for protecting the children. This is the object which the Government have in proposing this Bill; and in the belief

  1389
  that this will be the effect of this proposal I commend it to the acceptance of Parliament.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to regulate the conditions on which public money may be applied in aid of elementary education in England and Wales."—(Mr. McKenna.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by bespeaking our sympathy for himself and for his Department. As far as I am concerned, he has that sympathy in the fullest measure. When he goes on to say that the object which he has in view in bringing forward this Bill is to relieve the Department over which he presides of all the difficulties incident to the work of education caused by the bitterness of the religious controversy, then I am bound to say that never, in all my Parliamentary experience, have I known a Bill brought in for a particular object which seemed less qualified to carry it out. This Bill, I understand, is to bring religious peace; it is to free the path of philanthropic educationists from the trammels which beset them. The right hon. Gentleman was much happier in his anticipatory description of this Bill, which he gave us six months ago, when he said that the next education measure of the Government would be to bring, not an olive branch, but a sword. The sword is undoubtedly brought forth, but whether the edge is sharp, whether it is likely to be an efficient instrument in the hands of those who attempt to wield it, I have my doubts. The controversy which begins to-night, but which will not end to-night, can alone settle that question. The right hon. Gentleman began with a sort of historical survey of the course of education up to the epoch-making measure which he introduced, and in the course of it he was good enough to quote me as saying that there was a Nonconformist grievance in certain single school areas. I have always admitted it, and, though the right hon. Gentleman forgot to say so, I did something material in the Act of 1902 to remedy it. I gave to the local authority, whether a school was required from the strictly secular point of view or not, in any district, power to erect another school, if, among other things, they thought that
  1390
  the wishes of the parents—which the right hon. Gentleman appeals to in this-case—rendered such a course necessary. But the grievance incident to the single-school is not a Nonconformist grievance at all. It often, and mainly, is a Church of England or a Roman Catholic grievance as well. Their view is that if you have a school in which Cowper-Temple teaching is given, you have a grievance precisely on all fours with the grievance alleged on the side of the Nonconformists, who do not approve of the teaching in the single-school areas where the Church of England or Roman Catholics are teaching. What does the right hon. Gentleman do? He not only does not remedy it, but he doubles, quadruples, and multiplies it indefinitely. Has he made any calculation of the number of single-school areas in the country parishes in this country, where at this-moment the population are told to go to the schools, and where they approve the religious teaching given and prefer it to the alternative teaching? I can tell him that it is a very large number, and in every one of these parishes the single-school grievance which he quotes me as dealing with is one which he is going to create for the first time in its most aggravated and most unjust shape. In those areas not only is the right hon. Gentleman doing an injury to the parents who send their children to the schools, if the parents prefer the teaching there, but he is committing an act of the grossest injustice to those who built the schools, who spent their money in building them, and who have done so much to maintain them. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to take these schools, to appropriate them for every school day in the week; and he diverts them wholly from one of the purposes for which they were originally constructed. I should have thought that it would have been the business of a statesman, in attempting to do what the right hon. Gentleman says-that he desires to do—namely, to remove the religious difficulty—to find some means by which both sets of parents among Churchmen and a Nonconformist minority could obtain that kind of teaching for their children which they most desire. No; the right hon. Gentleman, who talks so much about removing the religious difficulty, gratuitously creates it, and with injustice to those who made the schools. There was not a trace in his speech of the

  1391
  slightest desire to meet the wishes of the parents, of those parents who, rightly or wrongly, prefer the kind of religious instruction now given in these schools, and who would view the change which the right hon. Gentleman is going to force down their throats with the utmost dismay and disapproval. If we turn from the right hon. Gentleman's gross ill-treatment, first, of the owners of the voluntary schools, and secondly, of the parents who approve the teaching in these schools; if we leave for a moment, at all events, the single-school area grievance, which the right hon. Gentleman talks as if he had done something in this proposal to remedy, instead of multiplying and doubling the grievances, and if we turn to the urban areas, what do we find? Apparently, urban districts are not in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion single-school areas at all, and are to have a wholly different method applied to them. There was a great lacuna here in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He ought to have told us what constitutes a single school area. It is perfectly clear even in rural areas that the parish school or the old voluntary school is in a single-school district, but what constitutes a single-school district in a town? That is all-important. How far has a child to go and yet have it in his power to say he has not an alternative school at his disposal? There is a large thoroughfare between two schools, one voluntary and the other provided—they are separated, it may be, by only one hundred yards. Are these in the same or in different areas?
  MR. McKENNA: The definition was in the Bill of 1906. A single-school parish is a parish in which on 1st January, 1908, there was only one school within the area of a minor local education authority. That is very technical. It includes rural parishes, parishes in urban districts under 20,000 and rural districts under 10,000 in which there is only one school.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But that does not include the larger rural parishes. Therefore it is no definition. What is the definition of a single-school area in London?
  MR. McKENNA: London would not be a single-school area. It would not come under the definition of a minor local
  1392
  authority. But the definition in the Bill of 1906 does not include towns of any sort.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then it seems that there is something not in the Bill which is of fundamental importance.
  MR. McKENNA: It is in the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But there is something not in the Bill, and I am going to show what it is. Towns of over 20,000—however distant its two schools may be, and however difficult of access—will not be single-school areas; and every child will be supposed to have full choice of a school.
  MR. McKENNA: That is so.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then the Bill may be lacking in logical completeness, and I think it is, but at all events it is comparatively simple. I understand that every voluntary school in an urban district of over 20,000 inhabitants may contract out of the Act if the parents wish it. That is of considerable importance, I should have thought, from the point of view of those who think that every child ought to have within roach a school in which Cowper-Temple teaching is given. What is the definition of "within reach" in the Bill?
  MR. McKENNA: The same as under the existing law. The local authority must provide accommodation for all the children within its area, but it does not necessarily build a school next door to each child. According to practice the distance may be from half a mile to two or even three miles in rural districts. Whatever is the law now will be the law under this Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then the local authority is to decide whether the school is near enough for the child to go to. That is of enormous importance, because it depends on that decision how many schools and what kind of schools can contract out of the Act. There is no principle laid down in the Bill, and no appeal to the Education Department. It depends entirely on the local authority to decide whether a Church of England or Roman Catholic school can contract out of the Act. Let the House consider what the injury is that the right hon. Gentleman is

  1393
  doing to the cause of education. I have indicated the kind of injury to the owners and trustees of voluntary schools, and to the parents who desire to send their children to those schools. Now as to the cause of education in the urban districts. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Act of 1902 had this great merit—that it did co-ordinate education in all its branches. Everyone who has watched the working of that Act will admit that the right hon. Gentleman did it no more than justice and that the cause of education has gained prodigiously in all great urban centres from the fact that education of all kinds, elementary, secondary, and technical, is brought within the circuit of the power of one single authority, which can deal as a whole with all the educational problems presented by the district, whether of the simple educational kind, or such questions as medical examination, scholarships, and the training of teachers, and all the other subsidiary but most important questions which modern education necessarily involves. From that coordination of education the right hon. Gentleman puts it in the power of every voluntary school, if the parents desire, to withdraw. Henceforth, while every child in the country is refused access to denominational education every parent in the urban districts who desires denominational education for his child must send his child to a school withdrawn from the advantages of collective management and support. The right hon. Gentleman says that the choice is given to the parent as to where he shall send his child. Yes, but that is in the urban districts. And what sort of choice is it? The parent will not be able to choose between this and that kind of religious instruction. No, the parent will have to say, Shall I sacrifice the good education of my child in secular matters in order to attain the religious education I desire? You again bring back that bad system of starving every school where the religious education you happen to approve does not prevail. You may be levelling a powerful blow against the Church of England. That is manifestly your object. It is written large in every line of this Bill. But in attempting to strike the Church of England are you not dealing a blow, not only at other denominations, like the Roman Catholics and the Jews, but at the interests of
  1394
  education itself? The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is, and I will convince the most sceptical amongst those who seem to doubt my assertion. The present system, whatever be its merits in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman, has undoubtedly this merit—that every school is worked up to the same standard of excellence. The teachers of all schools, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and provided, all get the same rate of pay and are all equally qualified to obtain in equal amount the general advantages arising from the coordination of education. You are by this Bill going to create a new kind of school for the benefit of those who like their children to be brought up in their own religion, and you will fine those parents by destroying the excellence of the secular education given in those schools. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is going to add to the grant a sum which varied between a maximum of 6s. and a minimum of 4s. per child in average attendance. Does any one who knows anything of the statistics of education in this country believe that even the maximum grant of 6s. a child is going to enable the voluntary schools, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Wesleyan, to maintain the standard which has been set by the modern requirements of education. Is it not folly? In London I believe at this moment the cost per child is £3 6s. 8d. for maintenance. The cost before the Act of 1902 was £2 1s. 9d., so that the present addition to maintenance per head in the voluntary schools is no less than 14s., if my information is accurate, since the Act came into operation. The right hon. Gentleman is going to throw upon the managers and owners of voluntary schools not merely the provision of that additional 14s., of which he is going to subscribe 6s., but the whole cost of maintaining the edifice. That may be a very agreeable prospect to hon. Gentlemen who cheer; but may I ask how the education in these schools is going to be kept up to the present standard, which costs £3 6s. 8d. for maintenance? Is it not perfectly obvious on the face of the figures I have given, and I am sure they could be multiplied indefinitely, that the 6s. additional grant that they propose to give is utterly inadequate to meet the requirements of the case, and that you will have in the future, as you had before 1902, two classes of schools in all your

  1395
  big towns in which a large number of parents, nobody can tell how many, will prefer sending their children for religious and perhaps other grounds to the denominational schools, where it is impossible that they should find and where nobody expects they ever can find the same level of secular instruction as is now given in schools of all denominations and of all kinds and characters under the Act of 1902. I do not wish to dwell too much upon the gross injustice you are doing to those who spend vast sums of money in building and improving these voluntary schools. Since the Act of 1902, since the new system, I am informed that in London alone over £400,000 has been spent on the Church schools. I do not profess to be an expert in the matter, and I may be mistaken, but I am informed that that is the figure. You are going to destroy the value of a good deal of that, because you are going again to start these invidious distinctions which will give this choice to parents: "Shall we send our child to the relatively ill-equipped voluntary school or to the school which has the Government grant and the rate aid behind it" I think that is a gross injustice to the subscriber. But I do not wish to make them or their interests or their convictions the main ground of my complaint against this Bill. The main ground of my complaint is that so far as country districts are concerned it is grossly unfair to the parents who send their children to a voluntary and denominational school, and that so far as the urban districts are concerned, you have shattered the great educational work which was by common consent performed in 1902. Every educationist admits that part of the case. You are going to withdraw from the control in secular matters of the central education authority in each district all power of bringing these schools into co-ordination with their general system, all power of aiding the salaries of teachers, all power of seeing that the educational advantages are equal all round, all power of making them share in the general advantages of the district By so doing you are putting before the parents, Roman Catholic and Anglican, the most cruel of all dilemmas, the most unjust of all choices, namely, "Shall we sacrifice our religious beliefs, in which we want our children to be
  1396
  brought up, in order to give them the worldly advantages which may be obtained from sending them to a well-equipped school; are we to sacrifice things in which we believe and for which we have been ready to sacrifice money, causes in which our whole faith is involved, in order to see that the advantages given to the indifferent parent, it may be, or, at all events, to the Nonconformist parent next door to us, are all given to our children—the advantages which are to be derived from a sound secular education in the schools that have behind them, not merely State aid, but rate aid?" I shall not stop on the present occasion to deal with the extraordinary logic of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. I remember that, when his predecessor was introducing his Bill, he explained that the pledges on which the hon. Gentlemen opposite had been returned to Parliament were of a kind which prevented any institution receiving public money, either from rates or from taxes, being outside popular control. What he said was—
  "After the date named, no elementary school shall receive a penny of public money either from rates or from taxes, unless it becomes a provided school within the meaning of the Education Acts. Unless' "—
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman's successor will mark these words—
  "electoral promises and pledges are fustian and fudge, unless they are mere sound and fury, signifying nothing, no other clause than this is possible."
  MR. McKENNA: The schools which I propose will not be provided schools.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But they will get money from the taxes, and, what is more, probably their only source of revenue will come from the taxes. And does the right hon Gentleman say that they are going to be under public control?
  MR. McKENNA: No, sir. The education given in them must conform to a standard laid down by the Board of Education. In no other respect will they be public elementary schools. In all other respects they will be, as, in my opinion, they are now and they ought to be, private institutions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My question was this: They are institutions which do get

  1397
  money from taxes. Are they under public control?
  MR. McKENNAwas understood to say "No."
  MR. BALFOUR: Then the pledges of the right hon. Gentleman are fustian and fudge. I should not really complain of hon. Gentlemen opposite if I knew exactly what their principle was. I sometimes think they adapt their legislation to their electoral pledges, but still more often they adapt their electoral pledges to their legislation. I cannot quite make out whether this Bill is supposed to be in accordance with their electoral pledges or whether their electoral pledges, as interpreted by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, have been modified so as to suit this Bill, though I rather think it is the latter. I do not complain of that, because this servitude to electoral pledges which hon. Gentlemen opposite profess when they have some proposal of more than usual enormity to bring before the country does certainly not make for their legislative independence, but if the Government have, as I gather they have, brought in this proposal with all that freedom which they now claim from their electoral pledges as previously interpreted, they might surely have brought in a measure which was not in such absolute and complete contradiction of every sound canon of religious liberty and of the free choice of parents, and of sound educational methods. Nothing can make this Bill a good educational measure. You sacrifice education absolutely to the violence of your religious prejudice, and to the desire to injure a Church to which you do not belong. In these circumstances it is quite impossible, even at this early stage of our discussions on this Bill, that I can promise the light hon. Gentleman smooth or easy progress in the task which he has undertaken.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am sure that the last thing which my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education expected to receive from the Leader of the Opposition was the assurance that this Bill would have either a smooth or an easy passage, in that respect the concluding part of his speech does not in any way disappoint our expectations. But I think the right
  1398
  hon. Gentleman has been a little lavish, even for him, in the imputation of, I will not say dishonest, but certainly of discreditable, motives to his political opponents. I do not think I am doing an injustice to the right hon. Gentleman's speech when I say that the only two intentions with which he could credit us in introducing this measure are, first, to impair the educational efficiency of our schools, and next to deal, if we can, a side-blow to the Church of England. That was the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman's speech is understood and applauded by some at any rate of those who sit behind him.
  It is not so much for the purpose, which I think would hardly be appropriate at this stage, when the Bill has not been printed or circulated, of discussing its details, but rather of dealing with the general propositions of the right hon. Gentleman that I have risen to make, with the indulgence of the House, two or three very brief observations in the way of reply, and I will endeavour to argue the matter with a little less heat than the right hon. Gentleman has imported into the debate. How do we stand in relation to this Bill? Am I not right in saying, and do I really not carry with me the assent of every man in this House who has thought the problem out when I say, that there are only three conceivable solutions of our educational difficulties? The first is the solution which the right hon. Gentleman himself adopted in the Act, 1902—namely, the giving of rate aid all round to every class of school. I confess I was a little amused with the right hon. Gentleman's glowing panegyric this afternoon on the great principle of local control. Rate aid, as we said in 1902, and as we repeated in those electoral pledges to which, I venture to say, we are showing the utmost fidelity to-day, carried with it local control. And what is the local control which the right hon. Gentleman gave? He pays a great deal of lip-service to the principle to-day for political purposes, but what was the actual homage he offered to it when he had to deal with it as an actual matter of legislative enactment? It amounts to a couple of representatives on the local authority and four denominational managers for dealing with those matters which were most vital to the prosperity and efficiency of the schools.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the Act of 1902. That Act gave absolute control to the local authority in all matters of secular education.
  MR. ASQUITH: What about the most important matter of all, the appointment of teachers, as to which not only had the local authority not supreme jurisdiction, but as to which these denominational managers were empowered by Act of Parliament to continue to impose denominational tests? It was on that ground that we fought the Tight hon. Gentleman in 1902, and, when we appealed to the country against his Act at the general election in 1906, the country returned an unhesitating verdict in condemnation of it, But when we dealt or attempted to deal with this matter in 1906 we took the Act of 1902 as it stood, and endeavoured to remedy that gross and grievous imperfection in it. And what was the result? The result was that after weeks and months of controversy we arrived at the issue that it was impossible to import into that Act or into any modification of that Act an effective system of local control worthy of the name which would at the same time be acceptable to and accepted by the denominations concerned. It was that that wrecked the Bill of 1906, and we are not going to repeat that experiment and tempt a second time the same disaster. Well, that is one solution—a solution that has been proved in practice to be impossible. What is the next solution? The next solution is the secular, which I admit to be a perfectly logical conception in theory, and to which it may be that in course of time—though I trust not—we in this country may be driven. But what are the reasons why neither this Government, nor, I venture to say, any other Government that held office by the support of the House of Commons, and in accordance with the decision of the electorate, can propose the secular solution? The reasons are two. In the first place, in the existing condition of opinion and sentiment in this country it is an impracticable solution. [Cries of "No."] Well, I venture to say that in the existing condition of opinion and sentiment in this country it is impracticable. And it is impracticable, or it is believed to be impracticable—which comes to the same thing
  1400
  when you are dealing with a matter of political practicability—for two reasons. In the first place, it is the opinion, I believe, of the great majority of our fellow-countrymen that you cannot segregate or isolate secular from religious teaching. Expellas furca, tarnen usque recurret. Where you are teaching history, where you are teaching literature, and where you are teaching ethics, where you are trying to lay down those rules of Christianity which are to mould the character of your children, the impalpable boundary line which separates secular from religious teaching is constantly crossed. And, further than that, the great majority of English parents do desire that in our public elementary schools the Bible should be taught, and that their children should have the opportunity not only of studying that which is the greatest masterpiece of English literature, to put it on no higher ground, but of learning a lesson which nowhere else can be so fully or so cogently or so impressively taught. You may like it or not. I am not arguing whether the majority of our fellow-countrymen are right or wrong, but I am confident that the great majority of Members on both sides of the House will agree with me that that does approximately represent what is at present—I do not say it will always continue to be—the dominating sentiment. If you put those two solutions on one side, what is left? I venture to say there is no other solution left but that proposed in the Bill of my right hon. friend. ["Oh, oh."] And what is that? It is that you should put within the reach—I will not discuss with the right hon. Gentleman what that expression precisely means, translated into geographical terms of the particular area, we know what it means approximately—that you should put within the reach of every child in this country a public elementary school supported by the taxes and by the rates, and which is to conform to certain conditions; and among those conditions is this, that in that school there is not to be taught the distinctive formulas of any religious denomination, but there may be taught—not must—if the local authority so wishes—the local authority, which is, after all, the best representative of the parents—there may be taught the special form of religious teaching which, as the experience of forty years has shown, is acceptable to so many, indeed the bulk,

  1401
  of the parents of this country. That is our first principle. The second principle of this Bill is that no rate aid is to be given to any school which does not eon-form to those conditions. I will deal in a moment with what I venture to regard as far the most important of the criticisms which the right hon. Gentleman has made—namely, the effect of this change upon educational efficiency. What are we going to do with that large mass of schools called by a strange misnomer voluntary schools? Well, leaving out of consideration the single-school areas, we provide that wherever there is a real demand from the parents, shown by an average attendance of not less than thirty children, and wherever (and this is most important) the conditions laid down by the Board of Education as to the maintenance of the proper standard of educational efficiency are complied with, these schools may continue to exist, not, indeed, as rate-supported institutions, and not, therefore, subject to the obligation of local control, because rate aid and local control are in our view corollaries one of the other. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by public control. They will be under the control of the Board of Education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUK: May I ask whether the Board of Education is going to appoint the teachers?
  MR. ASQUITH: No, certainly not.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought that in your view that was necessary to control.
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, when the ratepayers are contributing their money for the support of their children we have always said that the representatives of the ratepayers ought to be allowed to have a voice in the appointment of the teachers. I am dealing now simply with the conditions under which the Parliamentary grant always has been given before the right hon. Gentleman introduced the rate aid, and I will read the exact words of the Bill—
  "The school is to be open to the inspection of the Board of Education, and all such conditions of efficiency as regards teaching staff, school premises, and secular instruction as are required by the Board of Education in public elementary schools—"
  1402
  that is, in the schools of the local authorities, all those conditions are to be complied with. Therefore these schools cannot continue to receive the Parliamentary grant. They cannot continue in existence unless they are maintained at an educational standard as high as that maintained in the public elementary schools. And that is the real answer to the right hon. Gentleman's criticism that we are dealing a blow at the educational efficiency of our schools. Let me add, before I pass from that, that these schools will receive a grant which is not to exceed 47s., and it will be in the vast majority of cases a substantial addition to the Parliamentary grant already enjoyed. They will retain complete autonomy with regard to the management and to the appointment of teachers, and, subject only to those conditions of educational efficiency, they will be, so far as the Parliamentary grant is concerned, in a better pecuniary position than they are to-day.
  Now I come to the other class of schools with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt in the earlier part of his speech, I mean those of the single-school areas. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education quoted an admission of the right hon. Gentleman, made only last year or the year before, to the effect that the Nonconformist parent in these parishes has a substantial grievance. The right hon. Gentleman said he did something to satisfy or remove that. There may be one or two cases in some parts of the country, but I am not acquainted with a single case in which the remedy kindly provided by the right hon. Gentleman has proved efficacious and for the simple reason—and it is a very good reason—that in most of these cases it would be a ridiculous thing to have two schools. There is not room for two schools, and to throw upon the parish in this comparative small and impoverished area the duty of building a new school is to make a perfectly nugatory offer. I am going to point out to the House in a moment, by way of contrast, the way in which we are making a real, genuine, honest, and sincere attempt to deal with the religious grievances of those who are supporters of voluntary schools. What will be the state of things in those single parishes? First of all, the proposed compulsory transfer only applies to schools

  1403
  which have what the Bill describes as "limited trusts"—that is to say, educational trusts—trusts of which the primary purpose is education. Where those conditions exist and the local authority moves in the matter and makes an application, the Board of Education may vest the schoolhouse in the local authority without payment, and the local authority may use it without payment during five days of the week for the purpose of giving secular instruction—if it pleases, of giving Cowper-Temple instruction; and if the trustees, through whom the transfer is made, insist, they may compel, as one of the conditions of transfer, the local authority to give Cowper-Temple instruction just the same as it is given in the provided school.
  LORD E. CECIL: What does that actually mean?
  MR. ASQUITH: I will read the exact language of the schedule, because I agree that Cowper-Temple instruction is a very elastic phrase. This is an undertaking which the trustees may exact from the local authority as one of the conditions of transfer—an undertaking—
  "To provide such religious instruction as may be specified by the trustees and is in accordance with the London County Council's syllabus, contained in a Return at the order of the House of Lords, ordered to be printed on 19th June, 1906."
  That is a very familiar document. That is not all, and here I come to what I consider the real contrast between the right hon. Gentleman's method of dealing with this grievance and our method of dealing with it. Not only on the other two days of the week are the denomination to have the use of the building, maintained, repaired, warmed, cleaned, and lighted, for their own denominational purposes, but on the five days on which the school is being used by the local authority for the purpose of a public elementary school the managers and trustees may make it one of the conditions of transfer that another undertaking should be given that—perhaps I had better again read in the words of the Bill—an undertaking—
  "To put the schoolhouse, properly cleaned, warmed, and lighted, at the disposal of the trustees for the purpose of being used by them or under their authority on Saturdays and Sundays, and for the giving of any religious instruction consistent with the trust deeds
  1404
  affecting the schoolhouses immediately before or after any meeting of the school. No teachers employed by the authority are to be permitted to give that instruction."
  So that am ole facilities may be required if the trustees desire it for giving religious instruction to the denomination immediately before or immediately after any of the hours of school on any of the five days in the week. Now I say that is. a liberal provision. The right hon. Gentleman tried to represent it as something in the nature of confiscation or high-handedness, but I say it is a liberal and generous provision on the part of the State, which takes over from the trustees, at its own expense, the whole burden of maintaining those buildings, which carries on at its own expense that part of the trust which relates to secular education, and which, so far as the remainder of the trust is concerned, gives the trustees the fullest possible facilities for performing the duties themselves. I am not afraid of the right hon. Gentleman's epithets. I venture to think that in the course of the next week, when the people of the country fairly and deliberately consider the provisions which we have made, they will say in the first place that we have carried out strictly and literally our pledge that where local contribution is made local control shall follow; secondly, that we have properly established one type and one type only of public elementary school, to which, henceforth, every child in the country shall have the right to resort, and except to which no child shall be compelled by law to go; and, finally, that we have recognised the continued existence of these voluntary schools, and that in all matters essential to the performance of their religious trusts we have treated them with consideration and even with generosity.
  *Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: In judging of the proposals of the Government much will depend upon the details of the Bill, and I hope that it will be in our hands in the course of a day or two. As to how far the Government proposals will carry out the principles enunciated this afternoon one prefers to wait until the Bill is in one's hands before entering upon criticism in detail. As to the increased financial aid to be given to the local authorities by the Treasury, that is a claim we have been making upon the Treasury for a

  1405
  good number of years. I am not quite sure whether the remark I heard made by an hon. friend when the right bon. Gentleman was detailing his scheme, that this extra financial aid will be a most admirable coating of sugar to the pill which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to administer by the other parts of his Bill, was right or not, but it will help the opponents of the proposals to swallow them. Nor am I sure whether another remark is true or not, namely, that a large number of parents consider finance of much more importance than religious instruction, but there is no doubt that the financial clauses of the Bill will be universally welcomed, and will be a great grant in aid of the other clauses of the Bill which, if allowed to stand alone, perhaps would not have been quite so acceptable to the people of the country. But on the general principle of the Bill I am not quite sure that I am so hopeful as the right hon. Gentleman. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat prophetical; he told us with a great deal of optimism, both in phrase and style, that he hoped his Bill was going to settle the religious difficulty. I listened with a great deal of expectation after that statement to find out what the Bill was going to be, and when I discovered that after all it was nothing—always leaving the financial clauses out of account—but an attempt to restore the ante-1902 condiditions, I wondered from what source his optimism came. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have been aware when he was drafting his Bill that every objection which was taken by the denominationalists to the conditions which existed prior to 1902 will be taken to the conditions which are existing in 1909, if this Bill should become an Act of Parliament. There are two great classes in the community who will object to the Bill. First of all, there are the educationists who do not care very much about denominational instruction, and who say to all religious sects, "A plague on all your houses and your barren controversies about your religious difficulties." They will describe the Bill as a contracting-out Bill; they will regard these voluntary schools as schools to which a number of parents will send their children in spite of the inefficient education supplied by them, and they will, therefore, condemn these schools and they will not accept this Bill as in any way a solution of the educational
  1406
  problem they are trying so solve. The second section who will object to this Bill are the denominationalists. They are not a small section of the community. The denominationalists were the cause of the Bill of 1902 to which so many of us objected, and what hope is there that the opposition on the part of the parents who desire a voluntary school for their children and on the part of clergymen who desire to keep alive the agitation in favour of voluntary schools, will cease altogether? What hope is there that after 1908 the agitation will cease, and that we shall have heard the last of this abominable and disgraceful religious strife in a field where it ought not to be heard at all? The moment the Bill is passed, all the forces that started in 1873, which gathered in volume up to 1902, and were ultimately; successful for the time being in 1902, will begin to come into operation, and the teachers and managers, the child and the parent, indeed our whole educational system, will be open to the same attacks and to the same feverish excitement, and the same spirit of unsettlement as that which has gone on with such disaster during the past 100 years. There I come back to the position with which my hon. friends here are associated and with which the House is quite familiar. I regret, and a great many Members of this House will regret, that the Government has not boldly faced the secular solution. The right hon. Gentleman has once more replied to the secular position by saying that it is logical. It is very easy to reply when you create your own argument in order to knock it down. We do not stand by the secular solution simply because it is logical. It is logical undoubtedly, but I have yet to learn that it is a mark of inferiority, from the practical point of view, that politicians should occasionally trust to logic in the drafting of their measures and making their proposals. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to tell us that one of the qualifications of his Bill—one of the commendations Of his' Bill—is that it is an irrational and illogical measure; that it has got neither rhyme nor reason in it, and "that it is hot drafted for the purpose of being applied to the practical experience and to the educational difficulties of the country? If not, I wish to know why by simply calling it logical it is relegated to something in the impractical category? We

  1407
  are in favour of the secular solution because it is practical. There is no stronger evidence of the truth of our position than the admission the right hon. Gentleman's Bill makes regarding the single school districts. In a single school district every parent who desires denominational education is being forced to accept the secular solution. At the present moment in your single school districts you have your voluntary school attached, say, to the Church of England. That school has to be wrenched from the Church of England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that the trustees may impose on the local authority as one of the conditions of the transfer that Cowper-Templeism may be taught at the schools, but many members of the Church of England extend their religious opposition to Cowper-Templeism on the ground that it is denominationalism. I know that the right hon. Gentleman repudiates that and says that is not his view, but he is not the parent of every child who attends all the rural schools. If you are going to take the parents' view of this matter you are going to do it in an objective way. It is not our business to tell the parents what they ought to regard as denominationalism or non-denominationalism. It is our business as the House of Commons to act as judges, to hear the evidence, and to accept the statements made by the parents. The statement made is that Cowper-Templeism is denominationalism. Therefore the transference from Church of England control of those endowed schools in single school areas is nothing but the transference of these schools from one kind of denominationalism to another. If the parents do not agree to that denominationalism they have got to withdraw their children from the religious instruction given in the schools, and are tempted to do so by offers of denominational instruction out of school hours. Therefore my statement is absolutely correct that the Government are offering as a practical solution under such circumstances the secular solution. What is the objection of the Government to applying this admirable solution of the religious difficulty in the single school areas to all other areas and so settling the matter? After the proposal which the Government have made, I hope they will never again say that the country is not ripe for secular education, because, whether
  1408
  ripe or not, they are imposing it on a large number of very worthy parents and offering them facilities for religious instruction out of school hours. The question is much larger. We are told about practical proposals. Does anyone who is aware of the history of education during the last hundred years, of the interminable squabbles, of the proposals made to establish popular education, and of the counter proposals that have been made, of the trouble between nonconformist and conformist reaching up to the present moment—does anyone who knows all that history mean to say that we have been going on practical lines? During these hundred years so far as the religious controversy is concerned, every proposal made, every experiment started, and every method of construction followed, has had to end as regards too many of them in disgrace, because the statesmen of the day did not face the religious problem in a logical and practical way. Here in the beginning of 1908, with a hundred years experience behind us the Government's practical solution is to establish a state of things which came to an end in 1902, because it was proved that it could not work in practical experience. I would very respectfully suggest to my right hon. friend that he should revise his meaning of the word "practical" in the light of facts and experience in educational matters for the last hundred years. I should also like to know whether we are now going to increase the Exchequer grant for voluntary schools and public schools alike. There is to be more public money spent on voluntary schools than was spent in 1902. I fail absolutely to see the difference between rate aid and Exchequer aid so far as public control is concerned. Let us take a supreme test. Are you going to allow voluntary school managers to appoint teachers on denominational tests? If so what becomes of the pledge given to the country that the teachers in the schools maintained by public money are not to be allowed to be submitted to denominational tests? I think that point is worthy of a fuller answer than that given to it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I quite see the force of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, so far as the managers are concerned, but I am not prepared to waive the point in regard to the teachers. The

  1409
  teachers in the voluntary schools ought to be chosen just as they are in other schools—on account of their qualifications as teachers, and on these alone. The matter is left a little bit indefinite in my own mind; but perhaps before the debate closes we will have a further statement from the right hon. Gentleman. Are the teachers going to be appointed as prior to I 902, simply on denominational lines, and with denominational qualifications? If so, I ask, Is this an admission on the part of the Government that the parents have a right to get their children educated in their own denominational creeds-? Sometimes it seems to me as if that is the case, and sometimes that it is not. If it is, then what is the objection to the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone? If we are to have the parents consulted, why not consult them altogether and thoroughly? I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone is going to move his Amendment, but if he is, is he going to accept the position that secularists and positivists are also to be allowed to have their children educated by the local education authority in the tenets of Auguste Comte or Charles Brad-laugh, or any other authorised exponent of secularism or positivism? Parental right carries you much further than you conceive. Surely, so far as Parliament is concerned, what we have got to do is to demand and insist on a higher standard of secular instruction. Is it true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, that you cannot dissociste secular education from faith in State education? It is perfectly true that you cannot teach the history of, say, Queen Mary on the same lines to Protestants and Catholics. In the one case that sovereign is called "Bloody Mary," and in the other "Saint Mary." If spiritual life transfuses itself through history, why do you go and cut off three-quarters of an hour in the morning from the regular school work to reading the Scriptures without proper explanation and without religious reverence? I do not propose to say anything about the details of the measure. When the Second Reading comes on, or better still, when the Bill is in Committee, will be time to consider these. At the present moment I desire to enter my protest against the assumption that by talking of this secular solution as being only logical you settle the education question for ever. I say that
  1410
  Ministers have yielded the main part of the secular solution in their proposals, regarding the single school areas; and if they are wise, before the Bill is printed they should take the opportunity of applying the same idea to districts that are not single-school areas.
  MR. MASTERMAN: With most of the hon. Members who have sat through the discussion I find myself filled with great admiration from what I have heard, combined with a feeling of disagreement with much that has been said from both sides of the House. I am so worried—most of us are so worried—by this long and squalid controversy; so convinced are we of the evil that it is doing to religious life; and so jealous of the time which is given to it which should be given to carrying out some scheme of social reform, that I for one would be prepared to accept almost any solution offered us so long as that solution followed on certain lines. It must make for educational efficiency, it must be on general terms, it must be liberal, it must have some reasonable chance of passing through both Houses of Parliament and of making some kind of peace in the country. I have been asking myself, as clause after clause has been so ably expounded by the right hon. Gentleman, how far this particular Bill could be said to conform to those particular tenets? I confess to agreement in part with the hon. Member for Leicester. I will say nothing for the moment of its chances of passing through both Houses of Parliament. Let me be quite clear on one point. An Education Bill is absolutely inevitable at this moment. Whether some of the largest changes in the Bill objected to by the Leader of the Opposition be valid or not, I am heart and soul with the Bill—I put aside the question of its drafting now—that the question' of the single-school areas is in a position which we cannot possibly leave in its present state. It must be dealt with as soon as possible. Everyone on this side of the House and a large number on the other side are agreed on that point, and if this Bill merely consisted of a fairly drastic provision for establishing a public elementary school which would be at the service of every child and every parent in England, I should not dream of offering opposition to it. I believe that is a principle which can be defended

  1411
  before any honest and impartial man, whatever his religious belief may be. It is a principle, however, which cannot prove a final solution of the education question, but it will afford a large interim measure of relief for a situation which at the present time in the villages of England is quite impossible. Let me point out a fallacy in the statement that was made two years ago by the Leader of the Opposition, as to the balance of injustice in the rural districts in regard to Church schools and Cowper-Temple schools. There are no Cowper-Temple schools in any rural district. Every school not under limitations must have six Church managers, and every teacher must be a churchman or churchwoman, and therefore such schools have the full denominational or Church management which is secured to schools privately managed at the present time. It is perfectly true that Cowper-Temple teaching can be given; but it is not the religious teaching in the rural schools that is the vital joint in this grievous controversy. It is the management of the schools. It is the accepting of public aid from all religious denominations combined with limitation of service to members of one denomination only. That is utterly indefensible and ought to be remedied as speedily as possible, and if this Bill set itself to remedy it, it might have been remedied if the Bill had contained nothing else. But the Bill contains another principle—the principle of contracting out. I remember in the long and dreary controversy of two years ago, the sudden appearance, well on in the Committee stage, after sixteen days discussion, of a clause bound round with a very peculiar and complete qualification, but which would have led, under certain difficulties, to a limited number of schools being passed under that system which is now offered. I remember the distrust with which that suggestion was received by the hon. Gentleman who was then my leader to a largo extent in the education controversy—the hon. Member for Camberwell. And that hon. Gentleman enlisted me in a kind of crusade against that particular clause. Although L had no capacity for imitating the violence of his invective, which hon. Members may study for them selves in the volumes of Hansard, I did my humble best to express a similar condemnation, which had nothing to do with
  1412
  the religious point of view, but entirely from the educational point of view, in regard to contracting out. I remember that the Minister in charge of the Bill, now Chief Secretary for Ireland, expressed himself as utterly ashamed of the clause, and how his contention was that the whole educational opinion of the country would resist the abandonment of perhaps the only good thing in the Act of 1902—that was the unification of the educational system under one education authority, whether elective board or municipal council. But here you have contracting out in its full essence. I shall be corrected by the Parliamentary Secretary if I am wrong, for I do not understand the whole provision of contracting out, but I understand that any manager of a denominational school may contract out so as long as he can get thirty parents to support him in doing so. But apparently there is no kind of poll as there was in the Bill of 1966 With regard to the grant, I do not object to the grant of 47s. a child if the educational efficiency of the school is to be maintained at the standard now prevailing in the non provided schools, which means that if your teachers are to be paid anything but starvation wages, that 47s. has to be supplemented by something between 10s. and 12s. and in some cases 16s. per child extra. What I want to ask is where is that money coming from? It means in quite small schools £400 or £500 a year, and we come back again to the system which we have heard denounced again and again in this House of supporting national education by the old-fashioned system of bazaars and jumble sales, and the unclean combination of jugglery and charity Are we to have any guarantee given to the teachers that this money will be spent? If we are to have no guarantee that the teachers shall be paid at the same rate as in the provided school, or that the same amount shall be paid per child as in the provided school, we go back to the position which, to a certain extent, we had before 1902, but with that position intensified by the educational advance that has been made since 1902, and all these unfortunate teachers will be offered the option of having lower salaries paid them or leaving the school and going elsewhere. That is not a position consistent with

  1413
  the demand of a Liberal Minister for educational efficiency. It is an abandonment in despair of the ideal of a unified educational system, in face of the rivalry of various religious bodies in this country. Although my words are useless, I do venture to ask very respectfully that, if any largo body of general opinion in this country, representing those men and women to whom the Minister for Education paid such a high tribute, and not too high, those who care for education in this particular province, express some grave disapprobation of these contracting out clauses, the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw them. There is the religious side of this question also. It has been put by the Leader of the Opposition very definitely. We definitely say to these people, "We provide an efficient state of national teaching and simple Christian teaching in all the schools "—a teaching against which I have never said anything; a teaching which I do not agree with the hon. Member for Leicester in deprecating; I think it is thoroughly admirable and desirable for the children—"but if you do not like that teaching" we say, "if you have even conscientious objections to that teaching, you may have your own teaching in other schools, but in those other schools your secular education shall be starved and impaired, and we will take good care that the utmost pressure is put upon you to squeeze you into our particular scheme of religious teaching." I do not think that that will be an efficient mode, because those particular classes who care, particularly the smaller bodies of Irish Catholics in big cities, are not going to be squeezed into simple Protestant teaching, even if it means the sacrifice of educational efficiency. But I do not want by this protest to lay great stress on that religious side; it is on the educational side I am making my protest to-day. I was told by an hon. Member that it was no use protesting against this, because some particular Church or another had been squared on the question. I do not care if every Church in Christendom has been squared on this question, unless we can have clearly placed before us in the provisions of the Bill a definite assertion that these non provided schools shall spend a similar amount per child and pay their teachers at a similar rate to the provided schools, I shall oppose this contracting out. I need not toll the
  1414
  Minister for Education, for he knows as well as I do, how much in addition to this 10s. or 12s. we stand to lose. All that we have been doing in the last five or six years stands to be lost by this separating of the schools, because we have been weaving them together so that pupils go to the cookery schools from provided and non-provided schools alike. The whole value of what we have been engaged in doing and have been encouraged to do during this five or six years is the bringing together of the two systems which are absolutely apart, because we believe that so much can be clone if these systems are brought together as far as possible. I notice that the Minister for Education alluded to to the Bill of the Chief Secretary for Ireland with very scanty support or enthusiasm on this side of the House, and said, I have no doubt sincerely, that it was a courageous and in many respects a satisfactory attempt to solve the question, and it was a disaster that it failed. I think it was a disaster that it failed. At the end I was an earnest supporter of it, though I had occasion, through the indulgence of the House, to make some criticisms upon it. It was very far indeed, however, from anything I desired as an ultimate settlement of the education question, but it did give that one point which we are not going to get in this Bill, that you obtained some form of popular control in every school and a similar amount guaranteed by the State, from whatever source, to be spent on every child, poor or rich, Catholic or Anglican or atheist, served by the national system of education. There is one other point which I think is worth considering in connection with this Bill. If it passes, in all our large and populous centres there will be a series of schools which will be protesting themselves to be starved schools, and yet will be guaranteed by the Board of Education as being efficient. The parents will be stirred up into believing that they are suffering from injustice. It is easy to contend that they are not suffering from an injustice if you say that they all ought to be in the popular central schools which you say are neutral in religious matters, and you can squeeze them into those schools; but so long as you are giving the peculiar aroma and flavour of what the Chief Secretary for Ireland called simple Protestant teaching in these schools, I do not see what right you have

  1415
  to squeeze the poorer Catholics or any other denomination into them. How is that situation to be faced when it passes from the controversy in this House to the country? At every by-election and general election in large towns the parents of the children in these starved schools and their friends will simply put one question, and this is the only question which will arouse their interest: "Will you vote for a fair contribution to our children as compared with the children in the schools for which we are rated outside our own denomination" I should like to ask some of my hon. friends who are not agreed with me, and for whose kindly attention I am grateful on this occasion, how are they prepared to answer that question when it passes from the comparatively calm debates in this House to the depths of political controversy outside? I may be told, and it is an easy retort, that nothing is easier then criticism, and nothing is harder than constructive policy. I have stated what might be regarded as affording a possibility of the only practical policy that I think is open under present conditions, and that is the provision of a public locally managed school within the reach of every parent who desires it in town or in country. I may go further, if I may, and be perfectly candid, and say that I think the proposals which the Minister of Education makes today with regard to the question of religious education in the village schools are the only proposals which are practicable under present conditions. I think that if what is called secular education, but what I call neutrality of the State, is to come, as it will come, the village schools are about the last places where the experiment should be tried. It is perfectly impossible to imagine, at least I have never found any conceivable method of imagining, that in the village schools, often with only one teacher, you can provide various forms of religious teaching, and as, after all, in every village in England the majority of those who object to what is called Cowper-Temple teaching, which is now known as the London County Council teaching, have always some representative who can give the children the religious teaching they desire, in or out of school hours, as the ease may be, I think it is probably only fair that the "residuum or modicum of religious teaching" which is laid down by the
  1416
  London County Council might justifiably be allowed for the local authority to administer to those who desire it, under a stringent conscience clause in the rural areas. That, I think, as an avowed advocate of secular education, although I desire not to quarrel with the Government more than is possible, is the only thing that can possibly be done under present circumstances. I think part of their proposal is an abandonment of educational efficiency in towns, and is foredoomed to failure; I can only hope that if it is withdrawn it will be withdrawn upon our own initiative, and that other people will not get the credit of destroying such a thing as that. For the rest I think we must wait until there ripens a public opinion, as there is a ripening among hundreds and thousands of people every week, towards an educational settlement which my right hon. friend the Minister of Education apparently regards with alarm, but which I view with the utmost satisfaction, and which every community with similar divisions and sentiments to ourselves throughout the civilised world has been compelled to adopt. The only practical solution is that we should confine ourselves to the administration of an efficient secular system of education, leaving it to the members of the Churches in conjunction with the parents of the children who desire it to say how much more instruction of a religious nature shall be given. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, with some sympathy towards us, told us that we could have no secular system because religion was interwoven in the ordinary curriculum of every school. We acknowledge that, and I acknowledge it fully, but already the State recognises the distinction in the provision of the conscience clause under which the child of the atheist can withdraw himself from religious instruction, although apparently it may be biassed by passing through the other instruction. We do not want to avoid the influence of that. It will be a long day before the people of this country wish to avoid the religious instruction which children draw during their daily hours of teaching. That will continue in our secular system as it exists to-day in every Anglo-Saxon community in the world (cries of "No.") That is the result of my communications, and I believe it is true. Where the parents are religious and the teachers are religious their religion expresses itself,

  1417
  and is conveyed to the child even under a system where there are no religious tests. We shall, when the occasion arises, ask that small company which two years ago voted for the secular system, and any recruits who may be obtained, once more to declare themselves in favour of the solution which, I believe, to be comportable with religion, and the only solution which is just and fair.
  LORD K. CECIL: The House always listens to the speeches of the hon. Member with sympathy and interest, but I confess there are Members here who will, like myself, have some difficulty in appreciating the connection between the earlier parts of his speech with the vehement and eloquent advocacy of that which he calls the neutral solution in the latter part. He is prepared to accept that portion of the Government scheme which deals with the villages. He is prepared to accept the establishment and endowment of a religious teaching according to its acceptability to the London County Council. That seems to me to be an astonishing position for the hon. Gentleman to take up, who concludes by saying he desires to be neutral to all religions. I will not say much about the earlier solution at this moment. I do not believe it is within the sphere of practical politics at the present time, and I have never been able to see why its advocates regard it as more fair and more just than any other solution. It seems to me that in the secular solution you are favouring one portion of the population at the expense of the other. You are favouring a full education at the State expense for all those who do not desire a religious education, and you are not favouring a full education at the State expense for all those who do desire a religious education, and whether you regard this from the point of view of the Church or the point of view of the various sects you are wholly failing to hold the scales of justice even. This Bill, as I understand it, is fundamentally undenominational. All public elementary schools are to be subject to the Cowper-Temple clause. In addition to this there is the further condition that under no circumstances are steps to be taken to test the religious
  1418
  efficiency of the teacher who is to give the religious teaching of the London County Council. He may be a Mahomedan, or a Jew, or an atheist, yet he is to be entrusted with the London County Council syllabus without any test being applied to his fitness for the duty. The House should bear in mind the recent policy of the Government with regard to training colleges. The tendency of Ministers has been to discourage denominational training in the colleges, and incontestably we have to face a future where the teachers, in place of their being thoroughly well trained in some definite form of religion, will come to their work without having received any training of that kind. This Bill is more undenominational than anything that at present exists. But then the Chancellor of the Exchequer says: "Look at the generous facilities we have given in the single school areas." I venture to say that no one who has any real experience of practical work in education in those areas will dispute the statement that I now make, that those concessions are absolutely illusory. Consider what is being done. Denominational teaching is put into a category by itself, different from all other forms of teaching given in the school. It is not to be given in school hours, and the parents are therefore in a position to prevent their children attending; it is not to be given by the teacher on the staff, and the children are led to believe that it is a secondary and less important part of education. I need not discuss it. A syllabus of that kind will not be worse than useless, but it is really absolutely useless. That is in the rural schools. When we come to the urban schools there is the contracting out, and here I do not quite understand who is to settle whether the school is to be contracted out or not. Is it the managers or the trustees who are to contract out if thirty children attend the school I But there is another provision which appears to me to put the contracting out into a highly dangerous position. There is no security that this extra grant will be made from year to year. It all rests on the absolute ipse dixit of the existing Minister for Education. It is not in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said so himself. If I so

  1419
  understand him, he said it was not in the Bill, but was to be made by a Parliamentary grant. That being so, a Parliamentary grant may be withdrawn at any moment.
  MR. McKENNA: I stated that it is not In the Bill as regards the grant for local education. It is in the Bill so far as the voluntary schools are concerned; it is in the usual Parliamentary language and states that the charge is not to exceed 47s. per child.
  LORD R. CECIL: That makes all the difference because we know the light hon. Gentleman, is not slow to set aside Acts of Parliament, and we should like to see him very closely tied and bound before we trusted him in this matter; this is a purely undenominational Bill and the denominational concessions seem to be utterly futile. Let me say a word or two as to denominational instruction. I wish to ask hon. Members what they really conceive to be the object of religious instruction in the schools? I know it is a question I have no right to ask them, but is it that they wish to teach religion in the schools; and, if so, I venture to ask what they mean by religion? Many undenominationalists advocate other remedies from the point of view of what they conceive to be the real purpose of religious teaching, namely, morality. I do not wish to say a word against moral teaching, but moral teaching is not the same as religious teaching. The right hon. Gentleman received a deputation not very long ago, in reply to which he said he was in favour of simple Bible teaching, and that was his objection to the secular solution. Then he said that the teachers of the country were so familiar with the Bible as a text book for morals that they could not take the Bible from the schools. That was the reason the right hon. Gentleman gave. I believe that is a fundamental idea. I believe you can no more teach Christian morals without the Bible than you can get fruit from a tree without roots. But if you are going to teach religion do not deceive the people by sayirg to them, "We are going to give your children religious teaching" when you really mean to teach, them morals. The
  1420
  hon. Member for North West Ham spoke of the residuum of common Christianity.
  MR. MASTERMAN: That was not my phrase. It was a quotation.
  LORD R. CECIL: I am sorry I had forgotten it was a quotation, but what is the residuum of common Christianity? Is that the Christianity approved by the London County Council? Common Christianity is a question upon which Christendom has disputed for centuries, and it is reserved for a few gentlemen elected to the London County Council in March last together with a few co-opted members to settle finally. I shall be very curious to hear what the Nonconformists say about that, because they reject a much less important document. The Apostles Creed is rejected by them as a proper statement of undenominational Christianity. [Cheers.] I am delighted to hear those cheers, because the hon. Member has in his mind no doubt what I have in mine. It appears that the Preston Education Authority, which had not had the opportunity of consulting the London County Council on the matter, had put its hand to a syllabus which was very offensive to the Nonconformists of the district, and a deputation waited on the right hon. Gentleman in respect to the matter. What was their objection? They say this: Our objections are not merely confined to the Creed—that is, the Apostles' Creed—but extend to any religious teaching as necessarily sectarian and dogmatic. Are we to believe that any teaching that is allowed by the London County Council is not sectarian or dogmatic, and that all sectarian and dogmatic teaching is confined to the Apostles' Creed? It appears to me that hon. Gentlemen who have expressed strong opinions will have some difficulty in reconciling their views to those of the right hon. Gentleman. The difficulty of finding out what is common Christianity is insuperable, and you do not simplify it by calling it simple Bible teaching. All denominations have consistently desired simple Bible teaching. I have no right to speak for Roman Catholics, but I think even they would say their religion is founded upon the Bible. I think a common saying among

  1421
  them is, "The Church to teach, the Bible to prove." The Church of England is absolute upon the matter. She says the Bible is the whole thing, the Bible contains all. Simple Bible teaching is what all denominations desire to give their children, but unfortunately for that great desire Christendom has never been agreed as to what simple Bible teaching is, and it is only the London County Council and the Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches who really know. When we come to Bible criticism the difficulty is intensified. We have the Rationals in Germany and Mr. Campbell at the City Temple. They have found out what is the true essence of the Bible! How can you possibly arrive at an agreement between the German Rationals, who reject all that is miraculous in the Bible and the Roman Catholics who accept it I There is no real common denominator. It is a delusion of politicians to assume that there is a common denominator. Look, they say, at the last thirty-eight years. What is the foundation on which the favourable view of those thirty-eight years rest? The Cowper-Temple Clause. What is the real foundation for the belief that Cowper-Temple teaching has been a success? I am told that the parents have never objected. But they have never objected either to the denominational teaching. Only a very small number of parents of the children in the schools have objected. If you ask the managers you will find that the vast mass of the parents have never withdrawn their children from denominational schools. The truth is that the parents accept what the authority pleases to give them, not because the authority represents the parent; that is the kind of thing which would only deceive the House of Commons. Ask the parents in the villages whether the London County Council education represents any article of their faith. No; the truth is the parents who are not wealthy have no other resource open to them. They must take that or nothing. If they do not like to take the religious education which is given in the schools their only resource is to withdraw their children from religious education altogether. But they would rather have some religion than none. That is true. But to say they have objection to this
  1422
  particular form of religious teaching is-stating other than the fact. I wish to-call the attention of the House to the actual test in the result. The object of religious teaching is to produce religious men and women. Are the men and women of the present day, who have been exposed to this teaching, religious? Let me remind the House of the very interesting inquiry instituted by Mr. Charles Booth all through London by means of trained investigators as to the religious condition of the people. He found a certain amount of religion in what he calls the wealthy classes, and in what he calls the upper middle-classes. Even in the lower middle class there is some "scattered about." That is Mr. Booth's own phrase. But when he came to the working classes he says that they remain outside all religious. bodies. [An HON. MEMBER: What about the Roman Catholics?] He makes an exception with regard to the Roman Catholics, I admit. Now these are the-people who have been subjected to-Cowper-Temple teaching, so that when it is said that Cowper-Temple teaching has been for thirty-eight years a success it cannot have been tested by that standard. We say that the Cowper-Temple clause has been a success because a vast mass of people can read and write, and have derived a large amount of secular knowledge, but as a religious education it has not been at all a success.
  MR. MASTERMAN: Has the Church teaching been any better?
  LORD R. CECIL: I think it has, and I will tell the hon. Member why. There is a curious passage in Mr. Booth's book—I am sorry I have not the book with me—in which he says that the people who come up from the country are usually more religious than the people whom he finds in the towns. Now from the country they generally come from denominational schools, in the towns they are educated in the Cowper-Temple schools. I do not believe in this attempt to make a compromise between all religions. Whatever may be said as to a minimum wage, I believe the theory of a minimum religion to be thoroughly unsound. The truth is hon. Members are misled by treating religion as if it

  1423
  was an exact science. It is as though six artists were employed to draw each a picture of their conception of a man. It is quite true that a good deal would be found in the pictures so made that was common, but if any one tried to combine the six and regard the product as a true representation of man the only result would be a blurred and indistinct outline. I agree with the hon. Members for Leicester and North West Ham in so far as I agree that the only remedy is to teach no religion or all religions. In my argument, however, I reject the solution that you should teach no religion. I think you ought to teach the children the religion the parents desire them to be taught. I am not afraid of the dilemma in which the hon. Member for Leicester finds himself. He asks, would you teach Positivism? Certainly I would, if there were a certain number of persons who desired that it should be taught. I would not teach the religion of he Thues, but so long as the religions were moral and in accordance with the law, and I accept this fully, all religions should be taught equally by the State, and there should be no preference, privilege, or advantage given by the State to one religion more than to the others.
  COLONEL SEELY: By the teachers?
  LORD R. CECIL: Certainly; but I cannot go into the details. The hon. Gentleman must not ask me to draw up an Education Bill at this moment. There is no difficulty in the matter. The hon. Member for Camberwell has used very strong language indeed on the subject. He says the only difficulty which presents itself to him is the practical difficulty. There is no practical difficulty in such a system. It is the system in vogue already in the workhouses and the industrial schools, and in Germany and Switzerland, and a number of other countries, and what is done in other countries and in some of our colonies is not impracticable in England. I have no desire to deal with it in detail, but I do desire to deal with one particular point. It is said that by dividing the children into pens you will create an infinite
  1424
  number of religious differences. I do not think the cause of religious difficulty is the exposing of our children to education in our particular faith. The causes of religious difficulties are endless. I believe that if all children were brought up to hold deeply the religion which they were taught, to be as good members as possible of the sections to which they belonged, much of the religious difficulty would be lost. I am quite sure that this Bill will never settle the education question. The only sound principle is to allow the parent to choose for his children the religious instruction that he prefers; and the attempt to offer—with an ingenuity not uncharacteristic of the right hon. Gentleman—a bribe to the local authorities to induce the parents to abandon their religious beliefs will certainly fail, and is not altogether creditable. Many Members certainly feel that the only solution is that which was recommended by the present Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the President of the Free Church Council in 1904; a solution which was founded on justice and equality for all religions is the only one which the House ought to consider on this occasion.
  MR. PERKS: I do not think it is at all necessary to deal with the somewhat controversial subject which the noble Lord has just been handling, because as practical people it must be evident that we cannot possibly provide for the teaching in elementary schools of the numerous diverse religions which are accepted in this country. This Bill, which has been so clearly explained by the Minister for Education, is certainly not a measure, as the noble Lord thinks, framed in the interests of Nonconformity. I remember the late Minister for Education, when he was speaking on the final disappearance of the Education Bill, on 20th December, 1906, told us that that Bill was not the measure which the country wished for, and that if the country had had its own way and the Government had brought in a measure meeting the wishes of the country it would have contained in it nothing of Clause 4 and very little of Clause 3. The Government had therefore been long engaged in passing through this House and endeavouring to get their supporters to accept a measure which

  1425
  they subsequently very frankly admitted, in two of its most controversial sections and perhaps its two most important sections, the country did not desire. The question we have now to put is this, "Does the present Bill fulfil the demands of the country." I think the Government have exercised an extremely wise discretion in postponing the discussion of this Bill until we have safely carried through this House the Licensing measure to be submitted on Thursday, because that will give the various organisations in the country, educational, religious, and political, an opportunity of carefully considering this Bill, the result of which must depend very much on the details which we have not got before us. We are told that the Government have endeavoured to draft this Bill, bearing constantly in mind two principles, first, the principle of public control of all elementary schools, and secondly, the relief of teachers from sectarian tests. It is extremely doubtful, apart altogether from the provisions of this Bill, whether the Act of 1902 does provide in its local education authority anything which in the rural districts can be styled popular control. We have only to go into the rural districts in such counties as, for example, Oxfordshire or Lincolnshire, and there you will find that the managers of the local council schools formerly board schools are not elected managers, and have not been elected by any sort of local authority. The majority of them are nominated. I had always hoped that the Liberal Government when it came into power would make some resolute and effective effort to repeal what we then stated in opposition we meant to repeal, namely, those unjust provisions sweeping out of existence the school boards which were acknowledged to be unjust by nearly all the leading members of our Party in the discussions on the Act of 1902. Even if this Bill be passed we shall never have really effective local control in either country or town, until we fall back on the constitution of those school boards which were so ruthlessly swept away in 1902. If we cannot accomplish that, then we ought to provide some machinery which will give, more especially in the rural districts, some sort of elected education authority with a local knowledge and complexion who will really be the managers of the schools.
  1426
  So that even if the provisions of this Bill, after full discussion by all our educational and religious organisations—and no doubt they will be subject to the closest possible scrutiny—be accepted, I do not think we have yet seen the end of some determined efforts which will be made by those organisations to secure real popular control. The hon. Member for North West Ham suggested that certain denominations had been squared by the Minister for Education. All I can say is that the Wesleyan Methodist Church has certainly not been squared. No attempt has been made to square them, and if made, it would never have succeeded. They are not in the market, and I do not believe any other denomination is in the market in the sense in which I am now speaking. Have you got in the provisions of this Bill effective popular control? I will come to that point in a moment. Take, first of all, the case of the village. I think that the provision for securing for the villagers, whether Nonconformist or Church of England, adequate provision for religious instruction on five days of the week, by means of Cowper-Temple religious instruction, is, notwithstanding all the noble Lord and his friends may say, practically accepted by the common sense of the people of the country, as shown by the growth of the school board schools before the Act of 1902. In the village I think the provision is ample. Two days a week, or rather one day a week in addition to Sunday for the dogmatic, ecclesiastical, and special theological training, which is thought to be necessary beyond Bible teaching for these small children, seems to me abundant, and indeed, if you will go into the schools of Lincolnshire, in my division, you will find that while there is a small minority—in many of them only 20 per cent. of the children in those village schools are the children of parents who are members of the Church of England—those parents have been perfectly content to accept the teaching of the Church of England, for the simple reason that that instruction in many of those Lincolnshire village schools has been given by the teacher and is the simple Bible teaching to which the noble Lord so much objects. I pass away now from those village schools and come to a very serious part of the Bill, namely, the course to be pursued in places whore there is more than one school. Out of 2,700,000

  1427
  places in the 11,000 Anglican schools of this country, probably 500,000 would represent the children in the single school parishes. I doubt whether more than 500,000 or 600,000 represent the schools in the single school areas where Cowper-Temple instruction with the facilities mentioned is proposed to be given. So that practically you have in the 5,000 or 6,000 schools of the Anglican Church in the towns of this country, the overwhelming mass of the children now being instructed in those schools. I do not myself believe that those schools will be closed, and I greatly doubt whether many of them will be materially affected in their finances, because, with all respect to my right hon. friend in front of me, he and his friends will not always be on that bench. The day will come—that is one reason why we should strive to act now with scrupulous fairness—for reprisals. This 47s. we are now giving to the denominational schools, to the Anglican schools, and the Wesleyan and British schools if they accept it, may by a stroke of the pen, by my right hon. friend's successor, be turned into 67s., or even a larger sum, and where are we then? My hon. friends opposite will be in clover, but where we shall be I do not know. It is perfectly clear that such administrative action might be taken by the successor of my right hon. friend. Where is the popular control in the case of these 2,000,000 scholars and these 5,000 or 6,000 schools which are permitted under this Bill to contract out? We are told that the buildings are to be kept up, that the standard of efficiency is to be maintained, and that they are to be allowed to charge 9d. per scholar in fees. There the popular control ends, because the teachers will be strictly sectarian teachers. Is it supposed that any one of those teachers, or even an assistant or pupil teacher in those schools, when they are I left in the undisturbed control of the Church of England, will be a Noncon-formist. Would they think of putting a Nonconformist into such a position [OPPOSITION cries of "Why not?".] I do not know why not, but I know that it is so already. Under the Bill of 1902 the head teacher cannot be a Nonconformist, and we know that in those schools, such posts, as well as all junior posts on the teaching staff, will be reserved
  1428
  for members of the Anglican Church. In that case what becomes of our profession that this Bill secures the absolute control of public authorities over all schools in the country, and that we are doing our level best to exempt all teachers from sectarian tests at present imposed upon them. Upon this point I am very much of the same opinion as the hon. Member for North West Ham, although I do not agree with him in his secular doubts and fears and prognostications. We are, I believe, a practical people, and I accept absolutely the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the working classes of this country, and, in fact, a vast majority of all classes, do not wish to and will not have Bible teaching excluded from the ordinary curriculum of the elementary schools. I go further, and say that the populace of our country is satisfied that the teaching should be given by the teacher of the school, whom we trust, and we do not want any minister of religion, the priest, or the Anglican clergy to add in school hours any further doctrinal teaching to that simple Bible instruction which the teacher at present is perfectly qualified and willing to give. On those two grounds thoroughly approve of the provision made in the villages, which I think goes as far as any reasonable people require, and I believe it will be accepted by the village people, with the exception, probably, of the clergyman of the village and one or two of his friends. But I trust the Government will reconsider their Bill in regard to the town schools. Let me take, for example, the present grant of 47s. per head. That means a grant of £5,000,000 per annum to the Church of England. Take the Roman Catholics with 400,000 Church places in 1,100 schools. It means a grant of £940,000 or £900,000 per annum to the Roman Catholic Church for the education of their children subject to no popular control. And so I might go through the different religious denominations. I do not think it is sound policy, as the country is to provide these huge sums for educational work in the denominational schools, to be content with that small modicum of control which has been described in the Bill. We ought to secure some control in the appointment of teachers and their relief from those sectarian tests to which we so very strongly object. This Bill will

  1429
  doubtless be carefully considered by the great religious organisations and educational institutions of the country, and notably by the teachers. My hon. friend the Member for West Ham generously refrained from recalling the attention of the House to the extremely strong remarks made by the hon. Member for Camberwell in reference to this proposition two years ago. They have lost nothing of their strength by the lapse of time. I feel that the Bill in one of its main features does not meet the reasonable requirement of Nonconformists, and that it does not adequately fulfil, so far as the contracting out provisions are concerned, the two distinct pledges our leaders and our Party gave, namely, to insure popular control and to secure for teachers freedom from tests.
  *Mr. BUTCHER: In the remarks I shall venture to address to the House I shall follow a line rather different from that of any of the hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me. I cannot candidly say that I feel any irreconcilable objection to the principle of the Bill. I remember, indeed, as other hon. Members do, certain speeches made in this House in 1906 by the educational advisers of the Government on the subject of "contracting out." The Member for North Camberwell at that time, speaking on an Amendment embodying the principle of "contracting out," said that it was—
  "The most vicious and reactionary proposal they were likely to hear of in the course of the debates…It was retrograde and pusillanimous to the last degree…They were asked back to the vicious principle of Parliamentary grants and voluntary subscriptions."
  I do not subscribe entirely to that remark, but I do think that if applied under certain conditions the principle would be reactionary in the educational sense in the very highest degree. But what I am anxious to find out—quite honestly anxious, because as much as anyone I do desire to see an end to this unfortunate controversy—is whether the present Bill contains such objectionable features as would make anybody who cares for education reject it in the sense that the hon. Member for Camberwell rejected that Amendment. If I were of a cynical turn of mind I should probably say that the Government which in 1906 foresaw the ruinous effects of such a proposal
  1430
  on the education given in the Church schools are now consciously putting this scheme before the country as an attack upon the Church of England. Yet although we have good ground for doubt and mistrust in the previous conduct of the Education Department in its administrative orders, and although political ends rather than educational aims are there apparent, yet I cannot bring myself to believe that when the Government as a whole brings forward an Education Bill, knowing all that hinges on it through the country, they wish to offer us not a settlement, but a mockery.
  I will examine the Bill so far as we know it from that point of view. What should like to mike sure of is this. I wish in the first place to know how the voluntary schools are affected on the financial side. Are the terms offered starvation terms? Does it mean that these schools are to drag out a poverty I stricken existence and finally the of inanition? And when I speak of the schools I am thinking not of the schools in the abstract, bur, of the children who in this and the next generation will be educated there. Are these children to receive a wholly inferior education to the other children of the country? Are the teachers to be worse paid? Are those who cling with earnestness to their distinctive religious beliefs to suffer as citizens on that account? If it is true what the Government spokesmen said in 1906, that a return to the condition of things before 1902 would involve all these results, then I should like to ask the Government, do they really believe that the addition of a 4s. or 6s. grant will avert that disaster? We shall hear I much more about this afterwards, but at present I cannot conceive it possible that so small an addition to the grant will make the whole difference between a well-equipped school and one that is educationally retrograde. That, however, is a question of amount, and does not affect the principle of the Bill. I now turn from finance to take another point, I should like to be assured that the voluntary schools under this Bill will not be put outside the whole national system of education; that they will not be cut off from the main stream of educational progress and fall back into some educational backwater. What is in my mind is this; Will the children

  1431
  who go to these schools be able to make their way on to the secondary schools and higher grade schools? Will they be eligible for the scholarships given by the local authority? Will they receive the benefits of the new medical examination? I now gather from the Minister of Education that that is so; and if so I own it would relieve my mind of some very serious objections. If the children at these schools are not to be debarred access to civic privileges they would otherwise enjoy, I cannot raise an absolute objection on that score to the Bill. I pass to another point. Are the teachers in voluntary schools to be cut off from promotion? Are they to be tabooed and under a ban of exclusion so that they cannot pass on to other schools? Are they to be free to use pupil-teacher centres? If the teachers are placed on a lower professional level than all the other teachers in the country, that must bring down the schools to a similar level. I hope and trust that is not so. There are certain other conditions which might become so onerous that the schools could not maintain a healthy and normal existence; as, for instance, if the standard of equipment—fittings, structural fabric and so forth—were put impossibly high. I am all in favour of putting as high as you like the requirements for health, air, light, and decency. But I am certain that people think far too much of the material fabric and of costly externals as compared with the human instruments who work inside the schools. If you insist on an unreasonable standard in things external, you will so far lower the salaries of the teachers, and the quality of their teaching. I will make only a passing reference to another point, because it was fully dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, as to what constitutes an alternative school. The power of "contracting out" is to be given where there is a choice of schools. What does a choice of schools mean? Must there be a second school within 200 yards? Clearly that would reduce it to an absurdity. But there is one question which has not yet been touched, and that is how far this principle of "contracting out" will be applicable to new schools. May the denominations build new schools which will be recognised in the same way as existing schools I The Minister of Education seems again to assent to that, and I welcome that assent.
  1432
  Further I desire to know whether an existing single school area is to be stereotyped for all time.
  MR. McKENNAwas understood to say that the single school parish would be stereotyped by the Bill.
  *MR. BUTCHER: I gather it is to be stereotyped; and I regard it as a very important matter when we take into account the shiftings of population,—the increase in some places, and the decrease in others—the growth of a Church of England or of a Roman Catholic population and so on; and it seems to me in the highest degree unstatesman-like to say that we must not provide for the case of rural areas becoming urban by the extension of towns into neighbouring districts. Why should the conditions of today be the standard for all time? Surely we need the power of adapting educational arrangements to new needs as they arise. Well, I have, so far spoken of urban areas and the power of "contractingout," and I am of opinion that the principle if worked the rally along the lines suggested might prove to be not indeed an ideal solution, but a workable solution, the second or third best, which might continue for a considerable number of years. But when we come to the single school areas, the rural parishes, there is to be no "contracting out." Here in my opinion, there is much graver objection to be taken to the proposals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has indeed mentioned two conditions attached to the transference of voluntary schools which in some degree mitigate the hardships of the plan. First he told us that the managers may make it a condition of transfer that there still be Cowper-Temple teaching in the fullest sense that the Act of 1870 admits of. That is to say, that we may secure in these schools a Cowper-Temple teaching that can with reasonable certainty be called Christian teaching. To me, at least that makes a very great difference. I cannot speak of Cowper-Temple teaching with the contempt I have sometimes heard it spoken of. Cowper - Temple teaching is the vaguest of all phrases. It may mean anything from that historical or ethical teaching which alone some of the churches would admit, up to the highest teaching that can be given to children on such

  1433
  difficult questions as the cardinal truths of the Christian religion. Cowper-Temple teaching, though it could not be taken as a satisfactory basis for forming a Church, may be, and often is, a satisfactory basis for the teaching of children. That is a concession of some value. The other is that facilities are to be granted in the transferred schools in the country districts for teaching, every day in the week either before or after school hours, the distinctive doctrines of the Church, though that teaching may not be given by the ordinary school teacher. Of course, the proposal to oust the school teacher from this religious teaching, and also the proposal to place it outside school hours, is profoundly unsatisfactory. But I cannot say that I look upon the arrangement for single school areas as being beyond the hope of compromise. I would suggest by way of strengthening Cowper-Temple teaching and making it what it is intended to be, that provision should be made for the inspection of this teaching so ensuring its Christian character. Otherwise it is extremely likely to become a mere form. Now I do not intend to occupy any more of the time of the House, but only to say that I can see no reason why distinctively religious teaching should be forced to mean retrograde education, a lower level of school efficiency. Those who lay most stress upon religion as the basis of character, and therefore the basis of education, are not content to be put off with an inferior type of school. Strong religious convictions on the part of parents ought not to carry with it civic disabilities for the children. Training in religion ought to be compatible with a full training in citizenship. It is a cruel alternative to say to people, that they must either give up their religious principles or sacrifice the secular welfare and improvement of their children. Therefore, I hope that the Government may so modify the Bill as to remove these objections, which I think strike very deeply into the heart of the Bill, and make it a measure which can be accepted by the House and by the country.
  SIR ALFRED THOMAS: I congratulate my right hon.
  1434
  friend upon the introduction of a very important measure. It is certainly a bold attempt and very much in advance of anything yet presented to Parliament. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had been more satisfactory in regard to that part of his measure which referred to the country schools. But I confess I do not sea how he could have done more than he has done. His proposal is very generous indeed. Those gentlemen who want the luxury of appointing their own teachers ought to be prepared to make some sacrifice if they wish to carry out their religious convictions and pay for it. I know that Nonconformists are prepared to make sacrifices and pay to carry out their wishes. If Churchmen do not do the same they are not worthy of the professions they make. What has been said with regard to the single school area will give great satisfaction down in the country. I have seen a good deal of proselytising. The Church thinks it is her duty to make as many converts as. possible. I am very glad indeed to think that that grievance of Nonconformists will be removed. Personally, the Bill does not meet my convictions, but it is a good attempt to find some kind of solution. I trust that if it is carried out it will end the religious controversy which has been so inimical to religion than which there is nothing worse. It is an important measure and makes for something like a complete settlement.
  MR. ACLAND: I think the attitude of those who disagree with us about this Bill is that they will say: "Why will you try to force another Education Bill through Parliament; why should you stir up religious strife, and throw the whole country into religious animosity in the hope that thereby peace will ultimately emerge?" It is said: "Why are you not content to leave things as they are? Things are fairly peaceful now and there is every chance of some educational arrangement coming to pass. Leave things alone, do not throw us into a turmoil again." The answer I would make to that criticism is, that things are not in a satisfactory position now. There is not in the position now anything of the kind. There is very little chance of educational progress.

  1435
  There are many hon. Members who are anxious for a large number of reforms of the internal economy and efficiency of the school, methods of teaching, and looking after the children, but my hon. friends who are really concerned in education have no chance all. As long as things go on as they are, we shall continue for year after year to talk about this religious difficulty, and education will be left out in the cold. I think those of us who approved of the Bill of 1906, which was wrecked, are bound to try again in the direction of educational progress. I know that contracting out is not education. I think it is a pity that any school should receive less than any other school from public sources, for fear that by receiving less it may become less efficient than it otherwise would be; but when I hear hon. Gentlemen opposite and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, talk about our having adopted this system of contracting out I am nearly filled with despair. It seems to me that according to hon. Gentlemen opposite we can do nothing right, and that any course we adopt, whatever it may be, is certain to be wrong. Last year saw our failure in the House of Lords to make all schools come under some uniform system, but the right hon. Gentleman would not have that. Then we heard from him and his friends that the important thing in a school was the atmosphere. We heard about the splendid work that could be done, provided there was a religious atmosphere under private management, and a system of appointing teachers under this private management. We constantly heard how much could be done in schools conducted in that way, even if they did not get the same amount of grant, the same amount of public control and looking after, as there were in the case of the other schools. Now that we have been perhaps persuaded of this by means of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, now, when we say that any school that does not happen to be the only available, may do as it likes and preserve its atmosphere and will be given a very adequate grant, provided that those who wish to support it have any generosity, when we say in effect that this atmosphere on which
  1436
  so much stress was laid two years ago shall be preservable, then the right hon. Gentleman turns to the House and says the important thing is not atmosphere but public control. You must, he says, have all the schools under the same system. It therefore does not seem possible to arrive at anything which will please him, and in consequence his criticisms do not seem particularly helpful. Surely the guiding principle in considering this Bill—and I think perhaps the hon. Member for Louth need not be reminded of that—is to realise that we have tried this thing before, and that, whether it be our misfortune or our fault, we have failed to get the solution by which we tried to settle it before. We are bound now, if we want to have any chance of getting on with education, to try some other alternative and surely the only other alternative the hon. Gentleman can accept is that presented to us to-day. I do not think the danger to education of contracting out will be quite as great as is represented. It seems to be thought that every school which is allowed to contract out will do so, but the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill made it clear that these denominational schools which may contract out will have every inducement offered to them not to do so; they will be able to make their own terms; they will be able to ask for rent and facilities, and they may be allowed to ask for a good deal in return for coming into the educational system; and, I cannot help thinking that if this Bill passes and when things settle down, we shall find a very large number of denominational schools will come into the public system and under public control, receiving in exchange such advantages in the matter of rent and facilities as they agree to ask for and as it would be reasonable for us to give them. Another thing that the Leader of the Opposition said which really astounded me was that the Bill showed no desire whatever to meet the case of those parents who wished for denominnational teaching to be given to their children. I think that is a statement worth looking into rather carefully, whether you take the single school areas or the urban school areas. If we take

  1437
  the single-school areas, what is it we are saying to the trustees of these denominational schools existing in them? In return for the bricks and mortar which they largely provided twenty or thirty or longer years ago, but which in many cases were partly provided out of State grants and not altogether out of subscriptions, we are going to offer to them, as long as there is a teachable population in that place, a room properly furnished, warmed, equipped, lighted and cleaned for their sole use on every Saturday and Sunday, from year's end to year's end, and on week days except between nine o'clock in the morning and half-past three in the afternoon. I think that is a most extravagantly generous offer. We shall not ask from these persons one single farthing, while we give them the use of the building for the remainder of the time, and as long as time continues we shall provide for that denomination a Sunday school, an evening school, and a school for their special teaching without its costing them one single penny out of their pockets. It seems to me, when that is really considered, to be most extraordinary that any man should say that we have shown no desire to meet fully the case of those who wish denominational teaching. Then we may consider the case of the urban area. That is different, but there again there seems to me to be a great deal of generosity. As I have said and as the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill said, there will be every desire to treat fairly the denominational schools which do transfer. They will be able to make their own arrangements with the authority as to facilities; and that being so, there will be plenty of public money coming to them, and opportunities given to them to maintain and to assist them in teaching the doctrines by which they set so much store. But to take the case of schools which prefer to remain outside the system and who contract out: what will their position be? Now, if I did not mishear what was said when the Bill was introduced, these schools will be receiving per child per annum a considerably larger grant than will be spent on the child in the provided school per annum. I will give the short facts which lead me to that conclusion. I think a figure was
  1438
  taken which was the total cost of education at present, to that was added £1,400,000 as a total of the new grant, that was divided by the number of children in average attendance and the result was 47s., and that is to be the sum to be paid to the contracted out school for the maintenance of the school alone. Now it struck me that this 47s. in the case of the provided school at present includes a considerable number of things which will not have to be included in the 47s. to be given to the children in the contracted out schools. I think so far as I can understand, for instance, that that 47s. would in the provided schools include a share of such things as the cost of attendance officers, even the administration of the schools by the central county office, and so on. If that be so, the cost, which is actually paid out of the taxes towards the education of children in provided schools must be considerably less than 47s., because it needs the administrative expenses and the cost of attendance officers to make up that 47s.; but in the non-provided schools they will have the 47s. to start with and they will not have to bear any share of the cost of attendance officers or administration.
  MR. MASTERMANwas understood to ask the President of the Board of Education whether this was the case.
  MR. McKENNA: It is perfectly true that the voluntary schools will have less to spend their money on. They will not have to pay for the attendance officers, but they will have the same grant as on the average the local authorities receive.
  MR. ACLAND: That is my point.
  MR. CAVE: The rate assistance will not be taken into account at all.
  MR. McKENNA: Not at all.
  MR. ACLAND: That is my point, but the right hon. Gentleman pat it more clearly than I did. The voluntary schools will have less to pay out of their 47s. than the management of the provided

  1439
  schools. Therefore the money will go further in their case. That is a point which is worth considering, and I think it goes to show that there is no desire to despoil the schools of the money which is considered necessary to enable them to keep up to an efficient standard. The point was made that this Bill is designed as an attack upon the Church of England. I should be surprised if that charge made by the Leader of the Opposition had been repeated by his supporters, because it must be recognised that it is not an artificial rule but a natural rule that is now being made, that there must be an elementary school within the reach of even' parent if the parent desires to have it for his child. It is an accident, an unfortunate accident for the Church perhaps, and not an act of deliberate malice, that the Church schools are in districts with regard to which we are obliged to make this arbitrary rule. We have no desire to cut out the Church schools, but we say there must be publicly controlled schools in reach of all the parents. That is the result of the necessities of the case. One must admit, although I think these schools, both in the towns and in the country will be found to be dealt with in a fair and generous way, that the offer made now is less good from the point of view of the Church than the offer which was made two years ago. It is the case of the Sibylline Books. We came two years ago offering a great many things. That offer was refused, and we are now offering something less. What we offered then was the cheque of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now we offer full facilities for denominational teaching. We say that the school shall be available after the ordinary school hours every day and on Saturday and Sunday, and that is considered sufficient to carry out the denominational side of the trust. I have one or two questions which I will venture to put to the right hon. Gentleman which he will cause to be answered to-night if he thinks proper. It is not quite clear to my mind whether matters have been so arranged in the Bill as to avoid controversy upon "may" and "shall." I was not sure from the right hon. Gentleman's speech whether local authorities are to be compelled, or permitted, to give these
  1440
  facilities. I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman thinks he can go in requiring these facilities, to guarantee that Bible-teaching shall be given. If it is simply the case that the local authority "may" in exchange for the transfer of the school grant these things it is only fair that it shot Id be strengthened in that respect. It is only fair that every school which is compelled to be transferred, as is the case in every single school area, should be guaranteed the continuation of the Cowper - Temple Clause.
  MR. McKENNA: The word was "must,"
  MR. ACLAND: I am very glad to hear that answer from the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure it will be considered by the vast majority of the people as very satisfactory. That is a thing that will be properly appreciated. Another question which will be familiar to the right hon. Gentleman is what will happen in the case of the non-trust schools in single school areas. I speak with some diffidence on this point, but I believe I am right in saying that of the present voluntary schools some 9,000 are under what the right hon. Gentleman calls tight trusts, namely, strictly educational trusts; but at the other end of the table there are some 2,700, which are definitely declared to be private schools, but which are not under any trust. May I assume that in the case of those schools the Bill will also require those to be transferred, and if so, may I conclude that it will be left to the private owners to make what arrangements they can, as to facilities, between themselves and the local authorities; because they will be in rather a stronger position. The managers are not compelled to keep on the school, as is the case with the trust schools, and they will be able to say: "If you do not treat us properly we will close our schools, and you will have to build another." The local authority will not be able to say "We will build our school," because no money is provided for that purpose by this Bill, no provision is made for the building of schools in single-school areas. With regard to the general question of building new schools, I trust when we see the Bill we shall

  1441
  find that the cost is to be spread over the whole county and is not to be allowed to remain an almost intolerable burden on the particular parish in which a school is built. Another matter to which I wish to allude is the difficult question of endowments. That was not mentioned in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I hope in this Bill it will be possible to avoid dealing with this vexed and complicated question. But there is one side of it that must give a good deal of hope to the supporters of "voluntary schools. In many cases there are endowments for voluntary schools, and one of the first things which have to be provided for is the upkeep of the fabric. Clearly, if these schools are taken over, the money which is put aside for the proper upkeep of the fabric will not be needed for the purpose. All the repairs, external and internal, all the improvements or additions to the fabric, will be paid for out of public funds; and therefore the endowment money which has had to be accumulated for repairs of the fabric and for playgrounds, and so on, since 1902, should now be diverted to strictly denominational purposes instead of bricks and mortar. If the Board of Education deal with this matter in that way, as I think ought to be the case, a good deal more money will be available for denominational teaching. Then there is the case of definite religious instruction. In the Bill of 1906 all religious instruction was to be out of school hours. That question was hardly debated. I believe the opposite idea is the better. I believe that such religious instruction as is provided by the authority under the Cowper-Temple Clause should be compulsory and should be in school time, subject, of course, to a conscience clause. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman can tell me how that will be.
  MR. McKENNA: There is no change in the existing law.
  MR. ACLAND: Then do I understand that what we call the Anson Bye-law is to be in force—and that children should be allowed to stay away altogether if it is understood that they are receiving religious instruction at some other place.
  MR. McKENNA: There is no change in the existing law. Whatever the existing law is it is still maintained.
  MR. ACLAND: That again is good news. My concluding remark is as to the secular system. People talk of the secular system as if it were a thing that required a great mass of fresh legislation. I have heard Members in this House speak of it as if local education authorities could not adopt a secular system without fresh legislation. Surely it cannot be too clearly understood that every local authority in this country can establish a secular school system in all its schools to morrow by the vote of a mere majority of the council. But they do not do it. With some exceptions it is not considered a matter of importance, and it is not a question upon which the local authorities are elected. But the moment a majority of a local authority want it altered they can alter that system at once. Surely, therefore, the argument of those who urge that there is further necessity for reversing the present system cannot carry much weight. The people now have the power to do it if they wish, and surely we ought to trust them to make the alteration if they so desire or to keep the present system if they prefer to do so. I have great pleasure in giving my support to this Bill because I believe it is the only alternative left to us when the Bill of 1906 was destroyed.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: When the right hon. Gentleman introduced this Bill this afternoon some of us thought he was going to bring forward a conciliatory measure, but very early in his speech it became apparent that the scheme he was bringing forward was much more drastic than that of two years ago. This scheme is much less favourable to the voluntary schools than the Bill of 1906. Perhaps I may be allowed to draw attention to the speech the right hon. Gentleman made last summer on 1st July, and reported in the Western Mail—
  "He would not tell them what his Bill would be, but it would be one which would make the Lords regret that they did not accept Mr. Birrell's measure. The Government went to the Lords with a peace offering in their hands, but the next time they went it would be with a sword."
  The right hon. Gentleman compares the Bill of two years ago with this one as a peace offering compared with, a sword. We thought the Bill two years

  1443
  ago was drastic enough, but this one is far more drastic and, in my opinion, practically means the extinction of the voluntary schools of this country. May I for one moment remind the House of the history of this question? Up to 1870 the children of this country were educated entirely by these voluntary schools, built up with private funds for the benefit of the children's religion and their secular education as well. The population of the country went on increasing to such an extent, owing to the increase of trade, that in 1870 the Government of the day had to bring forward a measure to provide extra accommodation for the education of the children, and also to make education compulsory; but what was their scheme? Their scheme was not to extinguish the voluntary schools, but utilise and develop that system of voluntary education, and of only supplanting it where it was not sufficiently wide-spread. Even in the Act itself this is given as the reason. In Section 7 it says—
  "Where there is an insufficient amount of accommodation the deficiency shall be supplied."
  And Mr. Forster said in his speech at the time—
  "There must be the utmost endeavour not to injure existing and efficient schools. Our object is to complete the voluntary system."
  On the faith of these representations, one of them in the Statute itself, one of them from the words of the Minister who brought forward the Bill, the voluntary schools have increased from 1870 to 1906, from 8,281 to 14,294. Is it fair to bring forward a Bill, which, after those promises have been made, will practically close the doors of those schools? It is unfair both to the people who built those schools and subscribed to them, and to the parents who are sending their children to be educated in them. As I say, this Bill is more drastic than the one of two years ago. That Bill was one which still gave certain facilities for religious education. We thought them illusory, but still there they were. Another place amended that Bill with the object of making those facilities real and workable. What did the Government do? They did not even consider those Amendments, but took them en bloc, and sent them
  1444
  back to the other House. We thought we knew the reason for their action at the time. It was because that Bill did not really give satisfaction to any section of the people or of their own followers. But what does this Bill do in single school areas? It compulsorily takes the village schools without payment, without any payment of rent even. True, they say they will maintain them and keep them efficient, and they will give the trustees leave to have distinctive religious teaching on five days in the week when the school is open, but that lesson must not be given by the teachers and it must be out of school hours. We know what that means, and the right hon. Gentleman knows what it means. It means that it is a sham, and that there will be no distinctive religious teaching at all in those schools. Then he goes on to say that he will give them Saturday and Sunday. We all know what Saturday means. It is a holiday. Children will not go to school on Saturday, though on Sunday they have Sunday school. Therefore, as far as these single-school area schools go, it is practically taking them away from their present managers and owners, and the children who use them and their parents, and handing them over to the local authority without the payment of a penny. Now I come to the urban districts. The right hon. Gentleman says they may contract out and go back to the status quo ante 1902, but he volunteers to give them some extra provision from the Government grant, varying from 4s. to 6s. That is not adequate. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it means starvation. It means going back to that period before 1902 when these schools were struggling, and when their struggles were the reason why the right hon. Gentleman brought forward his Bill. That was the bottom of the Bill of 1902, to try to rescue these schools which were educating 3,500,000 out of the 5,000,000 children of the country and to save them for education and religion. The right hon. Gentleman wants to go back to that time, to continue the starvation process, and to let these schools gradually go bankrupt one by one. I hope it is not his reason, but it is apparently his reason, and we beseech him to reconsider his decision before it is too late. Why cannot you leave things

  1445
  as they are? Where the Act of 1902 has had fair play and a fair chance, it has acted extremely well. It is acting extremely well in Sheffield. The right hon. Gentleman knows that Sheffield was one of the first cities to take up the machinery offered by the Act of 1902, and the result has been most beneficial. The education of the city has been coordinated in a marvellous way. We have now a very excellent high grammar school, a secondary school, and a training college for teachers, and the whole system has been coordinated by the co-operation of both political parties. Both parties in the city made up their minds that they would use the Act as far as possible for the benefit of education, leaving the religious question to take care of itself. That is the position. The Report of the Education Committee for 1906 stated that—
  "Cordial relations have been maintained between the Committee and the managers of the non-provided schools, and the result of hearty co-operation has been decidedly beneficial to the general interests of education. Various and somewhat difficult matters of administration had to be dealt with, but a spirit of conciliation has done much to smooth the way to a satisfactory settlement."
  I am very thankful that that state of things exists, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow it to go on; but I am afraid, if this Bill should pass into law, as I have not much fear that it will after what another place did with regard to a less drastic measure, that the result will be to disturb the satisfactory state of things which exist at the present time. When I ask what is the so-called Nonconformist grievance, the two reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman are that there must be full public control and no tests for teachers. May I for a moment test these two things? Under the Act of 1902 have not we full public control? The managers of the voluntary schools cannot spend a penny without the sanction of the local authority. They cannot fix what the teachers should receive as salary without the consent of the local authority. If they spend any extra money they have to provide it out of their own pockets. The only thing over which the local authority have not public control is the appointment of teachers. I quite admit that. But that is part of the, machinery
  1446
  of the Act of 1902 in order to continue these schools as religious schools. The local authority has a veto on educational grounds, and that is perfectly right, but only on educational grounds. Our Leader, then Prime Minister, said that, if any other machinery could be suggested by which teachers could be provided competent to give the instruction of the religious persuasion for which the school was founded, he was quite ready and willing to accept it. But this was part of the machinery and was only made for that object. The other thing is that Nonconformists say that they are at the present moment subscribing money to pay for the teaching of religion in which they do not believe. Is that so? They have the whole of these voluntary schools provided for them at the present moment without paying a penny of rent or having to maintain the schools in efficient repair. The calculation is that the annual value which the State gets in that way is something like £750,000. The proportion of the teacher's salary which he receives for the small part of his time which he devotes to distinctive religious teaching does not come to anything like £750,000. I believe it is well under £200,000. If that is so, voluntary schools at the present moment are making a present to the State of over half a million a year. And under this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is to put upon the taxpayers of the country a burden of at least £1,400,000 in order to carry out the machinery. I cannot think the right hon. Gentleman expects this Bill to be passed. We are going to be occupied I am afraid, many days and perhaps many nights under the guillotine this session, but what one feels is that it is all sham and all for nothing, because we know, and the right, hon. Gentleman knows, that the Bill cannot become law. Our point is this, that under the present law of 1902, where that Act has had fair play, it has had in the city that I have mentioned, it has succeeded and is succeeding in carrying out the objects which the Government had in view.
  *MR. YOXALL: There are in the Bill several points which command the approval of the House and of educationists throughout the country. So far as the Bill proposes to

  1447
  extend the area and degree of local public control over public elementary schools it is commendable, and so far as it frees schools from sectarian tests it deserves the approval of the House and the country as a whole. There is also a very considerable Exchequer grant. It is a great thing to find the Government proposing to spend from central sources and not from local rates, a sum of £1,400,000 at a time when owing to the unsatisfactory incidence of taxation the burden of local rates is very heavy indeed. No doubt this additional grant-in-aid will relieve that burden in places where relief is deserved. The additional grant-in-aid is not to exceed 75 per cent. of the expenditure upon the school, and that is a condition which will encourage a proper local expenditure. On all those points, in my opinion, the Bill will receive general approval throughout the land. In regard to the part of the Bill which deals with rural parochial areas in which there is only one school, I think the Bill sets up in those areas public elementary schools in the place of the denominational schools on very fair terms indeed. It allows in those schools either before or after school hours specific religious instruction which the parents of some of the children require, in return for the use of the building for five days a week as a public elementary school. It places also the use of the building at the disposal of the denomination for parochial purposes on the Saturday and the Sunday. That seems a very fair bargain, and my great regret is that the Government have not proposed to carry that system over the whole of the country. I cannot, however, give my support to that part of the Bill which deals with contracting out. I object to a proposal which makes it possible for several thousands of the schools to slip back, go back, be pushed back, into the condition of things which existed, educationally, before the operation of the Act of 1902. I know that my right hon. friend proposes to set up safeguards which he thinks will diminish this tendency, but he did not tell us the exact machinery whereby the wishes of the parents were to be ascertained on this question. The right hon. Gentleman said that one condition to be applied to a school being contracted out of
  1448
  this Bill by the trustees who own the school buildings was the assent of the majority of the parents of the children attending that school. I know that he proposes to use powers by means of codes and other regulations and by means of the inspectors of the Board of Education in order to secure that in those schools the level of efficiency and provision of educational means shall be as high as those which are to obtain elsewhere. But I would warn him that his safeguards ar bound to prove illusory. You cannot secure that the level of education established under the local authority by means of this Bill may not in a few years be set back to what it was before the year 1902. It is well known to everybody who has studied this question that there were two levels and two gauges of efficiency set up for schools before 1902 by the Board of Education. It is idle to suppose that the Board of Education inspectors going into certain voluntary schools and finding there an indifferent staff, too small in number, too poor in efficiency, with books, desks, maps, and stationery, all supplied upon the most parsimonious scale, will not adopt an attitude of charitableness and show some kind of mercy to that school, and thus the standard will be lowered. The result will be that the children attending the contracted out school will not receive the standard of education received by the children of the council schools in the same neighbourhood. What will the working classes of this country think of a system which will inevitably produce in those schools which are contracted out an inferior level of education for their children? There is a danger that in populous areas where the rates are high there will be a tendency to make a portion of the schools contracting out schools, and thus inefficient schools will still continue to form a proportion of the school accommodation of such areas. I do appeal to hon. Members of this House to pause before they approve of that bad part of this Bill which will permit and almost promote inefficiency in many schools. What effect will these proposals have on the progress of education? I appeal to hon. Gentlemen to consider carefully before the Second Reading of the Bill whether the state of things should be re-imposed which passed

  1449
  away in 1902—a state of things which exists in no other country in Europe, and so far as I know in the world. I hope the House will impress on my right hon. friend and the Government that some other method of dealing with this difficulty should be found, and of removing that black speck, that "rift in the lute" which will spoil the Bill and prevent what is intended to be a final settlement. I know that the Government are giving careful attention to the various methods of dealing with this matter; I know very well that the Government to which my right hon. friend belongs cannot without great reluctance have come to regard this as the only plan whereby the present problem can be solved. I doubt whether this will be a solution of the problem. The moment this passes into law you will have the old problem arising out of the claim for civil and religious liberty, and you will have the successors of the present ministry bringing in a Bill to increase the grant to denominational schools, and multiplying these schools. What has been done since 1902 has acted practically towards the creation of a national system of education in this country, and the bringing of all schools, more or less, under popular control. All that will be departed from and cast to the winds. In the interests of children, parents, teachers, and the nation as a whole, I hope the Government will reconsider this provision in an otherwise admirable Bill.
  *Mr. CAVE: Like other speakers I have endeavoured to realise exactly what will be the effect of the Bill on the existing public schools, and I to approach the discussion of the proposals with a desire to think that the Bill is framed with no intention to bear hardly on any particular denomination. Taking it from that point of view, let me first deal with the single school areas. Now it is a fact that the great majority of the non-provided schools in these areas are Church schools, and I hope that Members of the House who are supporters of the Bill will consider how they would feel if they were in the position of those who support the Church schools. In the single school areas there will be for the voluntary schools no option at all. There is no contracting
  1450
  out, but there is practically no option. The right hon. Gentleman distinguishes between trust schools and other schools. Let me take, first, the other schools. I want to know exactly what is to become of them. Take the school belonging to the private owner. There are many such schools which are well carried on and are well found in every respect. These schools will in future be wholly outside the benefits of the Education Acts. There will be no grant made to them unless they are given up to the local authority. Unless the owners are prepared to find the whole of the expenses of the schools, without any assistance from the rates or taxes these schools must come to an end, and I suppose that a new school would be built at the cost of the locality. Unless, therefore, the owner consen's to make over the school to the local authority at the cost of giving up what may be his religious convictions, it will be practically impossible for him to secure the continuance of the school. Take the trust schools which are not of the type referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. There it may be that the trustees will have no power to make over the schools to the local authority, and these schools which depend upon grants and rates must drop. In these districts a new school will be a necessity. In the case of the third class of schools, those held under 'tight' trusts, I understand that all these schools will drop, unless the trustees feel able to transfer the school without any consideration to the local education authority. The only compensation they get is what an hon. Member called a generous return. It is that for giving up the school on five days a week they are to be allowed to use it on the remaining two days, one being Sunday. I do not call that very generous compensation. It is only a limitation of a proceeding under which practically the whole of their property is taken away from them. This is in substance what happens. When a school is a denominational school it is blotted out, and all the years of effort and expense—which is a minor matter—given by the Church people in the locality to the conduct of their school go for nothing. The school passes out of their hands and becomes a purely undenominational

  1451
  school. That is the position in all these single school areas, and I think hon. Members will find that they are very much more numerous than they imagine. What is to become of the trust funds which have been set aside by the testator and others for the maintenance of these schools? Are these trust funds also to be taken over with the school and applied, not according to the trust, but to other purposes, or are they to be liberated? If they are, how are they to be dealt with in future? Will a scheme be made dealing with the funds, or will they be available to the trustees of the school for other purposes? So far I am dealing entirely with the single school areas, and I am bound to say that dealing with these alone, it seems to me extremely unfair treatment of the voluntary schools. No doubt hon. Members will remember what was said in 1870. It was said that the voluntary school owners were looked upon as the pioneers of national education in the country. It was said that the people owed a debt of gratitude to them for what they had done and Mr. Lowe said in effect that, so far from desiring to injure the voluntary schools, he desired to co-operate with them and give them every possible consideration. That is one branch of the Bill, and one which I think will receive careful consideration in the future. There is another point in relation to the teachers. A village school teacher is not to be allowed to teach in the Sunday school, although he may be the fittest man in the parish for the purpose, and the one whom the children know and have confidence in. [Cries of "No."] Is he to be allowed to teach on Saturday and Sunday?
  MR. McKENNA: He will please himself entirely on that point.
  *Mr. CAVE: Then he may give the same teaching on Sunday, but not on an ordinary week-day?
  MR. McKENNA: I will reply to the hon. Gentleman later.
  *Mr. CAVE: I only want to get it clear. Now let me deal with the other areas, and the effect there of the Bill on the existing schools. There, of course, there is an option. I am not sure whether
  1452
  the option is given to the managers or to the parents in those cases. If to the parents of the children, will there be a vote or ballot on their part?
  MR. McKENNA: There will not be a vote by the parents. A parent is not bound to send his child to that school. Another public elementary school must be provided for him.
  *Mr. CAVE: I was not the only one who was in doubt on that paint. The hon. Member for Richmond asked the same question. Well, the managers have an option. But what an option it is! It comes to this, that either they may give up the whole of their efforts for educational purposes, and give up the school which they have carried on for years, and in which they have taken an interest, perhaps, throughout their lives, and that on terms which will prevent the religion which they profess being afterwards taught in the school, or they must contract out of the Act, and then see at what cost. I do not refer only to the money cost. Of course, the financial cost to these managers must be very great, because the only assistance they will get after contracting out is the sum of 47s. per child. I do not want to dwell much on this, but everyone familiar with the conduct of a school knows that that will leave a large amount to be found by the supporters of the school. The fees will not be sufficient. Let me point out that it is not fair to say that you are putting the managers back into the position they were in before 1902. Since 1902 the cost of education in all these schools has greatly increased. Salaries are higher and expenses are higher in every way, and the managers, if they contract out now, will have to find a very much larger sum than they would have had to find earlier. But that is only part of the question to be considered. What will be the educational cost to the children attending the schools? I think it will be very great. To begin with, the want of funds may prevent the managers from giving the children just the education they would like to give. Then, these schools will no longer be public elementary schools. The children attending the schools will not benefit from scholarships which, in many cases, are reserved for

  1453
  children attending public elementary schools. Therefore, unless there is some special provision in the Bill altering all these schemes the effect of it will be to deprive children of the chance of continuing their education if they are successful scholars. Then these schools will not have the support of the local education authority; they will probably not be schools in which continuation classes are carried on. Then how about medical inspection? Is that to be extended to the contracting out schools, and, if so, at whose cost? Will it be at the cost of the managers, or out of the public funds? That is a matter of great importance and must be taken into account at the present time. How about the teachers? Will the teachers be on the list of the local education authority so as to have a chance of promotion from school to school, and will they have the advantage of any pension schemes? Will their position in all respects be really the same as that of teachers in the provided schools? If these questions are answered against the contracted-out schools the effect will be either that they must be given up or else carried on under conditions grossly unfair both to scholars and teachers, and you will put the managers to the detestable choice of either causing injury to the children under their care or giving up the schools of which they are so fond. If the result is as I have indicated, I do not think that the voluntary school managers will be fairly treated. There is one other matter. The subscribers to the contracted-out schools will be in the position of paying twice over; they will pay the subscriptions to their own schools and pay the rates for the support of the other schools. For all these reasons, I think that the proposals in the Bill are very unfair and that the result will be very injurious to the cause of education. As to the cost to the public, to begin with, there is to be £1,400,000 of additional grant; but apart from that the cost will be very great. In many cases it will be found that the alternative of contracting-out will be taken. In most of these cases new schools will have to be built, and the cost of so doing will be very heavy, involving a large addition to the rates. I know that in regard to single-school areas the schools will be taken
  1454
  over at the cost of the owners and not of the public; but in other cases new schools will have to be built, and a very considerable burden will be thrown on the rates. No provision is made for that, so far as I understand, in the Bill. I do not want to pronounce a final judgment on the Bill, because we have not yet seen its provisionsor had them fully explained to us. But, if I understand the Bill rightly, I think it will be grossly unfair to those interested in voluntary schools and will be deeply resented by them, and I do not think that the country will approve or sanction such a Bill.
  *Mr. MONTAGU: I desire to express my very sincere regret at the tone and temper of the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition, and to express my personal denial of the accusation of the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill is aimed at the Church of England. I speak as a sincere admirer of that Church, which I regard as always potentially and often actually the greatest influence for good in this country. I submit that to be identified with a speech such as that just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman injures the Established Church far more than anything its enemies could say or do. It is almost impossible to put up with such accusations without being tempted to make counter accusations which have more foundation in feet than any he has brought forward. When I read in the Conservative newspapers this morning that protest meetings against this Bill had been already arranged, it became obvious to me that, before knowing anything of its provisions, the Conservative leaders were perfectly determined on their opposition to it. I warmly support the Bill chiefly because it is calculated to prevent what is called the "secular solution," which I for one find abhorrent. There is growing up, not only in the Party to which I belong, but in the Party opposite, a desire for secularism, in the belief that it affords the only tolerable relief from the quarrel between sect and sect. It seems to me that in the face of such a situation those who desire to retain some form of religious teaching in the schools ought to make a desperate effort to end the controversy

  1455
  which has raged ever since the compromise of 1870, and see whether this Bill does not contain a better chance of a compromise which will be successful than any contained in any measure yet proposed to Parliament. At any rate, the compromise is so satisfactory that the Leader of the Opposition has not found any imitator in his denunciations in any subsequent speaker in the debate. The hon. Member for Marylebone talks of Cowper-Temple teaching as a residuum of Christianity. [An HON. MEMBER: That is a quotation.] You can make almost anything sound objectionable by giving it an objectionable name. One is familiar with specimens in museums covered with labels with long grotesque Latin names, which conceal the beauty of the objects themselves and make them unseemly, if not hideous. That is the typical position of Cowper-Templerism. Little children are, after all, of too tender years to appreciate the differences between sects and creeds, and if we regard Cowper-Temple teaching as the maximum which all sects can combine, subject to a conscience clause, to teach through the agency of the State, it seems to me that all the objections raised to it by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone disappear. However, I rose to speak of the single school areas which I know most about, and to consider how this Bill will affect the non-provided schools after it becomes law. What are the objects and desires of those who wish the continuance of and those who founded the voluntary schools with tight trusts? Their object and desire is that denominational teaching shall be continued and that secular teaching shall be carried on as well. The State is under the Bill to carry out the secular part of the trust, and the trustees will be able to provide at their own expense and with their endowments in buildings maintained and equipped by the State the sectarian part of the trust 5. We deny the existence of the new-found right of the parent to have his children taught at the expense of the State the tenets of his particular denomination. But we do not deny for the parent the right, at his own expense,
  1456
  to provide the teaching for his children which he desires.
  It is said that Cowper-Temple education is objected to by many people in the country: but there is a conscience clause attached to it. Those who do not approve of Cowper-Temple teaching do rot conscientiously object to helping to pay for it, and they cannot understand the Free Church objection to being asked to pay for denominational education of which they do not approve. You may say that you have an objection to pay rates for other people's religious teaching, when they object to pay rates for yours, but that, after all, is not a conscientious objection it is only to what may be termed an imperfect bargain. It is objected that the facilities in these single school areas are not sufficient. But the facilities are not limited to two days a week but are afforded on seven days a. week, and the building for Sunday school is to be kept in repair, warmed and lighted. Then it is objected that the facilities are given out of school hours. What does that mean? It simply means that the State is not to be liable to provide machinery for bringing children to denominational teaching and this will enhance the dignity of the religious teaching. Take the ease in which the teacher is a clergyman of the Church of England. I am, quite sure that it will not be difficult to bring those children whose parents consent to receive denominational teaching from the appointed teacher of the sect which desires the religious teaching itself. Then we are told that the very fact that the teachers are prevented from giving this teaching will put it upon a lower level than other teaching; but it would seem to me that the distinction which is made will put it upon a higher level because it will rest on voluntary effort, and compulsory efforts are of very little use in religious matters. Of course the trustees will lose the management of such denominational schools, but it seems to me that when the Act of 1902 was passed, this claim to manage their own schools disappeared for ever, and under that Act they have to reconcile themselves to the fact that a compromise is suggested to them

  1457
  which, will enable them to carry out the intention of the denominational school with public managers so far as secular subjects are concerned. The hon. Member for Leicester has advocated once again, as he so often has in this House, the so-called secular solution and has told us that this single-school area proposal is, in fact, the secular solution. I do not think it has been denied that every parent has the Tight to the secular solution for his own child or that the local authority has the right to it within its sphere of influence. What we object to is the secular solution so far as the State is concerned. What I hope we shall never see in this country is the State saying: Although it is possible to teach everything, else, owing to differences of sect it is impossible to teach that which is the best worth teaching of anything, namely, religious teaching which is all too often the only religious teaching which the child gets at all. The hon. Member for Leicester could not see the difference between rate aid and tax aid. When you add rate aid to tax aid you have the whole public cost of the school and when you subtract rate aid from tax aid, denominational instruction has to be paid for by private subscription. For all schools it seems to me this Bill is providing some kind of public control; when rate aid is obtained it is providing the control of the people who pay the rates through the county council. When tax aid alone is afforded the control which is to be given is that of the Board of Education, responsible to the public through this House of Parliament. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone objected that anyone might be called upon to give Cowper-Temple teaching as no questions were to be asked before the appointment of a teacher as to what his creed was, and therefore you might find some one giving Cowper-Temple teaching who did not believe in it. As I understand the Bill, no teacher will be called upon to give 'Cowper-Temple teaching against his will, and if the local authority desires to give that teaching it is perfectly at liberty-to engage for that purpose one educated to give it. [Cries of "Tests."] As I understand it there is to be no test for the teacher who gives secular teaching in the school. As I understand the Bill, and I hope my right
  1458
  hon. friend the President of the Board of Education will correct me if I am wrong, no teacher is to be compelled to give Cowper-Temple teaching. It is perfectly possible, when a local authority signs an agreement with a teacher who does not wish to give Cowper-Temple teaching, for them to engage one who can. I do not think hon. Members appreciate the difference between a test which is to be a condition of the employment of a teacher to give secular education and that of a man specially entrusted with the responsible task of giving religious teaching to children. I want to say a word as to contracting out. It does seem to me that too much has been made of the possibility of the educational inefficiency which is produced by this, contracting out. Under this Bill there will be always in reach of the children who go to such a school an alternative public elementary school, and the very fact of the existence of this will necessitate the keeping of the voluntary school efficient, or else the parents would remove their children. And, even if we do risk a certain amount of educational inefficiency, it seems to me that very possibly the difference of religious beliefs in this country may prevent a perfect educational system, and that certain sacrifices of educational efficiency may perhaps have to be made in recognition of the conscientious beliefs of the people of this country. I am perfectly certain of this, that ever since the Act of 1902, and even before it, attempts to over - ride conscientious opinions have delayed and retarded educational efficiency, and that you can never obtain such efficiency at the cost of sectarian strife, but only by general cooperation.
  *Mr. F. B. SMITH: Having listened to this debate with very great attention, and having no desire to use language other than the most conciliatory towards the Government's present proposals, I can only hazard the conjecture, speaking as far as the North of England is concerned, that this Bill is not seriously intended to pass into law. Nor do I think an analysis of the beliefs of members of the Government—I do not mean their religious beliefs, but of the educational theories of the

  1459
  present Government—could have led to the expectation that they would be likely to produce a Bill which would pass into law, either on the lines of the present Bill or the last Bill. We know that the Secretary of State for War, because he has repeatedly told us so was always a convinced believer in the 1902 Bill passed by my right hon. friend. He has said so repeatedly, and called attention to the immense work done for the cause of national education by that Bill. We know the Home Secretary is in favour of a secular solution. We know the late Minister for Education was in favour of parents' rights., and that the Prime Minister is sometimes in favour of parents' rights and sometimes not. We know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board is at one time in favour of contracting out, and at another time not. In those circumstances it is not very surprising that the Bill which has at last been produced should have been met from all quarters of the House with a chorous of disapproval except from the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed Ms seat. When we are asked to place these educational debates upon a higher level, when we are asked whether we cannot forget the sectarian differences, to think a little more of the interests of the children and a little less of those miserable differences, surely we are entitled, those of us who believe that there is one line and one line only upon which true educational progress can be made to point out that after the 1902 Act was passed—which by the universal admission of every one who has spoken from that side of the House did a great work for education in this country—that was the time when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought fit to excite a Welsh revolt in order that they might show us how desirous they were that progress should be made. What is the nature of the proposal? The circumstance which I think will attract the widest attention in Lancashire is that this Bill is totally distinct from the Bill introduced eighteen months ago. Eighteen months ago we were told that the House of Lords had flouted the will of the people as expressed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. What was the will of the people eighteen months ago as construed by the
  1460
  then Member for Education? The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "There will be no contracting out of popular control and all that popular control means."
  And he continued—
  "No elementary school shall receive a penny of public money either from the rates or taxes unless it becomes a provided school."
  When hon. Gentlemen get up like the last speaker and enthusiastically support the proposals of the Government to-day, which are the very negation of the extracts I have just read, we may well ask is there anything in the way of inconsistency which hon. Gentlemen opposite are not prepared to swallow? That was the first Bill. The session afterwards an attempt was made to diagnose the will of the people by the introduction of that squalid piece of meanness, the Passive Resisters Relief Bill, and one which had the happy effect of imposing a one-fifteenth educational rate on denominationalists, a totally different Bill from the first Bill, totally different in its details and in its expression of the will of the people. What happened? The second Bill was dropped after a short Parliamentary career, and it was dropped, I deliberately say it, for one reason only, that it would not admit of being jockeyed in the interests of the Roman Catholic community. ["Hear, hear".] I am not impressed by those cheers, because I recollect in my short Parliamentary career the first Bill, which hon. Gentlemen opposite say was rejected by the House of Lords the second Passive Resisters Bill, and now this Bill, and all three there was not one which hon. Gentlemen did not receive with the same indiscriminate and unquestioning enthusiasm. What is involved in that statement of the Minister for Education that he was going to the Church of England with a sword in his hand, as compared with the peace offering of the previous Minister? I do not question the right of the right hon. Gentleman to go to any community with a sword in his hand, if he proposed to do so.
  MR. ACLAND: The House of Lords, not the Church of England.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: Oh, he is going to the House of Lords with a sword in his

  1461
  hand. Up to the present there had been a singular and inexplicable delay in producing the sword from its scabbard. It is to be the House of Lords, but because the House of Lords threw out a Bill which no longer represents the will of the people—because it cannot be contended that this is the same Bill—we are driven to the conclusion that the present Bill, more drastic than the last, is going to be imposed upon the House of Lords without reference to the merit or demerits of denominationalism, but simply as a piece of petulant spite against the House of Lords. Is it or is it not the will of the people that there should be two systems of State schools, or only one? That is the first point upon which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board has to express his views, if he is going to intervene in this debate as he has done in previous debates on this question. If it is the will of the people that there should be two, why did the late Education Minister scrupulously and with some care arrange for one? If it is the will of the people that there should be one, why is the present Minister arranging with the same scrupulousness and care that there shall be two? Then, how has the change in the will of the people been discovered? Was it by some kind of intuitive divination, or was it by some kind of private information from the people of Devon, Hereford, or Worcester, that the Government have discovered this change? And when we are dealing with the question of the application of these money grants, which are still to preserve denominational schools, I hope the House will not have failed to observe the right hon. Gentleman's remark when he told the House that the pecuniary arrangements that are now being sanctioned must not be assumed to have a permanent character, that they might be altered in one year, or in two years. That is nice information for the people of Lancashire, who in past years have made great sacrifices for' their voluntary schools. We know what we have to expect from the right hon. Gentleman. We know that he deals with all problems of a perplexing character in a method which has the attraction of simplicity. The right hon. Gentleman appeals from his embarrassed political side to his corrupt judicial side—
  1462
  [Cries of "Withdraw."]—his partial judicial side. [Renewed MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw."] I withdraw nothing.
  *Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has no right to make a charge of corruption against another hon. Member.
  *Mr. F. E. SMITH: I at once, and in respectful obedience to your ruling, Sir, substitute for the charge of corruption the charge of partiality. [Cries of "Withdraw."] If I am out of order I shall be told so from the Chair, not from below the gangway. I repeat, an appeal from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde is not one which gives any great encouragement to those who are told that the last chance you have is with administrative arrangements that are going to be made in the future. Let me ask what is this scheme of contracting out? It is this, and I speak in the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board when I say, just as he said that Clause 1. was the spinal cord of the last Bill, so contracting out is the spinal cord of this Bill. Is there one Member of the Government who ever appealed to his constituents on the ground that they were going to settle the question on the principle of contracting out, or an hon. Member opposite who ever said so to his constituents? I recall the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, who, in 1906, in describing "contracting out," said it was "an exception grafted on an exception," and that he was "amazed that this proposition for contracting out should come from a Liberal Government." It cut across, he said, the spinal column of the Bill; the voluntary schools could not stand the strain in 1902, after being four years on the rates, and the expenses of maintenance would have increased by 20 per cent., while the teachers would be paid on the School Board standard. "The children of the country," the hon. Member for North Camberwell said, "would be once more sacrificed, and he viewed the whole proposition with the greatest apprehension and with something approaching disgust; the proposal to allow contracting out was thoroughly reactionary, and he regretted that it should

  1463
  have come from the Liberal Government. I can only say, that a gentleman who is capable of such intellectual acrobatics in the short period of eighteen months deserves something better than an under-secretaryship. He ought to be a law officer. Let us consider for a moment whether the hon. Gentleman was not abundantly justified in the statements he made in 1906. I offer for the consideration of the House some figures that have been supplied to me. The voluntary schools prior to 1902 cost £2 6s. per child, and the grant amounted to £1 15s., a deficiency of 11s., which caused the intolerable strain that was admitted to be utterly irreconcilable with any school efficiency. ["No, no."] Hon. Members say no, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, who knows a good deal more about it, says yes. I prefer to take the views of the hon. Gentleman on this matter. Now the expenditure in all schools, including voluntary schools, amounts to £3 2s., and the new grant is announced as £2 7s. That is an increase of 16s. as compared with the cost of the voluntary schools prior to 1902, and an increase of 12s. at most in the grants. What is likely to be the effect of this greater deficiency? It is not pretended that contracting out is in the interests of educational efficiency. It is introduced to get rid of political difficulties. Its first object is to shift the direct incidence of denominational charges from the rates to the taxes, and the second is to lessen the amount which is payable on adjustment to the denominations. Those are the two objects, and I hope we shall hear something of them in this debate. I should like to hear the view of an intelligent foreigner when he was told that in the year 1908 it was proposed to divert the educational charges from the rates to the taxes, and when he asked for an explanation he was told that the answer was neither administrative, political or educational, but that it was merely to relieve a certain type of conscience. Let the House for a moment pause to consider this ever fresh phenomenon of a conscience which can pay a tax but cannot pay a rate. There is some distinction, if anyone is so fortunate as to understand it; but, having considered
  1464
  it carefully, I confess I have entirely failed to do so. Does it really exist? Is there really in this House a conscience which, when it pays for the denominational education of others, recognises the distinction between a rate and a tax? Is there, away from the public platform and the country, any conscience which feels the conscientious objection to pay a rate for the denominational teaching of other people's children? I do not believe anyone will seriously come forward and say their conscience feels the obligation to pay a rate for the denominational teaching of other people. If there is, will the same person dare to come forward and say that, although he feels this monstrous and intolerant affront to his conscience when asked to pay out of rates for denominational teaching, he does not feel the same affront when the charge is made in taxes? If, indeed, the affront is not felt when the charge takes the form of a tax, how is it that the most simple solution of all has inexplicably escaped the attention of one Government and one Party after another? If that distinction is valid and the Noncomformist conscience can pay taxes and not rates, why not adopt the simple solution and impose the whole educational charges upon the taxes? You can then give the denominationalists all they want and this conscience is at last assuaged without any difficulty. The real truth is that this distinction on which so much stress is laid is not a distinction which has ever been put forward by a leading Member of the Liberal Government. The Secretary of State for War saw with the most complete clearness how hypocritical it was to seek to establish such a difference. The difficulty in which the Government is placed is that they are face to face with the results of an entirely impossible electioneering campaign, an electioneering campaign which has led to one impossible Education Bill after another. It was short, simple, and intelligible, and can be represented in a sentence. The election campaign was "Not one penny of public money without public control." Well, if you are strong-enough to do that, you are in the road which leads equally to logic and success; and, if you are not strong enough to do that—and I do not think there is a single member of the Government who

  1465
  will contend that you are strong enough—to attempt to establish any distinction between rate and tax is absolutely inconceivable. I said that the second object in contracting out was to lessen the amount given in future to denominations. On the net result they are to receive less. I say that from the first stage of this Bill to the last I shall oppose it, and I believe Lancashire, as a whole, will oppose it. I believe Lancashire Members, wherever they sit, will be driven by the views of their constituencies to oppose the Bill before this debate closes as many of them did the last Bill. I shall oppose it on the broad and simple ground that no Bill can ever succeed in this country which does not treat Nonconformist, Anglican, Jew, and Catholic alike. That is the principle I hope all who oppose this Bill will adopt. No denominationalists ought to be asked to cut their children adrift from public funds to which they are contributors. If it is possible to treat all alike, obviously that is the fair and right solution. How is it possible? There are two ways, and two ways only. The first is the secular solution. Of all the weapons and of all the devices to which this Government when they are in difficulty make resort, the most contemptible and most unconvincing is when, faced with denominational arguments, they say: "If you press it, you will drive us to the secular solution." Let me say that if the Government are to be driven to the secular solution by the arguments I and my hon. friends use, the moment they come into the open and go to the country on the secular solution the better pleased we shall be. The only Party of any strength in this House which has pronounced itself by its leading Members to be strongly in favour of the secular solution is the Labour Party. But I have noticed, not without interest, that, although many of their Members speak with great force and with great eloquence in this House in favour of the secular solution, when an opportunity is given to them of challenging the opinions of the constituencies in three-cornered and other fights, the candidates whom the Labour Party select do not show the same zeal and enthusiasm in the cause of secularism which their leaders show in this House. Quite recently we had an election in the Kirkdale
  1466
  division of Liverpool. It was an election between a Labour and Socialist candidate and a Conservative candidate. I should have thought in my simplicity that that was an admirable opportunity in a great and industrial centre of population for the Labour Party to nail their colours to the mast, to advance the great and popular cause of secularism and submit it to the suffrages of a democratic constituency. Before the Labour candidate had been in the constituency four days, however, he was strongly in favour of Cowper-Temple teaching, and I have no doubt, if we had kept him there a month, he would have been strongly in favour of denominational teaching. I think I am correct in saying that the same experience happened in Hull; and I also think that in the recent contest at Leeds, when a Labour candidate wished to be returned to the House of Commons, he did not nail to the mast this secularist doctrine which we are told is such a serious menace to us if we press our claim. The only comment I make is that the advocacy of the secular doctrine in this House is likely to be little persuasive when it is combined by the Party which, as a Party,. is the only Party in favour of it, with a shrinking disinclination to challenge the opinion of the country when opportunity is given them to do so. I say deliberately that the Labour Party can no more carry their Roman Catholic operatives with them in their battle for purely secular education than they can carry far wilder and more extreme industrial proposals. Is there one Labour representative of Lancashire who can say that the Roman Catholic members of the trade unions are going to follow them in their secularist campaign? The Member for East Leeds put down at the recent trade union meeting a resolution in favour of denominational education. It was a resolution which I would have accepted myself. It was in favour of the parental right in the most extreme form. The hon. Gentleman was induced to withdraw it, I do not know by what agency or with what object. But so far as Lancashire is concerned I do not believe any Labour Member sitting for a Lancashire constituency—and I ask the House to take this as the criterion of the secular prospect—will come forward and say that he is in favour of the secular solution.
  A LABOUR MEMBER: We have voted for it in this House.
  *MR. F. E. SMITH: I quite agree. The whole of the supporters of the Government have voted for two different Education Bills in this House. The question is: What is the hon. Gentleman going to vote for in the country, and what are the country going to vote for when they get an opportunity? If the principle of secularism for this reason fails, we are thrown back upon the principle of parental right, which has received a great deal of allegiance in all parts of this House. I understand from the present Minister of Education that he, too, to some extent is in favour of the principle of parental right; but I noticed with surprise that, when speaking in the country the other night, he described it as an "empirical fad." Why the right hon. Gentleman should be in favour of an empirical fad he did not explain. I would like to call attention to the fact that this remedy has been advocated by very large sections of the House. The distinguished brother of the Member for East Marylebone moved an Amendment to the Bill of 1902, which, I believe, would have had the effect of establishing a parents committee. I profoundly regret that that Amendment was not adopted by my right hon. friend who had that Bill in conduct. It was a proposal which, I believe, was supported by the hon. Member for East Mayo.
  MR. DILLON: I moved the Amendment.
  *Mr. F. E. SMITH: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. It was moved by the hon. Member for East Mayo and, I think, supported by the noble Lord who sat for Greenwich. That, of course, was an Amendment which would have had the effect, if not precisely in the way which would probably be adopted to-day, of establishing the principle of parental right. I regret profoundly that the House did not adopt that. Not only was the hon. Member who sat for Greenwich in favour of that view, but the present Prime Minister
  1468
  also expressed himself strongly in favour of it—
  "We believe the child should be brought up in the faith of its father until it is old enough to choose for itself."
  That is not only the child of the Nonconformist, but equally the child of the Roman Catholic or Anglican 'father. The late Minister for Education, until he assumed the responsibilities of office, spoke more directly and clearly, though in very homely language. He said—
  "Here the parents really must conquer their shyness and make their choice apparent in this heated controversy and tell us, when they send Tom and Jane to school, if and what religious instruction they desire them to receive. We are not an imaginative people. Jews, Roman Catholics. Anglicans, and Dissenters in a lump will usually exhaust the list. The great body of Dissenters will be found ready to accept the broad, simple Bible teaching which characterises Board School Christianity."
  And this was the way the right hon. Gentleman got the mandate from the country. He got it by saying to the Catholics below the Gangway that his view was that the only permanent solution was by giving to the parent of every child the right to determine what the religious education of that child should be in the public elementary schools of the country. Then we had the same statement by the Attorney-General for Ireland at Liverpool, and we have had with limitations the same statement made by the hon. Member for the Abercrombie Division, and the hon. Member for East Toxteth. Each and all of these have committed themselves to the principle of the parents' right. This principle is not one which can be determined in reference to any vulgar fraction or to any arrangement or calculation as to the number of parents. The Government have produced a Bill which they and the House know will never become law in its present form. Then consider for a moment the odious position in which they have pat the political Dissenter in the eyes of the country. They have represented the Dissenter as being a parasite upon the scanty pence of the Anglican and the Catholic operatives. You represent the Dissenter as saying: "We will have the religious

  1469
  education that we desire, and that is sufficient for us. You shall pay for it, and if you want to have the religious education which is sufficient for you, you shall pay for ours, and also pay the additional charge." The answer is: "It is not meanness which makes us take up this position. It is conscience." Fortunate indeed are those whose consciences providentially coincide with the economy of their pockets and the exploitation of their neighbours. The only observation that those of us in the North of England, in Liverpool and Manchester, where, at any rate, we are not enthralled with this doctrine, have to make if this provocative and brutal policy is to be pressed to its conclusion is that history will teach, as it has taught, that, from the days of Praise God Barebones to the heroes of the Welsh revolt, there has never been a Parliament dominated by political Dissent of which England has not grown more and more sick.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. MACNAMARA,): I may perhaps be permitted to say a word or two on this very familiar topic. If I do not follow the hon. and learned Member at once it is because I want to come to education and the Education Bill of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education. I will at once thank my hon. and learned friend for forecasting me some day to the office of Law Officer of the Crown. I hope he may live to see it. The first broad charge which is always made against us in dealing with the denominational system is that in our proposals we are guilty of something in the nature of breach of faith towards those who left the money to build those schools. That view is taken again tonight. I should like to examine that proposition quite shortly. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite quite realise the conditions under which the people built these denominational voluntary schools and the conditions under which the State undertook to give daily maintenance to them From the very beginning it was the genius of the whole educational system and fifty, sixty, or seventy years ago both Tory and Liberal Governments laid
  1470
  it down that denominational schools might be built and the State would give maintenance, but the maintenance would take this form, that for every penny that the State gave a penny must be found locally out of private pockets. That has been the genius of the whole system. I will go no earlier than 1868. The Royal Commission over which the Duke of Newcastle presided found at that time that the cost of a child's education was 30s. a year, and recommended that the average grant payable should be about 10s. a child, never exceeding 15s., and under their recommendation Article 47 of the Education Code of 1861, arranged the grant in this way, that it was to be reduced by its excess above the amount of school fees and subscriptions or the rate of 15s. per scholar in average attendance, and the Act of 1870 carried on that general principle. It says to the denominationalists, "Build a school by all means; we will give you a Government grant, but for every penny we give you, you will find a penny yourself." The Act of 1870 carried that out and laid it down in Section 97, dealing with grants that—
  "Such grant shall not for any year exceed the income of the school for that year which was derived from voluntary contributions and school fees and from any source other than the Parliamentary Grant."
  That principle has been steadily departed from by the Party opposite. In 1876, it was departed from by a Tory Government to this extent, that up to 17s. 6d. grant per child there need be no local contribution at all. Beyond that Government grant, penny by penny they must raise the same amount locally. And throughout all the years special aid grants have been given. The Government grant has increased so that that principle has been entirely violated. The supporters of the voluntary schools have cheerfully acquiesced in the abrogation of the principle under which those schools were built. It seems to me they gladly violate the spirit of their obligation when it comes to a question of more money. But they stick out in the closest possible way for the very letter of the trust deed when it comes to the concomitant of popular control. That is partly why this Bill is necessary. Now down to

  1471
  1870 the elementary education of this country was entirely under the denominational voluntary system. The schools under private management gave denominational teaching as part of their provision, teachers were appointed subject to religious tests. They got Government grants, but they were compelled to make up their supplemental income from voluntary contributions. But the country found out long before 1870 that that system could not adequately cover the ground, and there were a great many endeavours made, not successful of course, till Mr. Forster's endeavour of 1870 to remedy the state of affairs. His Act said to this system which had held the ground by itself up to that time, The denominational system will go on. You will give denominational teaching. You will be under private management. You will test your teachers. You will have Government grants and you will make up your income from private sources Denominationalists have flourished amazingly under the Act of 1870. They have added to their operations by 100 per cent. They found long before 1870 that the denominational system could not cover the ground and so in the Act of 1870 they created or gave the locality the right to create a local authority directly elected for educational purposes charged with this function, to survey their area and say whether there were educational deficiencies. These were to be supplied by a new type of school—the Board school. That school, too was to get Government grants like the old system, which was to continue. It was to be under public management. It was not to give denominational teaching. Its teachers were to be appointed without reference to their religious beliefs. And in consideration of these facts it was not to make up its lock I income from private voluntary sources. It was to come upon the rates. But by almost common agreement it was resolved in 1870 that if the school came on the rates, precedent to that it must agree to be publicly controlled and not to give denominational teaching. These two systems went on. The denominational system flourished, as I say amazingly. The new system grew up under these new conditions and of course, with the spread of the new system and the growing
  1472
  universality of the School Board rate and the increase of the rate in many localities there was what the Leader of the Opposition called an intolerable strain upon the supporters of the denominational system. He tried to meet it in 1897 with a special aid-grant, which was, of course, merely a matter of postponing the funeral so far as a great many schools were concerned. When we came to 1902 I should say about half the schools were in extremis, and he had either to let them go under or deliberately put them upon the slippery slope of the rates. He put them on the rates quite deliberately. I have never complained of that. I do not complain of these schools being on the rates. I am tired of the public education of the working man's child being a matter of private charity. That is a dangerous anachronism which this country cannot afford to continue. What I said then and say now, is that he ought not to have violated the principles of the common agreement of 1870. Having put them on the rates deliberately, he ought to have accepted the consequence of his action and agreed that they should be fully under public control, and not give denominational teaching. What did he do? As to denominational teaching he violated that principle entirely. He continued denominational teaching in the row rate-aided schools. As to the matter of public control as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he arranged an ingenious scheme under which he he 'ged if I may put it so. The denominational schools were to have six managers, the denomination to appoint four, and the public two. Does anybody think that that system can be maintained? I take the finance of it. At the present time, as we have heard from the hon. Member for the Walton Division, the maintenance of elementary schools council and non-provided is 62s. a year a child. I should think, although the figures are not now given by the Board of Education. that the maintenance of the non-provided school child is at the outside about 50s. on an average. Now, where does that 50s. come from? It is true the denominationalists make cert in provision. They are responsible for the structural upkeep of the fabric. They also give the public the free use of their

  1473
  premises five days and three nights a week. I have gone into very elaborate calculations which I have, not by me, and without haggling over it at all, and putting the highest possible outside value upon it, the structural upkeep of the fabric and the use of the rooms on five days and three nights in the week free to the public altogether is not more than about 5s. a child a year of the children in voluntary schools. Therefore there is 45s. of the maintenance cost left. Consequently the public is finding nine-tenths of the cost and at the very outside figure the denominationalist finds one-tenth. As against that the public gets two-sixths of the management, which I think I may put roughly at three-tenths. That is intolerable. This is not a Liberal or a Tory question, but a constitutional question. Is it tolerable that the public should find at least nine-tenths of the cost and have not more than three-tenths of the management? No, and it is because we do not think it tolerable—and I should like to hear any Gentleman opposite support the present system—that we brought in this Bill. We have distinguished support for our proposition from the leaders on the other side. Let me take two or three extracts which would appear to have escaped the attention of the hon. Member for the Walton Division. Lord Lansdowne, on 14th October, 1906, at Nottingham, said—
  "It should be clearly understood that the Unionist Party did not object to popular control and that they did not wish to impose religious tests upon teachers."
  That is the principle of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Birmingham, was more explicit in the matter of tests, for on 8th May, 1906, he said—
  "When a teacher comes forward to enter the State service there is no more reason, no more justice in exacting from him a profession of any particular religious opinion than in doing it in the case of the more important servants of the State."
  We endeavoured to restore rate-aided education in the Bill of 1906, and I think the House will agree that, on the part of the Secretary for Ireland, it was a
  1474
  splendid endeavour he made in that direction. We spent forty-nine Parliamentary days over that endeavour. We passed the Second Reading by a majority of 206, and the Third Reading by a majority of 192, the largest Parliamentary majorities since the first Reform Bill. We sent the Bill up to another place, but I do not need to discuss what happened there. Curiously enough, the Government has so far been criticised from the other side of the House because, in the interest of educational peace and to meet sincere de nominationalists, we have gone out of our way to make an exception to broad principles. I refer particularly to the attack on contracting out. It was criticised by the Leader of the Opposition, and by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone; in fact, the noble Lord associated himself with the criticism made by the hon. Member for North West Ham. It is rather curious but it is a fact that contracting out came in the first instance from the other side of the House. The Member for Glasgow University on the first clause of the Bill of 1906 moved to insert words which would have left it open for him afterwards to put in his scheme of contracting out. The proposal was supported by the Member for Cambridge University.
  MR. BUTCHER: I have not opposed the principle to-night.
  *Dr. MACNAMARA: At any rate, then, the Government have one supporter on the other side of the House. The proposal was also supported in 1906 by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, but circumstances of course alter cases. The hon. Member for the Glasgow University, who would not be associated with educational inefficiency under any circumstances, brought this proposal forward in the interests of variety in education, and after a discussion he asked leave to withdraw it, having satisfied himself with the expression of views on the subject. His Amendment was

  1475
  negatived without a division. When we came to Clause 4 of the Bill it was pointed out by denominationalists that the clause was not mandatory upon the local authority, and that there might be cases where the local authority would refuse to grant the extended facilities offered by the Bill, and then the denominationalists would not get what they claimed, namely, the right to have denominational teaching every day. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was then President of the Board of Education, added to Clause 4 a new sub-section, providing that where difficulties might arise between the local authority and the denominationalists the school might continue fully denominational, but without access to the rates, and be treated as a State-aided school. That was adopted in this House. I spoke and voted against it on the ground I then indicated, that I gravely feared that this kind of contracting-out system would mean a return to the educationally starved condition in which many of the voluntary schools were prior to 1902. Although I said then that they were starved hon. Gentlemen opposite would not have it. I immediately pressed a number of questions on my right hon. friend the present Chief Secretary, all designed to secure that in regard to the contracting-out of schools, the education given in them, and the teachers, should be maintained at the level of efficiency of the local authority schools of the country. He gave a number of assurances as to educational efficiency, and they were introduced into what became the contracting-out clause when it became Clause 5 in the final form of the Bill. The Bill went to another place, and when it was there Clause 3 in regard to ordinary facilities
  1476
  to denominational schools twice a week was made to extend the facilities to every day in the week. Clause 4 providing facilities every day for denominational teaching was made mandatory, and its operation was extended not only to urban but to rural districts. On the Report Stage in another place, Clause 3 was restored to its original form giving the ordinary facilities on two mornings of the week. But Clause 4 remained mandatory, and extended to all areas, urban and rural, and that removed any necessity at all for the contracting-out clause. Notwithstanding the fact that Clause 4 was made mandatory, the Archbishop of Canterbury brought up a carefully prepared scheme of contracting out which he placed before the House of Lords and desired to be inserted in the Bill as an additional safeguard. Therefore, the first word in favour of contracting out was spoken from the benches opposite in this House, and the last word was spoken from the ecclesiastical benches in another place. And now it is made a gibe against us, and especially against me, that in the interest of peace and harmony, and to meet the denominationalists, we have put in what if we were beginning de novo and writing on a clean slate we should not be prepared to entertain. My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary told me that he did not like contracting out. I said that I did not like it, though if educational efficiency were secured much of my objection to contracting out would disappear. I was afraid of going back to the starved condition prior to 1902. What was the Government grant to the denominational schools then? As far as I can make out, about 35s. or 36s. per head on an average. If this Bill passes, it will be 47s. per head.

  1477
  I think those who are opposing contracting out had better look into this a little closely before attacking the proposal with such violence as they have done. Surely 47s. a child would be better than 35s. which marked the days when the Leader of the Opposition supported the proposal. No doubt the cost is much heavier in London and the big towns. But denominationalists must pool their liabilities. Surely rich districts like Belgravia might lend a helping hand to Bermondsey, even in London, and if that is done 47s. per head will go a great deal further than hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to think. I have studied the figures as well as I can, and I think the maintenance charge is not move than somewhere about 50s. per head on an average.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is more.
  *Dr. MACNAMARA: There will be parts where it will be higher, as in London, and I suggest that the rich can pool their obligations. They did so formerly in 1897, and there is no reason why they should not do so again. Educational efficiency is all I care for, and I am convinced that it is safeguarded in the Bill. The terms of the Bill on the point were read out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that if anyone has any doubt about educational efficiency—I do not care from what quarter it comes—he has only to represent his views to the President of the Board of Education and they will be carefully considered. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we are striking at educational efficiency, but if we did so, we should be aliens to all the traditions
  1478
  of Liberalism. I venture to think that if supporters of denominational schools look into the figures more closely, and understand what has been offered, they will come to the conclusion that a very stiff price is being paid for freedom from ecclesiastical and territorial influences in the villages. This is the last attempt which anybody can make at a reasonable compromise, and those who, like the hon. Member for the Walton Division, fight it recklessly must know that people are growing tired of this squabble, and that large sections of people in this country—even religiously - minded people—are inclined to give up in despair and to say that they cannot allow it to continue. Therefore, let hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think twice, think thrice, before they continue opposition to this proposal, which in my opinion will make for educational efficiency, for justice, and for peace, and which is the only scheme that stands between them and what I would deplore, secular schools.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Before dealing with the contracting out proposals of the Bill, I wish to come to closer quarters with what has been called "the squalid controversy" which has led to the introduction of this Bill. It is a squalid controversy, and a provoking controversy; it is provoking because if people would only go into the schools of the country they would see that this religious difficulty practically does not exiet. In fact, the religious difficulty is the creature of the platform and of the Press and of this House. In nearly all the areas which would be affected by this Bill the religious difficulty is practically non-existent. The proof of this may be found in the history

  1479
  of the past few years. When the Secretary for Ireland introduced his Bill into the House and when it was debated for months, I could detect no enthusiasm for it anywhere, except the enthusiasm of hostility. When it disappeared we were told that terrible things would happen on account of its loss; but nothing has happened; the world has gone on much as before. Last year the President of the Board of Education introduced a transitory figure on to the legislative horizon a passive resister's relief Bill, but that has also disappeared and again nothing happened except some growls from the British Weekly. What is more illustrative of the quiet working of the present Jaw than anything else is this—that there are, and have always been, two districts in the country where, in consequence of political agitation, injustice has been done from time to time to the voluntary schools. We have called attention from time to time to that injustice, but our efforts have been uniformly met by the sympathetic attitudes towards those who disobey the law adopted by the Board of Education as at present constituted; but in spite of this the trouble has never spread beyond those areas, and the Education Act is working quietly and harmoniously all over England, and to the great advantage of education generally. Why, then, are we to have this Bill? We are told that the Government and their supporters received a mandate for this Bill from the constituencies. I suppose that the fulfilment of every promise made by a candidate if he is elected is regarded as a mandate, and in the miscellaneous catalogue of promises made by the supporters of the Government, you may find what is now construed as a man
  1480
  date in favour of popular control, the abolition of tests for teachers, and I suppose a remedy for the grievances of the single school areas. As regards these points I never suggested that the Act of 1902 was incapable of amendment, and if it can be shewn to me that absolute popular control over secular education was not given in that Act I would amend it in that sense. As regards tests for teachers I do not think there is anyone on this side of the House or in any other part of it who is in favour of tests for teachers, otherwise than as a means for the ascertainment of their educational efficiency for the work which they are engaged to do. Then as to single school areas we have always admitted that we have not dealt successfully with that difficulty, and that it must sooner or later be dealt with. Therefore with reference to these three items, popular control, tests for teachers, and single school areas, what, does this Bill do? Popular control is given away in every contracted out school, for every such school will be governed by its own managers according to their own wishes subject to the standard of efficiency required by the Board of Education. They will do as they like, and the teachers will be liable to any test the managers may think fit to impose. Popular control we are told, however, is to be found in the administration of the Board of Education, but the Board of Education does not appoint teachers, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us that the main evidence of the existence of popular control consisted in the appointment of teachers. The Board of Education will not have anything to do with the test which the managers may see fit to impose. Public control then will be gone, and abolition of tests for teachers will be

  1481
  gone. What about single school areas? The grievance will remain in an aggravated form. We are told that as far as possible all single school areas will be dealt with alike, and an opportunity given to every child to be taught the religion which his parents desire. But we have single school areas all over the country in which it will be impossible hence forth for any teaching to be given to the child except what is called Cowper-Temple teaching. Upon this point we want to know what is a single school area and who is to determine what it is. Is a single school area 'a rural area, or is it any place in which the child has no access to a council school. If so, would that be an urban area, and would it be for the local authority to determine, because, if so, it puts a great power into the hands of that authority in regard to voluntary schools, for wherever the local authority may decide that a single school area exists the right is given to take over the school and use it for five days a week, without payment of rent by the local authority. I admit the policy of that part of the Bill. It is a very large and attractive bribe to local authorities. Under the Bill of 1906 wherever a voluntary school was transferred or taken over by the local authority it would either have to be bought or hired. The President of the Board of Education now proposes that it shall be neither bought nor hired, he improves upon that proposal and provides that it shall be confiscated. This would be of considerable advantage to the ratepayers and may be possibly an inducement to some sordid persons in the country to support the Bill, but it does not seem to me to be an honest way of dealing with single school areas. As to contracting out the Secretary of the Local
  1482
  Government Board accuses me of having been a supporter of it in th.3 session of 1906. I opposed it throughout that session, and until I thought it had become a question of choice between educational efficiency and religious liberty. As to the Archbishop's declaration in regard to contracting out it was of the most limited nature, it was so received, and has no application to the present case. As regards contracting out, has the Board of Education seriously considered the cost of education in contracted-out schools? Certainly 47s. per child will not cover the cost of the education now given; it will be quite impossible on that amount, without great demands on the charity of their supporters, for the managers to keep up their schools to the standard of council schools, especially when they take into account that the salaries of the teachers are constantly increasing. Then there is the educational difficulty. By the Bill they will lose all the co-ordination which the present law allows, and questions arise as to the position of the voluntary schools in regard to medical inspection. Are these children to be excluded from this, and from any scheme of scholarships, or from the advantages of teaching in centres for cookery and the like? These are all matters on which we want some information. Then I would call attention to the hardship inflicted on those who have to keep up the contracted-out schools. They will have to pay the difference between 47s. and the cost of the maintenance of the schools which will come to at least 8s. a child, probably a good deal more, they will have to maintain the fabric of their buildings, and they will have to pay the rates for the council schools which will be maintained at a high level. That is to say

  1483
  they will have to pay very heavily for the religious teaching they desire their children to have and very heavily for giving to other children a religious teaching they do not desire to have for their own children. The Bill proposes to endow undenominationalism at the expense of the community. The taxpayer may pay for Anglican, Roman Catholic, Jewish, or Cowper-Temple teaching, but the ratepayer, whether he supports the denominational school or not, will have to pay for Cowper-Temple teaching. What is Cowper-Temple teaching? It is the teaching of those elements of our common Christianity which are determined to be such by the London County Council. May I ask if this is final, or whether the county council will be permitted from time to time to revise the common elements of our Christianity, and substitute other doctrines at its pleasure, according to the results of the last county council election? Are you quite sure that under the Bill the grievance of the passive resister will not arise in another form, that others may have consciences as well as your Nonconformist friends? The grievance of the passive resister was that possibly an infinitesimal portion of the rate which he paid might go to. pay for teaching the Church catechism to an Anglican child. You are now creating a grievance far more serious than this. I can see no genuine attempt in this Bill to deal with the educational difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman has justly described the Bill as the coming sword. It is a sword.
  MR. McKENNA: I never said that.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: If the right hon. Gentleman has been wrongly reported, I am sorry, but he was reported
  1484
  to have said so. It is a sword which may possibly turn against himself. Anyway, this Bill is not an educational, but a political Bill. It is designed to promote the interests of a political Party, and the right hon. Gentleman in legislation, I am afraid I must say as in administration, has used his power to do an injury to the religious life and educational efficiency of our country.
  MR. McKENNA: I will not detain the House more than a few moments while I endeavour to reply to some of the observations which have fallen from the hon. Baronet. Let me, in the first place, express my gratitude to the House for the reception which, on the whole, the Bill has received. Of course, the subject with which it deals is a difficult one. If it were easy, it would have been settled long ago. I naturally expect criticism. It is bound to come from every side of the House, but I hope, during the course of the debates, we shall be able eventually to hit on the solution which will settle this question. The hon. Baronet, if he will allow me to say so, has really taken an entirely erroneous view. It is not proposed to put denominationalism on the taxes and Cowper-Templeism on the rates. What it is proposed to do is this. The voluntary schools will no longer be public elementary schools; they will be schools at which the attendance of children will be purely voluntary. The children will get such religious instruction in those schools as the parents wish for them. But outside the religious instruction there will be the secular instruction in the schools, and that secular instruction will be superintended by the Board of Education. Under the express terms of the Bill that secular instruction has got to be maintained at the same

  1485
  level as the secular instruction given in the public elementary schools. What the Government grant is to be used for is to pay for this secular instruction. I submit to the House that the grant now proposed is an ample grant for the maintenance of efficiency in these voluntary schools. I have been asked whether there will be any balance of fairness, and what will be the terms on which schools will be contracted out. They will not be contracted out. They will be voluntary schools under private management and control, but under the Bill provided they fulfil the conditions that apply to them, they will be entitled to receive the grant. The hon. Baronet asked about medical inspection. It will be conducted by the local authority. I am thankful to say there is no religious controversy about medical inspection, and there is no difficulty therefore in dealing with it through the local authority. The cost of medical inspection will, like the other cost of administration by the local authority, be borne by the local authority. The same may be said of other matters which were put to me by the hon. Baronet. In regard to scholarships, children coming from the voluntary schools will be as much entitled to obtain scholarships in the secondary schools as children coming from the public elementary schools. For all such purposes these voluntary schools will be treated a certified efficient schools entitled to all the benefits of certified efficient schools. With regard to scholarships, that is a matter which will be dealt with under the secondary school regulation, and I can assure the hon. Baronet that the elementary schools will receive the same treatment as the public elementary schools. Then he spoke about harsh treatment in the single school areas,
  1486
  and of the proposal to take these schools without payment of rent as confiscation. I can only say if I may use the word that that is a mere abuse of language. These schools are held under trusts, and the purposes of the trust have to be fulfilled. If the purpose of the trust are not fulfilled by the local education authority taking over the school, and giving the elementary education which the trust requires in that school, the trust would fail. Then the only course open to the trustees would be to apply for a new scheme. If the trustees of a trust like this which had failed in its purpose for want of funds were to apply to the Board or even to the Courts for anew scheme for carrying on that trust, the Board or the Courts would in all probability make a scheme exactly upon the lines of this Bill. That is to say, they would regard it as the nearest user of the trust which was obtainable, and offer the building to the local authority for educational purposes on five days of the week, and to reserve it for denominational purposes on the other two days of the week. This building has to be maintained in perpetuity, to be kept furnished, lighted warmed, and cleaned. Under the ordinary purposes of the trust as it is now executed no fuller denominational instruction is given than would be given under this Bill. If it is proposed to pay rent, to whom should it be paid? It is the local authority which is in part carrying on the purposes of the trust. It must be remembered that this scheme is only proposed in respect of what are known as tight trusts, trusts which are tied up for educational purposes, and in which, consequently, the educational purposes cannot be divorced from the general purposes of the trust. Privately

  1487
  owned schools can be transferred to the ocal authority or not, just as the private owner desires. If the local authority offered the private owner reasonable terms I presume the private owner would take them. If he is in a single-school district he can ask for terms. With regard to facilities in a single-school district, he can also insist on Cowper-Temple instruction always being given in that school. Every security is given to the owners of trusts other than tight trusts that they shall receive full rent such as they can agree on with the local authority for the use of their building. A, private owner can do what he like? with his building; he can sell or let it to the local authority for what rent he can get. There is no proposal to confiscate or appropriate anybody's property. Every private owner and the trustees of every non-tied trust school will be allowed to make such bargain as they think most suitable for themselves. The hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool has stood in conjunction with the Bishop of Manchester in behalf of parental rights. This Bill, for the first time, recognises parental rights. It is to be a condition now, which it has never been before, that a voluntary school shall only be kept in being if the parents of the children wish. No parents hereafter are to be compelled to send their children to schools other than public elementary schools. That is the claim on behalf of the parents put forward now for the first time. I am sure that if that is accepted it will go a great way, if not altogether, to stifle the religious controversy. I cannot help thinking that much of the objection to this Bill arises from the fact, not that we are giving what is called contracting out, not that it is proposed to give generous
  1488
  terms to the voluntary schools, not that it is proposed to take the schools in the-single school parishes. The real objection I cannot help thinking, is that voluntary schools hereafter will have to be carried on in conformity with the wishes of the parents, and that no Church or Catholic or Jewish or denominational schools-of any kind can hope to continue in existence unless children of the particular-persuasion to which the school belongs-can be found to attend it. I do not wish to labour this point, but I am most anxious, particularly at this stage of the Bill, not to enter into any serious controversial matter, but I have been bound to make these few observations, and I beg now that the House will allow this-Bill to have a first reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. McKenna, Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Attorney-General, and Mr. Lough.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND-AND WALES) BILL.
  "To regulate the conditions on which public money may be applied in aid of Elementary Education in England and Wales; and for other purposes incidental thereto," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the Government how soon we shall have in our hands the print of the Bill?
  MR. McKENNA: I hope it will be circulated with the Papers on Wednesday morning.
  Adjourned at two minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Alliance and other Assurance and Insurance Companies Bill [H.L.]; North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]—Presented, read I; and referred to the Examiners.
Leith Burgh Bill [H.L.]—Presented, and read 1a.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA, NO. 1 (1908).
  Further Correspondence respecting the Independent State of the Congo (in continuation of "Africa, No. 1 (1907)").

  ARMY (ESTIMATES).
  Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War relating to the Army Estimates for 1908–1909.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made and number of patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ended 31st December, 1907.

  NATIONAL DEBT (SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
  Account of the gross amount of all sums received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of banks for savings and friendly societies in Great Britain and Ireland, from their commencement at 6th August, 1817 to 20th November, 1907, inclusive; of the aggregate amount of the separate surplus fund of all savings banks at 20th November, 1907, and of the gross amount of all sums transferred to or paid out of such surplus fund in the course of the year ended 20th November, 1907; and of all expenses incurred by the said Commissioners for salaries of clerks, or other incidental expenses during the year ended 20th November, 1907. Account of the several transactions
  1270
  which have taken place, during the year ended 20th November, 1907, in the investment of all moneys which came into the hands of the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt for savings banks and friendly societies, etc. Statement showing the aggregate amount of the liabilities of the Government to the trustees of savings banks and friendly societies respectively on 20th November, 1907, etc.

  PRISONS, ENGLAND AND WALES (APPELLANTS UNDER CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT, 1907).
  Draft rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Prison Act, 1898 and the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, for the treatment and custody of appellants not admitted to bail.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen to the Secretary for Scotland under the provisions of the Act, for the year 1906–1907.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to-Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BRIDLINGTON PIERS AND HARBOUR.
  Abstract of the annual general account for the year ended 26th July, 1907; delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE CONGO FREE STATE.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I rise, in accordance with the Notice standing in my name, to draw attention to the affairs of the Congo Free State and to move for Papers. The Papers which I ask His Majesty's Government to produce are the same as I asked for last session, namely, copies of the title deeds granted to the monopolists and any information thereon as to their power to force the natives on the Congo to labour. The events that have lately taken place at Brussels compel those pledged to reform on the Congo to bring before this House and His Majesty's Ministers and before the country the affairs of that State.
  Misrule on the Congo has been the theme of many essays, many letters and

  1271
  articles in the Press, and many debates in both Houses of Parliament, and hundreds of meetings have been held throughout the United Kingdom on the subject. Those meetings culminated in a huge assembly at Queen's Hall on Friday night last, over which the Lord Mayor of London presided. No one could have been present at that great meeting without having been immensely impressed with the enthusiasm of the audience, whose feelings were adequately expressed in the concluding words of the Lord Mayor's address, which ran as follows—
  "All that they asked was that the Congo territory should be administered in accordance with explicit promises given and according to treaty rights and obligations."
  I will not dwell upon the misrule on the Congo, nor in any way dilate on the treatment of the natives, nor on the monopolist system affecting trade in those regions. The whole government of the Congo State is an absolute evasion of the Berlin Act, 1884–1885, and also of the Convention made between Her Majesty's Government in 1884 and the International Association of the Congo. Those are admitted facts; they have been admitted in every debate that has taken place in Parliament during the last five years, and they have been admitted when in opposition by Ministers who are now in office, and by Members of the Opposition when they held office.
  I pass from the debates and treaties dealing with Darkest Africa, and take your Lordships to Brussels, where a game is now being played between King Leopold and his Ministers, the stakes on the table being the Congo and its natives. To understand the power of the King in this game we must examine Belgian opinion on the Congo question. Owing to the pressure of public opinion in England our Government have invited Belgium to annex the Congo, and to put an end to the abuses in King Leopold's African Colony. It must be remembered that this is the first time since Belgium obtained her independence that her Parliament has been called upon to decide a question of international importance. It must be remembered also that Belgium has no colonies, and has never had a colonial policy. Her Parliament is faced
  1272
  with this question—a Belgian colony and a colonial policy, and under circumstances absolutely abnormal.
  If we imagine that the state of public opinion in Belgium on the Congo question is anything approaching the public opinion in this country we are deceiving ourselves most grossly. The Belgian Press has for years been saying that England's wish to interfere in this matter is not for the sake of the natives, but because she wants the Congo for herself. Belgians, as a rule, have looked at this question in the very light in which the British Government did not wish them to look at it, namely, as an unfriendly interference in the domestic affairs of Belgium. It is unnecessary for me to say that we do not want the Congo or any part of it. We do not want anything to do with Belgium's domestic affairs. This is not a question of Belgium's domestic affairs; it is an international question, and the Act of Berlin is a complete negation of those ideas. The Belgian people know nothing whatever about the Congo, and I do not think they care to know.
  When the Commission appointed by King Leopold went to the Congo and confirmed by their Report the abuses which we all knew so well in England, scarcely any notice was taken of that Report in Belgium, and it created no emotion whatever in the minds of the Belgian people. The truth is, the Belgians have always considered the Congo as King Leopold's private enterprise, and that he was paramount Sovereign of those regions. In fact, according to the expression of M. Beernaert, the late Prime Minister of Belgium, the King was—
  "As absolute a Sovereign as Louis XIV. was of France,"
  and Belgians to this day know nothing about the ill-treatment of the natives on the Congo. But they are aware of this, that annexation of the Congo may cost the Belgian taxpayer money.
  There is another thing to remember. This question has never been before the electors at any general election in Belgium, and at no election has any Deputy referred on the platform to the Congo or

  1273
  to any colonial policy whatever. Notwithstanding all this, a certain number of politicians in Belgium in a better position to know what was going on than the mass of the people, and also men of business whose interests had suffered by the action of the monopolist companies in the Congo State, came to the conclusion that the only way to put an end to the colonial autocracy of King Leopold was for Belgium to annex the Congo. Belgium, as your Lordships know, had the right to annex the Congo in 1901, under a Convention passed by M. Beernaert with the Independent Congo State in 1890; but when it was brought before the King he indignantly protested, and the matter was shelved. The Commission appointed to look into the matter took five years to get constituted, and it held only one sitting. Meanwhile protests in England became more and more bitter, and Belgian Ministers had to face the situation and produce some sort of scheme of annexation.
  Now, my Lords, this brings us to what our Foreign Office has labelled "the Belgian Solution;" and may I add, in passing, that as at present compounded it is exceedingly distasteful. Let us examine the so-called Belgian solution. It takes the form of a Treaty of Cession, the contracting parties being King Leopold, the Congo State represented by the three principal secretaries of the Brussels executive staff in the Congo Administration, and Belgium represented by the Ministers of that State acting under reserve of the Legislature's approval. To put it shortly, if the Belgian Parliament agrees, the Congo Free State is to belong to Belgium. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to read Article I. of the treaty—
  "His Majesty the Sovereign King declares that he transfers to Belgium the sovereignty of the territories composing the Congo Free State, with all the rights and obligations attached thereto. The Belgian State declares that it accepts this transfer, will take over and assume responsibility for the obligations of the Congo State such as they are set forth in Annex A, and undertakes to respect the foundations existing in the Congo, as also the acquired rights legally recognised, of third parties natives and non-natives."
  We may put aside the rights of the natives altogether; they have no rights
  1274
  except on the Lower Congo. The last words of this Article—
  "respect the foundations existing on the Congo, as also the acquired rights, legally recognised, of third parties—"
  reveal the subtle arrangement of this treaty. Belgium agree, under the proposed treaty to maintain the Crown Domain monopoly, and all the other company monopolies that have been granted by King Leopold on the Congo, and the territory covered by these monopolies is where all these terrible horrors and this enforced labour has taken place. In other words, the fundamental nature of the Congo system is to be perpetuated under the treaty. Throughout this enormous area legitimate commercial intercourse with the natives of the country, guaranteed by the Berlin Act, is prohibited by agreements whose beneficiaries have become the owners of the natural produce of the soil, in violation of the terms of the Berlin Act.
  There was a debate on the subject in the Belgian Chamber, and the words of M. Schollaert, the present Prime Minister of Belgium, are most interesting. M. Schollaert said—
  "Finally, it is our duty to state, and we do so with perfect openness, that the tenour of the treaty has provoked certain apprehensions in many minds, even among citizens devoted to a colonial policy and admirers of the work of the Sovereign of the Free State. The attentive study of the question will show to what extent the objections which have been raised are well founded, and whether they cannot be satisfied by some new means."
  The French expression was, par certaines modalites nouvelles. M. Schollaert continued—
  "You do not expect us to improvise a solution at this moment. For it must not be forgotten that the object of the discussion is an agreement which requires the consent of two contracting parties."
  The treaty was fully criticised, the result of the debate being that no decision was arrived at.
  Now we hear that there is to be a compromise between King Leopold and his Ministers. It must be remembered that King Leopold has lately been spending a very large sum of money—Congo money derived from the Crown

  1275
  Domain—on palaces and public buildings in Brussels and elsewhere in Belgium, and this has, no doubt, appealed to the Belgian people. Now it is suggested, by the compromise, that these funds, instead of being dealt with by the King, should be administered by a Committee, mostly of members of the Belgian Parliament and other nominees of King Leopold. There is to be no alteration as to the manner in which the revenues are procured, the only change being in the personnel of those administering them. I ask this House in all seriousness, Does it matter to the wretched natives of the Congo forests how the revenues derived from the Crown Domain are spent; or who spends them? Is their lot likely to be any better? Indeed, this whole Treaty of Cession and the compromise cannot be taken as a serious effort on the part of the Belgian Ministry to annex the Congo, and we most strongly protest against it. And in what I say I speak for those who are greatly interested in this matter, the Congo Reform Association, and many Others in England.
  There was a message in The Times of to-day from that paper's own correspondent at Brussels, which rather shows what is going on between the Ministers and the King. The Times correspondent telegraphed the following statement published in the Etoile Belge—
  "It is certainly the case that the exchanges of views which have taken place during the last few days have not led to any result, and an agreement has not been reached regarding the list of public works to be carried out with the revenues of the 'special fund' which is to be derived from the Crown Domain."
  What becomes of the reform on the Congo that we have looked for? Why, the King and his Ministers are actually fighting on the question whether or not certain public buildings in Belgium are to be erected. There is no question of reform on the Congo. I ask His Majesty's Government, Is this the Belgian solution for which we have been waiting for so many years? I cannot believe it. I still have in my mind our King's most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament at the opening of the present session, in which occurred these words—
  "My Government are fully aware of the gr at anxiety felt with regard to the
  1276
  of the native population in the Congo State Their sole desire is to see the government of that State humanely administered in accordance with the spirit of the Berlin Act, and I trust that the negotiations now proceeding between the Sovereign of the Congo State and the Belgian Government will secure this object."
  That, I take it, is the policy of our Government, and I also take it that that policy will be carried out; for this is not by any means a party question, as, I think, was pretty clearly demonstrated at the huge meeting at Queen's Hall the other night. I feel, however, that the dilatory tactics promoted by King Leopold will still be carried on. We have had an instance of this in the proposed "Compromise"—I should like to call it by an uglier name.
  I trust I do not offend the feelings of our Foreign Office when I say that England's efforts should not be in the direction of diplomatic foil play at Brussels, but in direct action on the Congo. Our Government cannot, I believe, be always waiting and watching for a policy of perfection in that part of Africa. I have a suggestion to make, and it is this. By one of the Articles in the Convention of 1884 between our Government and the International Association of the Congo, we have the right to place consuls in those regions. At present in all that immense territory, as large as Europe (leaving out Russia), we have only three consuls and two of them are vice-consuls. I feel sure that if consuls were appointed there—and this does not prevent other Powers appointing consuls—the natives would not be so badly treated. To bear out what I say, let me quote from Hansard the words of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in your Lordships' House on 3rd July, 1906. The noble Marquess then said—
  "I agree with my noble friend that this was a very important reservation: and all I can say-is that I hope, if these abuses continue, we shall claim our right to appoint consuls in the Congo. I do not care in the least whether there are British subjects to look after or not: but what I do feel is that the presence of half a dozen Englishmen located in the centres of trade within the Congo will be worth more than a whole row of inspectors or officiate belonging to the Administration of the Congo Free State."
  To that I say, Amen. But the abuses still go on, and the warehouses at Antwerp are at this moment full up with Congorubber.

  1277
  There was a quotation in The Times to-day from a letter of the Rev. S. Gilchrist, of the Congo Balolo Mission, and his letter shows that there has been very little alteration in the modes of procuring rubber on the Congo.
  We ask His Majesty's Government to declare to Belgium first, that annexation under present terms is totally unacceptable; and, secondly, that the rights of the natives to the soil and its produce be insisted upon. And in this matter, I think the honour of this country is affected. England suppressed the slave trade. I believe it took nineteen years to do that. I can hardly think it will take nineteen years to bring about reform on the Congo. But how, I ask, can England remain inactive when a condition worse than slavery exists next door to her own African Possessions?
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for further correspondence respecting the Independent State of the Congo, and other Papers, if any, bearing on the grants and title deeds of companies in the Free State."—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  EARL CROMER: My Lords, like the noble Earl to whom we have just listened, I do not think it is necessary to dwell at any length on the manner in which the ruler of the Congo State has abused the high and responsible trust conferred on him by Europe. The indictment against the Congo Administration, though at first received in this country with a certain amount of incredulity, turns out, when the facts are well known, to be absolutely crushing. I have seen something, and I have heard more, of maladministration in backward States in the hands of despotic, irresponsible rulers, but I assert without hesitation that never in my experience have I seen or heard of anything at all comparable to the abuses that have grown up in the Congo State. There has been a cynical disregard of the rights of the native races, coupled with a shameless exploitation of the resources of the country in the interest of foreigners for which I believe a parallel cannot be found in the history of modern times.
  I do not base this severe condemnation of the Congo Administration on any
  1278
  special acts of cruelty and oppression of the natives, though on this charge an unanswerable indictment might be made; I base it in addition on the disregard of three principles in administration, and I say that unless a radical change is made in the system of administration no serious improvement can be anticipated. In all countries similar to the Congo territory three essential principles must be accepted as preliminary to the establishment of anything like good administration, and all these principles have been flagrantly violated in the case of the Congo.
  The first principle is that the duties of administration and the commercial development of the country should not be vested in the same individuals. The counter-principle of associating the two functions we tried ourselves years ago with the old East India Company, and though we had at the head of it many men who were not only merchants, but statesmen, the system of government, if not a failure, was at the best but a very modified success. But in the Congo the officials employed have been commercial agents rather than administrators, and it cannot be doubted that they have been judged for their services by the standard of the amount of money they, by any means, justifiable or the reverse, have poured into the Congo treasury. The first principle has thus been flagrantly violated.
  The second principle is that by the establishment of a Civil List the amount placed at the personal disposal of the ruler of the State should be a fixed amount and that the remainder of the revenue from the country should be applied by properly qualified and responsible authorities to objects in which the subjects of the State as distinct from the ruler have a direct personal interest. A despotic ruler always demurs to this. I remember some years ago—I think it was in 1879—there was a question of appointing an Englishman to supervise the financial affairs of Turkey, and the Sultan did me the honour to consider my name in connection with the appointment. When it was referred to me I asked if His Imperial Majesty would be prepared to accept the settlement of a Civil List, and then, as I had anticipated, further discussion of the subject was allowed to

  1279
  drop. Wall, in the Congo there is no Civil List, and the whole of the revenue of the country is at the absolute disposal of the ruler; and a large portion of it has been applied to the construction of palaces and to other objects in which the natives have not the remotest personal interest. The second principle then is violated.
  The third principle is that the Crown Domains should be settled and administered by responsible qualified authorities in the general interest of the community. In the Congo State almost the whole country has been handed over to speculators, and the chief of the State is the principal speculator among them. These speculators have ruthlessly exploited the resources of the country in their own interest. A very similar state of things existed in Egypt some thirty years ago. Ismail Pasha had managed, by arbitrary and illicit means under a thin, transparent veil of legality, to accumulate in the hands of himself and family a million acres of the best land in Egypt. When the Powers of Europe came to deal with the subject of finance they considered it an abuse of power to acquire this as private property for the ruler, and the whole was confiscated and converted into property to be administered by proper authorities for the good of the country, and it was eventually sold, mostly in small lots, to native proprietors. I am quite sure no satisfactory solution is possible in the Congo unless a similar course is followed and one class of interests sacrificed. There are three interests involved—the interest of the Congolese, the interest of the Belgian taxpayers, and the interest of the concessionnaires. I estimate the interests of the Congolese and of the Belgian taxpayers very highly, but I place the interest of concessionnaires in the third rank, and, I should add, rather low in that rank. If there is a sacrifice to be made they should make it; and I hope the Belgian Parliament, to whom we must first look, will not deal too tenderly with the rights of concessionnaires.
  Turning to another point, let me say I would be the last to advocate any excessive interference with the domestic affairs of a foreign country. More than this, I sometimes think the British public
  1280
  in the exercise of their unquestioned right to say anything they please sometimes go to rather indiscreet lengths in the direction of advising foreign nations how they should manage their own affairs. In this case we need not be deterred by any scruples of this nature. The Berlin Act is perfectly plain. It lays down that there is to be freedom of trade, and it condemns the creation of monopolies. The Act of 1884, which. was passed by agreement between the British Government and the Congo Association, is also perfectly clear. Moreover, the declarations of M. Beernaert in 1885 when he was Prime Minister of Belgium, and of Baron Lambermont, who was the Belgian representative at the Berlin Conference, were also perfectly explicit.
  I will read what was said by the noble Marquess behind me (Lord Lansdowne) in 1900. I do so because the statement has been challenged, and, although I have no doubt he could give a much better answer himself, I will, if he will permit me, give a rejoinder for him. He said—
  "Quite irrespective of any right we enjoy-under the letter of these Acts, we have a moral right to interfere, which comes to us in consequence of the false pretenees—I cannot use a gentler word—under which the Congo State has acquired its privileged position in that part of Africa."
  The Belgian Commissioners contested this right, and on page 151 of their Be-port stated the alleged rights of the Congo State—in other words, those of King Leopold—in the following very plain language—
  "The Congo State can dispose itself solely of all the products of the soil, prosecute as a thief any one who takes from that land the least of its fruits, or as a receiver of stolen goods any one who receives such fruits."
  It is necessary to deal with this point a little, not only because I think Mr. Morel is perfectly right in thinking that this question of freedom of trade lies at the bottom of the whole business, but also because it is essential to establish our right to make our voice heard, not merely on grounds of public morality, but of indisputable treaty rights.
  On what grounds are these rights contested? Apparently on the grounds that freedom of trade exists, and that

  1281
  no monopolies have been created. M. Woeste, a distinguished member of the Belgian Parliament, made the following statement:—
  "Lord Lansdowne declared, in the British House of Lords, that the Congo was covered with monopolies of an abusive character; he committed an astonishing confusion of thought; he mixed up monopolies with the legitimate and rational development of private property belonging to specified landlords."
  Therefore it appears that the argument and the application of the argument are something of this kind. In the first place, it is held that the natives of the Congo have no proprietary rights in the soil of their country or its products, and that the whole of these rights are vested in the ruler of the Congo State. In the next place, the ruler hands over the whole of these rights to certain "specified landlords," he himself being the first specified landlord; and with the help of armed forces which could not be at the disposal of private individuals there is introduced a barbarous system of collecting the revenue, which necessarily leads to the enslavement of the greater part of the population. The third link in the chain of this reasoning is that anyone, not being a "specified landlord," who buys from the natives of the country the only product they have to sell—rubber—is to be treated as a thief and a receiver of stolen goods. Under this system it is stated that free trade exists and there are no monopolies. This is the system which was described by Baron Lambermont at the Berlin Congress as one which gave everybody unlimited right to buy and sell. If this is free trade I give the tariff reformers full permission to write me down a protectionist or anything else they like except a free trader. But in point of fact the united authority of lawyers in Belgium and all Europe will not convince me that a system of this sort is sanctioned by any law, human or Divine, or that it can be made to harmonise with the treaty right of other Powers, including that of Great Britain.
  The view the Government take of this important question was stated in August, 1903, in a Circular addressed by the Foreign Office to the Powers, containing these words—
  "His Majesty's Government maintain that until unoccupied land is reduced to individual
  1282
  occupation, and so long as the produce can only be collected by the native, the native should te free to dispose of the produce as he pleases."
  This principle, which I hold to be perfectly sound, is one which I have no doubt was asserted after taking qualified legal advice; and I trust this principle will be stoutly maintained in spite of any quibble by which it may be attacked. The right of the British nation to make its voice heard is perfectly clear, and the only questions for discussion are as to the desirability of exercising that right and the time and method of exercising it.
  Both the Belgian Government and the Belgian people are in a position of great difficulty, and I should much regret that any language used either by me or by any one else in this House should add to their embarrassment. It cannot be doubted that a strong feeling of indignation has been excited in this country by the manner in which the Congo has been administered; and, moreover, that is accompanied by a feeling of shame that as one of the signatories to the Berlin Act, Great Britain should have been in any way contributory to the establishment of such a system as now exists in the Congo. The Congo Reform Association is naturally impatient at the slowness with which the international mill grinds, and I can fully sympathise with this feeling. I have had a prolonged and somewhat bitter experience of that mill; and I know how heart-breaking it is to look on while some flagrant abuse calls for reform, and yet it is impossible to apply any prompt and effective remedy. The Congo Reform Association appear to contemplate that in certain contingencies some decided action even more drastic than that to which the noble Earl alluded should at some time or another be taken by His Majesty's Government.
  I think it would be premature to discuss this matter at present. It has to be remembered, undoubtedly, that in a matter of international concern any step which separates this country from the international concert is one of a very serious nature. It is well to remember that under the Act of 1884 His Majesty's Government has the right not only to appoint Consuls, but to establish Consular Courts. I hope that, should the occasion arise, that right will be exercised. I

  1283
  cannot help thinking that if Consuls were appointed and at the same time means of locomotion were provided to enable them to move freely up and down the river, and consular courts were established, and if at the same time we insisted on the unquestionable right of British subjects to trade throughout the Congo, some effective pressure would be exerted on the Congo Administration and a considerable step in advance would be made.
  In spite of what the noble Earl has said, I still cling to the hope that the Belgian solution may be possible. I do not go nearly so far as to say that we are under any obligation to accept anything which may be settled in Brussels. Far from it. Our right to make our voice heard is perfectly clear, and I venture to think that no solution will be satisfactory unless it gives to the Belgian Parliament full and complete Parliamentary control over the whole of the Congo Administration. It must be borne, in mind that, although we know something of the discussion going on in Belgium, the Belgian proposals in their final form are not yet before the world. When they are known I hope that the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able to assure the House that the Government will not acquiesce in any arrangement which does not give the full Parliamentary control of which I speak. If that Parliamentary control is once assured, there will then be some solid guarantee that the Act of Berlin will be respected, and the administration of affairs improved. If once a real and effective control is secured, I should not, for my own part be inclined to scrutinise too closely the other details of the Belgian arrangements; but that control must be fully secured. In the meantime we can no doubt do a great deal to enlighten Belgian public opinion. It cannot be too clearly understood that we do not wish any territorial advantage. I conceive that it would not be at all in the interests of this country to add to our world-wide responsibilities by assuming the direct administration of any portion of the Congo State. All we want is that the Congo should be governed on such principles as commend themselves to the
  1284
  civilised world. It must be borne in mind that the Belgian people and Parliament are labouring under great difficulties. Not only is the issue complicated by the introduction of other matters connected with the internal affairs of Belgium, with which we are not concerned; but the greater portion of the Belgian Press has up to the present time been under the control of the Congo Administration, with the natural result that the Belgians themselves are ill-informed of the facts.
  It has been suggested that he noble Marquess behind me, in the speech from which I have already quoted, said something which was tantamount to alleging that the people of this country had been duped. So also have the Belgians. They have been entirely deceived as to the true facts of the case. So far as I can understand, a considerable section of the Belgian public are reluctant to take the great responsibility of governing the Congo, more especially in view of the financial responsibilities; and I am not at all surprised, for if the country is to be properly administered, the revenue, which depends largely on the yield of rubber, is certain to fall off. On the other hand large reductions may be made in the expenditure. Why is the present large military force maintained in the Congo if not to aid in the present iniquitous system of collecting taxes?
  I have myself seen on the Congo police stations in the Upper Nile garrisons far larger than in Uganda and Assuan. I believe these garrisons might be largely reduced with great advantage. The financial difficulties, though very great, may not be found insuperable if the question is tackled in a proper spirit; and the proper spirit in which to tackle it is to look to the interests of the Congolese with real regard to the necessities of the various taxpayers rather than to the interests of the concessionnaires. Keep the river open and have a due police force on the river bank. The main portion of the territory will then require little administration at all. The main thing is that we should destroy the present system, and that we should not pause in that work of destruction merely because it would not be possible to place immediately anything very satisfactory in its place.

  1285
  Let me add that I know something of the difficulty of substituting free for forced labour. We had to deal with it in Egypt, and a difficult and thorny problem it was; but it was solved in the face of obstacles which, I think, were greater than those that now exist in the Congo. A solution will never be obtained in the Congo if the first object of the Congo Association is to pay large dividends. Up to the present the question, as it affects the Congo, has been considered from a point of view wholly different from that from which we viewed it in Egypt. In a paper issued by the Congo Association I read a statement to the effect that the triumph of law was to make the black man work. In Egypt we thought that whilst giving every inducement to the Egyptian to work, the triumph of the law consisted in preventing him being flogged for voluntarily choosing to remain idle. It is for the Belgians to say which is more in harmony with the practices of the civilisation under which we live.
  I feel confident that His Majesty's Government will receive the full support of Parliament and public opinion in endeavouring to find some satisfactory solution of a question which so nearly touches the honour and interest of this country. We sympathise with the Belgians in their difficulty; but we await their solution. It will be time to consider what further steps should be taken if that solution is considered unsatisfactory. The alternative to the Belgian solution is said to be some form of international Government. An appeal has been made by us to other nations; and the result has not been altogether encouraging. I think the only potentate in Europe who evinced any desire to cooperate in the reform of the Congo was the Sultan of Turkey. It must, moreover, be remembered that international administration—though sometimes it has been made use of in default of anything better, is, at best, a cumbersome and inefficient machine. Further, in view of the state of affairs in Macedonia, the moment is hardly propitious for inviting the Powers to an international concert about another matter. Therefore, when the Belgian solution is better known it will be examined in a friendly spirit and will not be rejected unless for
  1286
  paramount reasons. But it must be a reasonably satisfactory solution. If it be a mere sham, if it be but a mere cloak under which the present system in the Congo is to be continued, I hope His Majesty's Government will have no hesitation in resolutely rejecting it.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am sure the House and the country are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mayo, for bringing this subject forward to-night, and for the manner in which he did it. We thank him not less for having elicited the speech to which we have just listened. It is no disparagement, I hope, to the statesmen and diplomatists who have addressed the House on this subject year by year, to say that we have listened to-night with a quite exceptional interest and respect to one whose administrative record in Asia and in Africa has given him in the history of this country an enduring place as a past-master in the difficult science which treats of the relations to one another of men of different race, religion, and colour.
  The noble Earl's speech has reminded us, if a reminder were necessary, that this is not an isolated question concerning the Congo alone. Attention has been called in this House before now to a notable utterance by another great African administrator, Sir Harry Johnston, who has written the following memorable warning—
  "Unless some stop can be put to the misgovernment of the Congo regions, I venture to warn those who are interested in African politics that a movement is already begun, and is spreading fast, which will unite the negroes against the white race, a movement which will prematurely stamp out the beginnings of the new civilisation we are trying to implant, and against which movement, except so far as the actual coast line is concerned, the resources of men and money which Europe can put into the field will be powerless."
  It is in part that fact, or that peril, thus foreshadowed, which brings upon the stage in this matter those of us who, for the most part, are accustomed to stand outside the difficult and delicate questions of diplomatic controversy and international polity.
  It cannot be too often recalled that the creation of the Congo State was, in

  1287
  part at least, the handiwork of men whose interests lie mainly in philanthropic and religious work. It would be untrue, of course, to say that the commercial element was wholly absent. But the creation of the Congo was not due to a desire for national aggrandisement on the part of Belgium, or of England, or of any other State. It was not a result following upon a war. It was in a large measure, at least, an honest desire for the civilisation and the betterment of a great tract of Africa, the character of which had been made known almost suddenly to the people of Europe. That was the reason why the Lord Mayor presided at the great meeting in the Queen's Hall last week, not as the head of the commercial life of the city, but as the central figure in England's philanthropic and benevolent work.
  The citizens, generally, feel that responsibility for the state of things in the Congo rests heavily upon them. We turn to the Foreign Office representatives, not for the facts in the Congo—for those, unhappily, we know too well—but for information as to the forces and powers behind those dark deeds, the record of which has been brought before us by those who have earned the thanks, not of England only, but of the world for the way in which they have brought these facts to light. We ask, What can you tell us about the forces that are behind? We are necessarily in ignorance upon that, and we look to those who can speak officially on the matter for information. It is unquestionably true that negro slavery has been resuscitated in, perhaps, its darkest or reddest form in the Congo. It is true that for that England is in part responsible. Is the only answer we are to get but this—"We must wait and hope for the best"? Two things the country wants. First, a consecutive statement from the Foreign Office of the steps which led up to the announcement on the subject in the King's Speech, and of what exactly that announcement amounts to. Secondly, what grounds the Government have for the opinion—if it be their opinion—that it will be easier to get redress for the black men's wrongs after the Congo is annexed by Belgium than before.
  1288
  To some of us, amateurs in these matters, it would seem that if this country were acquiescent in an annexation which carried on, though in other hands, the old regime of ownership by Belgians of these black men's property and, indeed, their lives, it would be harder and not easier to make protest against it when the arrangement had been adopted by Belgium. I may be mistaken in that view, but it is one of those things upon which we should like to have fuller information and guidance than we have at present. After the momentous and responsible utterance in the King's Speech I feel that this is an occasion which far transcends any mere question of contemporary politics. It is surely true to say that we are here face to face with the big principles of right and wrong. The moral law, as we have constantly been reminded by great teachers, was not written for men alone in their individual capacity, but also for nations. If the English people, on whom responsibility indisputably rests, reject by their indifference or inaction the application of the moral law, some penalty, on whomsoever it falls, must follow. We have experience, we know what the past has cost us, we have suffered, and suffered rightly, for the neglect or the wrong-doing of other days. We want to be sure that we are not incurring afresh by our inaction a like answer-ableness for new wrong-doings to-day. It is upon that that we await in eager anxiety the reply which the Government will give.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, who has spoken with such authority, has told your Lordships that we have every right to interfere in this Treaty of Cession, or whatever the arrangement come to by the Belgian people may be. I should like, if your Lordships will give mc your indulgence for a few minutes, to urge the point that not only have we the right, but that it is the duty of His Majesty's Government and of this country, to interfere to the best of our ability. I have never been one of those who have attributed to the founders of the Congo State, or even to its administrators, any

  1289
  undue proportion of original sin. I have always regarded them as mortals with, the ordinary instincts of humanity.
  I wish to argue to-night that, inadvertently and ignorantly, we ourselves are almost as much responsible for what is going on in the Congo to-day as any of the parties concerned. When the Congo State was formed we, for diplomatic reasons at the time, and, perhaps, not clearly seeing what would be the result, were delighted that the King of the Belgians had taken up the question and placed himself at the head of that State, and we acquiesced in that arrangement in the interest of humanity and civilisation. The Belgian people felt pleased that their King should occupy that position, that Belgian subjects should have the work of developing and civilising this great territory, and that Belgium should have an enlarged opening for her enterprise and commerce, and the King himself was proud to be regarded as the leader of a great philanthropic movement. Many hard things have since been said about the King of the Belgians, but I for one honestly believe that King Leopold has been actuated by the ideals with which he set out on this venture, and with which he was at first credited.
  But there was one vital blot on the whole scheme, which we, of all nations in the world, ought to have discerned. Perhaps some of us did suspect it, but the temptation was to disregard it and to hope for the best. We knew perfectly well that a Government of a civilised nature set up in a savage country could not for some time be financed out of the taxes raised from that country, and therefore it is very questionable whether we were justified in entrusting the government of that country to anybody except a European Power prepared to take upon itself, not only the credit, but the duties and responsibility of government. The first thing which happened, of course, was that to meet the purposes of administration the King had to call in financial assistance from others. His own country were, and always had been, apathetic on the question of Congo rule. They have always said that they were unwilling to
  1290
  undertake the responsibility and expense of governing the Congo, and they say it now. One-half the difficulty of a settlement is that there is no Party in Belgium in favour of burdening the resources of the country by this financial responsibility. That is the greatest difficulty which lies at our door.
  We are making a very large demand upon everybody concerned. We are asking the Government to do their best to induce Belgium to undertake the full responsibility of the government of the country. We are asking the King, and the bodies of financiers he has called in, to make very large sacrifices. The curse of forced labour was introduced because there was no other means of raising revenue, and we know that when forced labour is once introduced it is used for the development of a country. We are asking them to give up all this, and we know how difficult the task is. While it is not for me or for anyone in this House to suggest definitely to His Majesty's Government the diect steps they should take, we do claim that we have a responsibility for what has occurred; and, in virtue of that responsibility, we ask the Government to do whatever lies in their power to induce the Belgian Government to take over the absolute control of the finances and government of the Congo-State.
  *THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAUEICE): My Lords, the debate which has taken place every year in your Lordships' House on the subject of the misgovernment in the Congo may possibly to some persons appear, from its very repetition, to be a sign that the evils with which all of us, irrespective of Party, are contending, are enveloped in such a jungle of difficulty that little can be done; and the debate might almost to some appear to be running the risk of taking that place in our discussions denoted in another place by the term "a hardy annual." I hope that no such idea will be entertained by any Member of your Lordships House, for I am convinced that these debates are not open to any such imputation.

  1291
  On the contrary, I believe that, slow as the progress may appear to some, perhaps, impatient spirits, nevertheless the debates which have taken place year by year show an advance on each occasion. I myself, as representing the Foreign Office, have twice before, at intervals of about exactly a year, had the honour of addressing your Lordships on this subject since the Government took office. On the first occasion there was really very little to say, except to lament and accentuate the terrible tale of mis-government, and also, which was more painful, to record that the efforts made to interest the other Powers of Europe, signatories to the Berlin Act, and those who in 1884–5 had signed separate treaties with the Congo State, had unfortunately not received that support which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had a right to expect and which we had all hoped they would receive.
  When I spoke last year I was at least able to say that there was on the edge of the horizon, though not much above it, a chance of a solution. That solution has been frequently alluded to to-night, and Is known as the Belgian solution. I then ventured to express to your Lordships the hope that when I had again to speak on the subject I should be able to announce some further progress. I agree with every word that has been said by Lord Cromer and the most rev. Primate as to the disappointment which we may, perhaps, justly feel that things have not gone further than they have; and I can heartily endorse the view of Lord Cromer that, bearing in mind the difficulties of the situation, both international and in Belgium, and in this country, we must not be unduly impatient. Further, bearing in mind that barely a year and a half having elapsed since the important Resolution of the 14th December, 1906, known in Belgium as the ordre du jour patriotique, which practically decided in principle that the question of annexation was to be taken up, it is something that we are now watching the crisis of the negotiations, and that the points of difference have been reduced to a shape which everybody can grasp, and are now greatly reduced in number and extent. I consider, therefore,
  1292
  that it would be an exaggeration to say that no progress had been made since last year, and a still greater exaggeration to say that no progress had been made during the last two years. In justice to Belgium it ought also to be borne in mind that the Congo is not the only difficult question with which it has to deal, and that the task which it is invited to assume is no light one. Its Parliament has, like ours, to deal with many great domestic and social questions, and these react on the course of Belgian policy, not only at home but abroad. Twice during the very short period already alluded to Ministries have resigned or been reconstituted, but each of these changes has, I think, marked a stage forward and an advance in the direction of the ideas and hopes which we entertain.
  We are now at a period when, as I said a moment ago, the points of difference in Belgium between the reforming Party, and the Party who wish to keep matters more or less as they are have reached a final stage; and if it is imprudent at any time for a Minister or a representative of a Minister in one country to appear to be giving an opinion on what is going on in another country, it is certainly imprudent at a moment such as the present. Words spoken here on behalf of the Foreign Office might, however unjustly, be liable to misrepre entation, and might produce exactly opposite effects to those which the speaker himself desires.

  If your Lordships will pardon me, I will tell you an anecdote to illustrate what I mean. The other day I was to address a public meeting, and I found that there was an impression abroad that I was going to speak about the Congo and about Macedonia; but, believing as I did that the particular audience to which I was going to speak desired me to deal with domestic questions, and as it was not, in the opinion of the Foreign Office, desirable that anything should be said at that moment, I simply announced, at the beginning of my speech, that I was not going to say anything about the Congo or Macedonia, and I passed immediately to the other subjects with which I in ended to deal. Those observations of mine, which I think you will agree, judged by even the

  1293
  severest standard of Foreign Office prudence, were harmless, were, however, telegraphed abroad, and I was immediately the object of an attack in certain Belgian newspapers for having compared the King of the Belgians to the Sultan of Turkey, simply because I had stated that I did not intend to say anything about the Congo or Macedonia. It was believed that under these simple words there lurked a subtle intention on my part compare King Leopold to the Sultan of Turkey. If such a perfectly innocent observation could do harm, how cautious it is necessary that I should be this evening in saying anything which, by any means whatever, could be regarded in Belgium as showing a desire to apply undue pressure, or as containing some subtle imputation either upon Belgian statesmen or Belgian Parties.
  At the same time, I feel that absolute silence might be misunderstood. I must, therefore, say a few words in regard to the position of His Majesty's Government, but they will be little more than an amplification of whit may be found in the Speech from the Throne. Before I do that, however, I would like to tell my noble friend who has introduced the subject, of which he has such a complete and thorough knowledge, that Papers will be in your Lordships' hands immediately, and that I hope they will shortly be followed by another Paper containing further Reports which arrived only a few days ago. In that Paper, or some other, I trust it may be possible to insert something about the concessions and the legal effect of certain clauses in them, which is, I think, the specific point to which my noble friend alluded. We have not lost sight of that question, but I do not conceal from my noble friend that we have found very great difficulty in obtaining the information we desired.
  Some suggestions have been made in the course of this debate—not for the first time—as to what this country can do without asking the leave of the Powers or anybody else. I stated last year and the year before that we had not overlooked the possibility of our having to exercise the right of setting up Consular Courts; but until we know whether the Belgian solution is going to be a reality
  1294
  or not, it would be premature to make-any pronouncement on that question one way or the other. I may, however, say, with regard to the number of Consuls mentioned this evening, that the number has been increased. There are now not only a consul at Boma and two Vice-Consuls, but a third Vice-Consul has-been appointed.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Where?
  LORD FITZMAURICE: His exact sphere has not yet been determined and, together with the spheres of the other vice-consuls is at present receiving the attention of the Secretary of State. His-Majesty's Consul at Boma has been provided with a steam launch, and the question of supplying the Vice-Consuls at two other places with similar launches is now being considered. I hope that in this matter the Foreign Office may look for the favourable support of the Treasury Those, however, are no doubt palliatives only.
  There is another measure which has not been mentioned this evening, and which may have still larger results. The Berlin Act of 1884 contemplated the appointment of an International River Commission. Sir H. Johnston, whose name is always quoted with such respect in these debates, has often told me that the establishment of a Commission, including representatives of all the great Powers, would, in his opinion, be by far the most valuable thing that could be done to bring the breath of public opinion upon these regions. But we cannot set up such a Commission by ourselves. The consent of the Powers would be required, and those who are acquainted with the history of the Danube Commission will know that that is a matter which cannot easily be arranged.
  I make no complaint that the most, rev. Primate has alluded to the aspect of the question which is summed up in the words, "The appeal to humanity. I am convinced that in this matter we have not only treaty rights, but also a duty, and it is that aspect of the question, I think, which has struck the public mind. I am glad to say that the feelings which 'animate this country have also

  1295
  appealed to the people of the United States of America. That is of great importance, not merely because of the influence and power of the United States, but because the United States is absolutely free from, and cannot in any conceivable circumstances be charged with, what we, whatever we may say or do, are unfortunately still charged with by our critics abroad, and especially in certain papers which represent what may be called the interest of the Congo State as it is—namely, that we are animated in this matter by purely selfish motives—by territorial and commercial ambitions. No one can make that charge against the people of the United States. They were amongst the very first, if not actually the first, to recognise the International Association of the Congo, and, therefore, if they come forward and cooperate with us, as they are now doing, it is a fact of first-rate importance. We have been in consultation with the Government of the United States, our Minister and theirs have been in communication with each other in Brussels, and nothing could be more valuable to the cause of Congo reform or more agreeable to His Majesty's Government than that that co-operation should continue and extend.
  There is one matter in which the people of the United States and the people of this country are particularly interested, and that is the refusal of the Congo State to carry out its treaty obligations with regard to the granting of sites for churches, schools, and missions. I had hoped to be able to say something satisfactory on that question, but I am sorry to say that during the last few hours I have received information from Brussels which shows the attitude of the Congo State to be more unsatisfactory on this question than it was a year ago. I can only promise that the Foreign Office will not lose sight of the question, and will continue to press it. I am glad to say with regard to the charge sometimes made, that the whole Congo reform movement was nothing but an agitation got up by the Protestant missionaries, and that the Boman Catholics took no interest in it, that such 'an idea only remains now in the minds of a few individual fanatics here and there. Many of the most
  1296
  prominent leaders of the movement in Belgium are leading Roman Catholics. No man has played a more honourable part in this prolonged struggle than M. Beernaert, the leader of the old Catholic Party. It was M. Beernaert who years ago, being Prime Minister at the time, and speaking with perfect sincerity, said of the Congo Free State that it was to be a great humanitarian and philanthropic enterprise. He said—
  "The State of which our King will be the Sovereign will be a sort of international colony. There will be no monopolies, no privileges, absolute freedom of barter, property, commerce, and navigation."
  Now, every one of the undertakings which the Sovereign of the Congo State allowed to be made has in practice been reduced to an absolute nullity by influences and powers entirely outside the Belgian Government, the Belgian Parliament, or the Belgian people and against these influences M. Beernaert has continuously struggled but in vain. The result has been, perhaps, as great a negation of international treaty rights as great a defiance of public law, and as great a sacrifice of the interests of humanity as anything the modern world has heard of. Another of the severest or tics of the Congo Administration, has been Father Vermesel a Jesuit priest whose name I mentioned last year.
  I cannot ask your Lordships to look forward with pleasure to reading the White Paper which I hope will be in your hands to-day or to-morrow. It is a melancholy record. It comes from men on the spot, but in it will also be found the first outward and visible sign of the co-operation between the United States and ourselves to which I have alluded, in the shape of a very interesting report from the United States Consul. Anxious as I am to avoid saying anything which may tend to complicate matters, I am obliged to say that the Government view the present situation with anxiety. Art is long, but time is fleeting. These debates cannot go on for ever and no result be achieved. I speak with a full consciousness of the enormous difficulty of the task before us. Lord Cromer has done two things to-night. He has brought his unrivalled experience to confirm the view that this maladministration in the Congo State is no figment of a

  1297
  feverish and disordered imagination; and, secondly, he has told, not only your Lordships, but, what is more important, our ardent friends and supporters outside that he realises how enormously difficult our task is. We look to your Lordships, to the other House, and to the people of the country to be with us in that task, and we also believe that the Belgian people will thoroughly understand that no comment has been made or suggested here upon them.
  If I had to sum up the position I would say that the present state of things is contrary both to the dictates of humanity and to treaty obligation; and, while not desiring to enter into too great detail as to matters regarding which we trust entirely and absolutely to the wisdom and patriotism of the Belgian people and Parliament, we could not regard as satisfactory any arrangement which did not vindicate or secure the vindication of both treaty obligation and the claims of humanity. That, my Lords, is substantially what is contained in the Congo paragraph of the King's Speech. I think the state of things disclosed in Mr. Thesiger's despatch, included in the Papers presented to Parliament, shows that the state of the Congo is such as has been described by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, and we consider it to be in accordance with the treaty obligations, on which the Congo State was founded, that the need for reform should be recognised in whatever arrangement is made, and that assurances should be given that reform will be carried out, not only in theory but in practice, by the Belgian or any other authority assuming responsibility for administration. I trust these words will adequately convey to Parliament and the people of this country that we look to the people of Belgium, and believe that a body elected by that people, conscious of the existence of an educated public opinion in their own country and in Europe, may well be trusted to remember the high historical traditions connected with the liberties and freedom of their own country, and extend the rights they themselves enjoy, so far as that is possible, to the unfortunate and long-oppressed natives of the Congo State.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has spoken under the strain—the almost painful strain—of official responsibility which I am quite sure we all recognise, and the House, if I am not mistaken, has listened to his words with that peculiar attention which shows a sense of the importance of what might fall from his lips at this time. It might seem presumptuous for a mere amateur like myself to follow the noble Lord; but as amateurs in great numbers have discussed the matter outside the House I think it is just as well that one should speak inside, and as the facts are fully known, outsiders have some justification for speaking.
  The noble Lord has told us what weight his lightest words sometimes have when transmitted across the wires to the other side of the Channel. I cannot help hoping that some of his words not light, but weighty, to-night, will have considerable effect there, not less because of the great and honourable caution which he showed in uttering them. I am quite certain that the most ardent outsider will be at one with the noble Lord in what he said at the end of his speech as to the relations between this country and the free country of Belgium—a country for which, I think, Englishmen have always had a special regard, born partly of a constitutional kinship and partly, perhaps, of that kindly feeling which a protector—shall I say?—has over one whose interests he is allowed to cherish and protect.
  Two or three things which the noble Lord said gave us some encouragement. To the appointment of a third Vice-Consul I do not attach much importance as a remedy, but I do attach a good deal of value to the use of a steam launch; the swift movements of the official within his district will certainly enable him to be more useful than if he were merely stationed there. Nor, again, am I very much interested for the moment, if I may say so, in what the noble Lord said about the missionaries and the chapels; I, for my part, would rather desire that we should leave all questions of religion out of account until we have settled the very much more

  1299
  elementary matters which this question contains. I am grateful, however, to the noble Lord, and many besides myself will be very grateful to him, for having to-night destroyed and pulverised one of the arguments used against this agitation—namely, that it was a matter of Protestant against Catholic, and that the Catholics had no sympathy with it at all. That, I think, can hardly now be maintained. What the noble Lord has said as to the granting of sites and so on, is one proof the more that what the Congo administration really dread is the truth being known, one proof the more that the Congo rulers desire to keep out of the country everybody who can see, hear, and report. Missionaries at great peril, and certainly at the cost of enormous labour, have gathered the facts and have been faithful reporters.
  A significant phrase was dropped by the noble Lord; he said the Government had still to see whether the scheme of anexation was a reality or not. That is precisely where outside opinion is most sensitive and most disturbed. May I say what we should regard as the greatest danger at this time? It would be something of this kind, that the Government feeling the enormous pressure of the international difficulty, would be too much inclined to see whether, after all, it would not be enough and indeed better to say, "We know this scheme of annexation is really quite unsatisfactory, it gives no security for radical change, but it does this, it does bring Congo administration into some kind of relation, imperfect though it may be, with the Belgian Chamber and its debates, and such is our faith in Parliamentary discussion that we think this must bring about amelioration." I cannot help feeling that there is very real danger in that, I would almost call it a temptation, to which His Majesty's Government or any Government dealing with this question must be exposed.
  In the first place, this is mainly an administrative question, and the administration would remain entirely in the hands in which it has hitherto been, and if you get Parliamentary discussion upon it it will be discussion carried on by those who have not the money to carry
  1300
  out changes, for we know that any real change would mean a demand upon Belgian finance which it could hardly bear. Belgium has not the knowledge and experience to deal familiarly with colonial affairs, and the Belgian Chamber is not accustomed to interest itself with matters outside its own land. If they have not the money, and if they have not-the knowledge and experience necessary neither is there power to enforce improvement. I do not think that what is to be looked for there is a very imperfect advantage. But what is lost if that course is taken? It seems to me that there will be lost to this country the great opportunity of taking a really firm, frank, consistent line about it. We shall be in danger of giving away the strength which would come to us by a clear declaration that with such an annexation as that which leaves the system untouched we will have nothing to do. We should come away with a consistent moral position.
  What we are thinking of most are the moral principles involved. The moral feeling of the country, of which the noble Lord the Under-Secretary has spoken, is one of its most precious assets. If you always oppose to it this wall of international difficulty it will get, as it were, accustomed to beat at the door in that wall in vain, and the feeling will spread, as I think I see it already spreading, that it is no good appealing to principles of justice in these matters, because they are always met with the interminable international difficulty. Here we have a case in connection with which there is no dispute about the facts. That is a great advantage. Another point is that there is no dispute whatever about the treaty rights to which we appeal. The case is clear. It is also heartrending, it goes without saying. It is not near our most delicate international interests, and, if those interests are involved, they are not involved in the same acuteness as in a question like that of Macedonia. Therefore I feel that in in this case England cannot live up to her old traditions as a protector of freedom and an emancipator of slaves, the effect on the future of that most precious asset—its own moral force—may be more serious than perhaps we think.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I desire to add one or two words only to the discussion to which we have just listened. I rise mainly because if one or two words were not spoken from this bench the impression might be created that there was a difference of opinion between the two sides of the House upon this important subject—a difference of opinion in the existence of which I for one do not in the least believe. I have on several occasions addressed your Lordships on this subject, using, I think, stronger language than that which I am generally in the habit of using in this House; but of what I have said on former occasions I am not disposed to retract one single syllable. For another reason I may, perhaps, excuse myself for saying much. My noble friend (Lord Cromer) on the Cross Benches was good enough to single out from speeches of mine one or two of the most emphatic statements which I have ventured to make, and to justify me with a weight of authority to which I cannot pretend. I hope it may not be the last time on which my noble friend will give me the support of his great authority.
  I believe that in all parts of the House there is an agreement that the present situation in the Congo is intolerable; and that feeling will certainly not have been diminished by the statement of my noble friend who represents the Foreign Office from which we gathered that the attitude of the Congo Government at this moment was, if possible, more uncompromising than before. That is a very serious announcement. Now we are. I believe, most of us in favour of what has been described this evening as the Belgian solution, by which I mean that the jurisdiction and privileges now possessed by the Sovereign of the Congo State should be transferred to the Belgian Government. In our view that transfer must be a real and complete transfer. It would not be a transfer which any of us could regard with acquiescence if there were any reservation of rights, any conditions made which might have the effect of impairing the full and complete control of the Belgian Government over the whole of the territories without exception now administered
  1302
  by the Government of the Congo State.
  We are not, however, yet able to say with any degree of certainty whether the settlement which is likely to be within the reach of the Belgian Government will or will not fulfil these conditions. There is a colonial law which has been before a Belgian Parliamentary Committee and there is a draft Treaty of Cession. These documents, so far as I am aware of their contents, certainly seem to contain many conditions of a very disquieting character. But the matter is still—so I understand it—before the Belgian Parliament; and it does not seem to me that we are yet in a position to pass judgment finally upon the settlement which is likely to be effected. What I venture to put to your Lordships very strongly is this—that we should in these circumstances hesitate before we do anything which might embarrass the Belgian Government in dealing with the very intricate problem which now awaits solution at their hands.
  Let us not forget that all the circumstances of the case are of a kind which entitle the Belgian Government to the utmost consideration at our hands. This is not an enterprise of their seeking. They would probably be very glad, if they could, to escape altogether the heavy obligations which the transfer of the Congo State will impose upon them. Their task will be one of tremendous magnitude. It will be nothing less than the complete transformation of the whole system under which the government of this miserably oppressed country has been conducted. Let us not also forget this—that this work of colonial administration is not work of which the Belgian Government has had any experience or to which it is at all accustomed. We are therefore going to ask the Belgian Government to undertake a task of very great difficulty, and one which, no doubt, will involve it in great expense. Because, as has been truly said during the course of this discussion, if the Congo Free 'State is to be administered with ordinary regard to the dictates of humanity, the ill-gotten profits of recent years are bound to disappear; and it is by no

  1303
  means improbable that these profits will be replaced at first by considerable loss.
  I therefore trust that we shall give the Belgian Government such a chance as ordinary fair play suggests; and it seems to me altogether premature that we should at this moment talk, as some people have talked, not in this House, of sending ultimatums to the Belgian Government, of withdrawing the exequaturs of Belgian consuls, or even of sending gunboats—there is always a gunboat at the bottom of these suggestions—to the Congo River. There are remedies and remedies: and I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Mayo speak in terms of approval of a particular remedy which has always seemed to me to be an appropriate one, I mean an increase in the number of British consuls; and if these consuls are to be given, as Lord Cromer proposed, consular courts, and if British traders are to be freely admitted to the country, I should look forward to excellent results following the introduction of such a change. It also seems to me that the appointment of a river commission to which my noble friend referred was a very hopeful proposal. Public opinion in this country has been more moved over this question than by almost any question of the kind which I can remember; and I hope that we are not wrong in believing that public opinion in Belgium also has at last been moved by the terrible accounts which have reached us as to what has been going on in the Congo. I trust that the effect of this discussion, which will no doubt be carefully followed in Belgium, will be to satisfy the people and the Government of that country that the people and the Government of Great Britain are earnestly bent upon the complete reversal of the whole policy under which the Congo Free State has lately been administered, and that they are determined that an end shall be put to a condition of things which they have long regarded with feelings of abhorrence and shame.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The EARL of CREWE): My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess who has just sat down that this debate has revealed a singular unanimity of opinion in all parts of the House. That,
  1304
  indeed, is not surprising, because that unanimity of opinion, I believe, exists all over the country. The feeling of the people of this country is that the record of the Congo Free State has been one of maladministration and of the exploiting of the country and the natives for private ends. They have read the accounts of that system of forced labour, which is not only not to be distinguished from slavery, but is infinitely harsher than some of the forms of slavery which exist on the African Continent. "When your Lordships come to read the consular reports, of which my noble friend behind me spoke, the truth of that statement will be made evident.
  I am very glad to know that the policy of the Government in somewhat increasing the consular establishments in the Congo State meets with the approval of the House. I think it is perfectly evident that it must have good results, and it is obvious that if the country is willing to find the money for the purpose it might be further extended. I think there can be no question that almost all the records of ill-doing in Africa, whether by individuals or companies, show that it has been very largely caused or aided by the absence of publicity. It is not necessary in this House to say, but I will say it again, that this feeling, both in the House here and throughout the country, is an absolutely disinterested feeling. I think it was Mr. Leeky who said in one of his books that perhaps the only instance of a really pure and disinterested agitation to be found in the whole course of history was the great agitation against the slave trade in the earlier part of the nineteenth century. I believe the public feeling in regard to the Congo is equally pure and equally disinterested.
  My noble friend on the Cross Benches, Lord Cromer, did not mince matters in speaking of the Congo State. There was no reason, so far as its administration was concerned, why he should. But he did, I was glad to note, recognise to the full the position of difficulty with which the Belgian people are at this moment confronted. That point was also pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and I was particularly glad to hear the noble Marquess

  1305
  on the Front Bench, opposite lay still further stress upon it. It is one of very great importance. When we are speaking of this matter we must not forget that what the Belgian people are asked to do is, without previous colonial experience, to take over liabilities of an entirely unknown character. I think it is beyond all dispute that anything like the sweeping away of the present system on the Congo must be attended by considerable cost. Negotiations with a view to transfer are now proceeding between the Sovereign of the Congo State and the Belgian people.
  The right rev. Prelate who spoke just now expressed some fear that if a transfer were to take place it might not be of a genuine character, and that there would be a strong temptation on the part of the Government of this country to accept it as though it were genuine. Upon that I can only repeat that if the proposed transfer is a genuine one, and holds out the promise of an improved administration of the country, we shall heartily welcome it. But if it can be shown that it has elements of unreality—that is to say, if it is going to leave the power where it is—then we certainly could not regard it as a proper solution. We should then have to look at the matter afresh, bearing in mind the two grounds upon which we have a right to express an opinion—first, our right under treaty; and, secondly those general rights of humanity which we share with every civilised nation. Meanwhile, like the noble Marquess, we do not desire in any way to prejudice the conduct of these negotiations, or to throw any kind of difficulty in their way.
  It must be remembered that those 'gentlemen in Belgium who most desire to see the administration of the Congo State reformed may be themselves placed in a position of considerable difficulty if there appears to be anything like an attitude of dictation from this side of the Channel. That is a point on which I was glad to note that the noble Marquess dwelt, and it is one on which we feel very strongly. We will await, therefore, the result of these negotiations with full confidence in the sound instincts of the Belgian people, and in the hope that by these means a satisfactory solution of
  1306
  this most difficult problem may in due course be found.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  MILK-BLENDED BUTTER.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I desire to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will lay on the Table of the House, a complete list of the names approved by the Board of Agriculture for milk-blended butter; and whether he will consider the advisability of insisting on the combination with all such fancy names of some one word descriptive of milk-blended butter, as is required in the case of margarine by Section 8 of the Butter and Margarine Act of 1907. When the Act of last year was before your Lordships I asked the noble Earl on more than one occasion whether the Board of Agriculture had made up their mind as to the name under which they would allow milk-blended butter to be designated. I understood that the noble Earl had not made up his mind what that name was to be, but that he had been giving it consideration. Under the Act only one name can be given to the concoction known as margarine—namely, margarine, or some other name conjoint with it. Of the number of fancy names for milk-blended butter, I am told that nineteen have been approved by the Board of Agriculture. Some of them, I think, are misleading in their nature. One name which has been approved is "Casana," which has been interpreted as referring to cheese; another is "Ivelike," another "Bredspread," and another, which might give rise to some doubt on the part of the purchaser as to whether it was butter of not, is "Pearks-own." Pearks are large dealers in milk-blended butter, and there is nothing to prevent a person who went into one of their shops for butter being asked: "Will you have Pearksown; it is the best?" I want to know whether the noble Earl and the Department of which he is head cannot see their way to carry out the Act of 1907, as regards milk-blended butter in, precisely the same way in which it is carried out in the case of margarine. People would then know what they were buying, whereas at present there is a good

  1307
  deal of, I will not say fraud, but misapprehension, the purchaser often thinking he is buying pure butter.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, in reply to the first Question put to me by the noble Earl I will lay on the Table of the House a complete list of the names approved by the Board of Agriculture for milk-blended butter. I have the list in my hand, but I hope the House will permit me to take it as read.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I should like the noble Earl to read it.
  EARL CARRINGTON: The names approved by the Board of Agriculture are—Consumo, Casora, Casmon, Casova, Casana, Casoa, Casa, Iveldale, Iveldene, Iveleat, Ivelene, Ivelette, Ivelike, Ivelmene, Ivelmore, Mayblossom, Pearks' Breadmate, Pearks' Bredspred, and Pearksown. Then the noble Earl asked whether I would consider the advisability of insisting on the combination with all such fancy names of some one word descriptive of milk-blended butter, as is required in the case of margirine by Section 8 of the Butter and Margarine Act of 1907. I am afraid I cannot meet the noble Earl's wishes in that respect, and after I have explained the reason I hope he will not press his request. When the Butter and Margarine Bill of 1907 was introduced, it required that milk-blended butter should not be sold except under a name approved by the Board of Agriculture. The use of a single name was objected to, and it was urged by a large number of persons connected with the butter trade that the use of various names should be allowed. Wishing to please everybody, but, unfortunately, succeeding in pleasing nobody, we gave way, with the result that this list of fancy names has been approved. As one of them, "Casana," has been interpreted as referring to cheese, I will consider whether it can be omitted from the list. I hope, however, the noble Lord will not press his second request, because it would re-open a difficult question which has been settled.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Am I right in assuming that there are over 100 names approved by the Board in which the word margarine is combined with the descriptive term?
  EARL CARRINGTON: I believe so.

  FATAL ACCIDENTS (DAMAGES) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.