Sitting of 2 July 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bristol Tramways Bill [Lords]; Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed without Amendment.
Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill.—Order [17th February] that the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill be committed, read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
Mr. PARTINGTON reported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills; "That, for the convenience of parties concerned, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock."
Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
Sir GEORGE WHITE reported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills; That the parties promoting the Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill had stated that the evidence of Sydney Malkin, Mayor of Burslem, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Sydney Malkin, Mayor of Burslem, do attend the said Committee to-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
Ordered, That Sydney Malkin do attend the Committee on Group K. of Private Bills To-morrow, at half-past Eleven, of the Clock.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Rochester Bridge Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Holderness Water Bill.—Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 4).
Mr. SOAMES reported from the Committee on Group 4 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from St. Helen's Pit, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Dearham; Flimby; Fordingbridge; Glasgow; Penywern; and Sheffield; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools in Wales (including Monmouthshire), with Schedules, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (CHANGES IN WAGES, ETC.).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th June; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 206.]

  PENSIONS (CIVIL LIST).
  Order [18th June] for a Return relative thereto, read, and discharged; and instead thereof:—
  Return ordered, "of all persons now in receipt of Civil List Pensions charged on the Consolidated Fund, distinguishing the Pensions granted under the Civil List Act, 1837, and those granted under the Civil List Act, 1901."—(Mr. Lamont.)

  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Post Office Wages—Cost of Living at Dundee.
    MR. WILKIE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on page 33, Appendix (4), of the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence, Select Committee on Post Office Servants, the index number of rent and prices combined is given by the Board of Trade as 115 at Dundee, 111 at Plymouth, and 111 at Devonport, and that, according to the latest Board of Trade Returns published during the current year, Dundee is the most costly provincial city in the United Kingdom, being only one point below London; and whether considering the elevation of Plymouth and Devonport to to the extent of 4s. weekly, by reason of the high cost of living, he will state the reason for no advance being made to the Dundee staff.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) In the first statement referred to by the hon. Member the rent and prices at Dundee have been compared with an average of 19 towns only, 16 in England and Wales, 2 in Scotland, and 1 in Ireland. In the second statement the comparison is with London. Neither of these comparisons takes into account the different conditions of housing in Scotland and England. The comparison of the Scottish standard based upon the average of the towns in Scotland inquired into by the Board of Tradegives Dundee the same indexnumber of cost of living as Edinburgh, viz. 103. Dundee has about 1,100 units of work and falls properly for the scales of pay of the Post Office staff into Class 2, the range of which is from 800 to 1,700 units. The cost of living on the Scottish standard is not sufficiently high to warrant its promotion
    934
    to Class 1, and it therefore remains in Class 2. Plymouth and Devonport combined have over 1,600 units of work, The amount of work is therefore very nearly sufficient to warrant Class 1 scales, even if the cost of living were not above the average. As the index number of the cost of living is as high as 112 Plymouth and Devonport fall into Class 1.

    Post Office Mails—Payments to Railway Companies.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state the amounts paid by the Post Office to the various railways, in England, Ireland, and Scotland, respectively, for the carriage of mails, etc., in the year 1907; and the amounts paid by the various Government Departments in the three countries for the travelling expenses of officials.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) As regards the payment to the railway companies for the conveyance of the mails, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the details furnished on page 108 and 109 of the Revenue Department Estimates for the current year, which will, perhaps, suffice for his purpose. These figures do not include the payment for the parcel post, the total amount of which for the year 1907 was £1,014,215. This sum is distributed among the individual companies by the Railway Clearing House Committee, and I have no information as to the proportion received by the different companies. I regret that it is not possible without considerable labour to ascertain the amounts paid to the railway companies for the travelling expenses of Post Office officials, and I have of course no information in regard to the expenditure of other departments of the public service.

    Motor Cabs in London.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of motor cabs licensed for hire in London; what is the number of cabs and hansom cabs, as distinguished from motor cabs, licensed for hire in London; what number of applications for motor cab licences are now awaiting settlement; what is the number of motor omnibuses licensed for hire in London;

    935
    and what is the number of horse omnibuses licensed for hire in London.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) 1,508 motor cabs are licensed for hire in London; 5,329 hansom cabs and 3,768 horsed four-wheel cabs are similarly licensed. The number of motor omnibuses is 1,046 and of horsed omnibuses is 2,281. So far as is known there are no applications for motor-cab licences awaiting settlement.

    Revenue Statistics.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the

    Great Britain.

    Ireland.

    Direct.

    Indirect.

    Direct.

    Indirect.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    1904–5

    50·8

    49·2

    27·4

    72·6

    1905–6

    51·7

    48·3

    26·7

    73·3

    1906–7

    52·8

    47·2

    27·9

    72·1

    1907–8

    52·4

    47·6

    27·8

    72·2

    Guaranteed Loans to the Colonies.
    VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will grant a Return showing the loans guaranteed and grants made by the Imperial Government to the British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates.
    (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The noble Lord will find the information for which he asks, as regards guaranteed loans in the annual Finance Accounts, which are presented to Parliament, and as regards grants in the Estimates. I hardly think it is necessary in the circumstances to incur the expense, which is considerable, of a Return.

    Kilbrin Land Purchase Dispute.
    MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are aware, in regard to the sale of the estate of C. H. B. Good and another, Kilbrin, County Cork, purchased by the
    Exchequer if he will state what percentage proportions of revenue derived from direct and indirect taxes, respectively, bear to the total revenues of Ireland and Great Britain taken separately from the latest available figures subsequent to the financial year 1903–4, omitting the figures for the amount contributed per head.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The proportions of the total tax revenue derived from direct and indirect taxes respectively in the last four years have been as follows—
    tenants at twenty-three and a half years purchase on rents graded to second term, that the landlords' solicitor made a mistake, in calculating the purchase interest of Mr. John Nash, Corbally, in not making allowance for the proportionate share of a half-acre cottage plot, with the result that Mr. Nash is overcharged on the payment of the purchase interest; and whether the Commissioners will make the necessary deductions of the amount overpaid before the payment of the next half-year's interest falls due.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the holding of John Nash was vested in him on 30th Janurary last. It comprised 223 acres, and the purchase money was £2,295, being 18·7 years purchase of the judicial rent of £122 7s. It appears from the documents lodged in this case that the labourer's plot referred to was not included in the holding purchased by Mr. Nash. The Commissioners have no knowledge as to the manner in which

    937
    the terms of purchase were arrived at in this particular case, but, in any event, as the holding has been duly vested in the tenant in accordance with the terms of the agreement for purchase signed by him, the Commissioners cannot act in the manner suggested in the Question.

    East Clonfert Evicted Tenant.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners received an application from Mrs. Julia Guiney, of Ballingarry, County Limerick, for untenanted land in lieu of the farm situate at Glenakill South, Clonfert East, in the County Cork, from which she was evicted on the expiration of the lease in the year 1881, by the landlord, Mr. James Deane, of Monkstown, County Cork; whether they also received an affidavit of Mrs. Guiney, setting out the facts of her eviction, in support of her claim; and, if so, considering that she was evicted from the land, and that her son-in-law, with whom she lives, is a young man with a large family who is fully qualified to farm land, will they give her a parcel of untenanted land in the county to which, under the Land Act of 1903 she would be entitled.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have considered Mrs. Guiney's application, and have decided to take no action either for her reinstatement or in order to provide her with a new holding. The farm which was occupied by the applicant's late husband was sublet at the date of eviction, and for sixty years previously. The case, therefore, is not one to which the Land Law Acts apply, and, consequently, the applicant is not eligible for reinstatement.

    Maghera Constables.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, as the result of investigation, all the constables stationed in Maghera are to be transferred, with one exception; whether he can state how many constables have been transferred from Maghera since Sergeant Gallagher took charge of this station; whether it was decided, as the result of an investigation held at Port-stewart,
    938
    when Sergeant Gallagher was there, that he was never to be allowed to reside in a station again; whether any outside pressure was brought to bear on the county-inspector to retain Gallagher in Maghera, and, if so, by whom; whether wherever Gallagher has been stationed investigations have been the order of the day; and whether, in the interests of all concerned, he will consider the advisability of compulsorily retiring Gallagher from active service.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police authorities inform me that one constable has recently been transferred from Maghera, and there is no present intention of transferring others. During the past two and three-quarter years four others have been transferred, namely, one on reduction of the strength of the station, one to fill a vacancy on the reserve, and two in connection with disciplinary matters. There is no record of any decision that Sergeant Gallagher was not to reside in a station. No pressure has been brought to bear on the county inspector to retain Sergeant Gallagher at Maghera. The sergeant was selected for that station as being a steady and trustworthy man, and there is no reason why he should be compulsorily retired.

    Belfast Police and Licence Holders.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that members of the police force in Belfast have been on duty outside well-conducted licensed premises in that city for some weeks past, keeping customers under observation and seriously interfering with the owners in the conduct of their legitimate trade; whether any explanation is forthcoming as to the reason for this surveillance; whether it involves any extra expenditure; and, if so, by whom will the expenditure be borne; and whether he will give instructions for the discontinuance of the practice.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Government directed the police authorities to collect information as to the number of women and children frequenting public-houses in the six county

    939
    boroughs of Ireland during the fortnight ending 26th June. In collecting this information the duty referred to in the Question was performed, and the police authorities are satisfied that there was no interference with the legitimate trade of the publicans whose houses were under observation. No extra expenditure was incurred. The duty terminated on 26th June.

    Admissions to Belfast Workhouse.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Report of the admission committee of the Belfast board of guardians, to the effect that the number of provisional admissions to the workhouse which were confirmed amounted during the week ending 23rd June to 450, and the number of applicants admitted to thirty; whether the number of admissions has been largely increasing of late; whether a considerable proportion of the admissions are of able-bodied men; whether the increase is largely due to the depression in the linen trade in Belfast, or, if not, whether any other cause can be assigned for it; and whether the Local Government Board propose to take any action in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board are informed that the figures quoted in the Question are correct, but that, compared with the immediately preceding weeks, the number admitted was not exceptional. The total number of inmates is fifty-seven less than in the previous week and 322 less than in January, but is 500 higher than in the corresponding week of last year. It is not the case that a large proportion of the persons recently admitted are able-bodied men. The Local Government Board understand that the industrial depression which was referred to in my Answer to the hon. Member's Question of 25th May still continues, and in that Answer I indicated the measures which should be taken by the guardians for the relief of any exceptional distress which may arise.

    Araglin Evicted Tenants.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary
    940
    to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Estates Commissioners have made inquiry through one of their inspectors into the cases of two evicted tenants named O'Shea and Kelleher, on the Buckley estate, Araglin County Cork; whether Colbert, the present occupier of the farms, would be willing to give them up to the evicted tenants on receiving compensation; and if the Commissioners will endeavour to effect the reinstatement of Messrs. O'Shea and Kelleher in their old holdings.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into the applications of Denis Kelleher and Mrs. Ellen O'Shea, and have decided to take no action in Mrs. O'Shea's case, but will provide Denis Kelleher with a farm in the event of their acquiring un-tenanted land in the district.

    Teenan's Estate, Donegal.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the holding on Teenan's estate, County Donegal, of which Patrick Fox, Ardfinnan, near Bundoran, was tenant, and whose late tenant surrendered the holding to the Commissioners with a view to the reinstatement of the original tenant, has been included in the purchase scheme of the Teenan's estate; and, if not, will steps be promptly taken to secure the inclusion of this holding in the purchase scheme of this estate.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell). The holding in question is included in the estate proposed to be sold to the tenants the present occupier, William Rogers, having signed an agreement for its purchase. The Commissioners understand that Rogers is prepared to surrender the farm to Fox on receiving compensation, and the question of compensation is at present under the Commisioners' consideration.

    Irish Fee Fund Surplus.
    MR. MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the present amount of the surplus of the fee fund mentioned in subsection 2 of

    941
    Section 122 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898; and what did such surplus amount to in the past three financial years.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On 25th March, 1906, the fee fund in question amounted to £15,300, invested in 2½ per cent. Consols, and the balance in the bank was £204 18s. 11d. On the corresponding date in 1907 and 1908, the balance in the bank was £577 0s. 7d. and £949 2s. 3d., respectively, the amount invested remaining as before. On 28th May last a further sum of £1,000 was invested in Consols, making the amount at present invested £16,300.

    Dog Licences and Vivisection.
    MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what is the number of dog licences paid for on behalf of each of the following authorities during the year 1907, viz., Joyce Green Hospital, Dart-ford, Kent; Pontsfall's Farm, Newgate Street, Hatfield, Herts; Brown Institution, Wandsworth Road, London; Conjoint Laboratory of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, Examination Hall, Victoria Embankment, London; Guy's Hospital Medical School, London; London Hospital Medical College, London; London School of Tropical Medicine; Royal Veterinary College, Camden Town, London; University College, Medical and Scientific Departments, London; Wellcome Physiological Research Laboratories, Herne Hill; and whether any special inquiries were made at places licensed for vivisection as to the precise number of dogs which they keep, and if this number corresponds with the number of licences issued in respect to each such institution.
    (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) No separate record is kept of licences taken out for institutions licensed for vivisection but if my hon. friend desires it I could ascertain from the Inland Revenue authorities in the different districts the number of licences taken out for each of the institutions named; but some time must elapse before I could procure the information.

    Welsh Postal Pay.
    MR. REES: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the new scales of pay and units of work for the Post Offices at Welshpool, Newton, Montgomery, Llanfyllin, Llanidloes, and Machynlleth have yet been settled.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I hope to be able to make a further announcement on the subject of classification very soon.

    Unused Reply-Paid Telegrams.
    MR. COWAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the regulation under which the Post Office retains all moneys paid in respect of unused reply-paid telegram forms when application for the return of such amounts is not made by the sender within two months of the date of issue of such forms; whether he can state how many of these forms have been cancelled, and what is the amount of private property which has been confiscated under this regulation since it came into operation; and whether he will consider the Amendment of the regulation with a view to enabling the public to receive value for, or to recover at any time, moneys paid to the Post Office in respect of services which it at present refuses, after an arbitrarily fixed date, to render.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) My attention has been called to the regulation to which the hon. Member refers, and the question of amending it with the object suggested has been frequently considered. It has not, however, been found possible to devise a system which would place a check upon fraud without at the same time involving expenditure out of proportion to the inconvenience which it is desired to remove. But I am making further inquiry into the question. I have at present no information as to the number of reply-paid forms which have remained unused, and of which the value has not been recovered within the prescribed period.

    Education Waivers.
    LORD BALCARRES: To ask the President of the Board

    943
    of Education in how many cases during the school year 1907–8 applications for waiver under Articles 5 and 18b were received by the Board.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Board was asked by resolutions of local education authorities to waive Article 5 in the case of sixty schools, and Article 18b in the case of twenty-eight schools. A full return of such cases, with the necessary explanations, will shortly be issued by the Board.

    Ballinclare Motor Fatality.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if the attention of the Government has been called to the case of Andrew Carton, of Boley, who was killed by a motor car at Ballinclare, between Gorey and Camolin, County Wexford, on 23rd May; whether they have received a resolution from the Camolin and Ballyduff Farmers' Association, requesting to have the inquest on this case reopened; and what steps they propose to take in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I am informed that the evidence given at the inquest in this case showed that the young man Carton lost control of the bicycle which he was riding and collided with a motor car, thereby losing his life. The driver of the motor car is stated to have himself narrowly escaped losing his life owing to his efforts to avoid the bicycle. The coroner's jury exonerated the driver of the motor car from blame, and the Government are not aware of any reason why the matter should be reopened. The resolution referred to has not been received.

    University College, North Wales.
    MR. REES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the court of governors of the University College of North Wales, Aberystwyth, to the effect that the Government grants at present given to the Welsh University colleges are totally inadequate, and urging the Government, in view of the lack of educational endowments in Wales, the poverty of students attending, and the advanced work done in the colleges,
    944
    to increase the grants to the three colleges at the earliest opportunity.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The question of grants to the Welsh University colleges is under consideration by a Committee appointed for the purpose, and I am unable to make any statement on the subject at present.

    Friendly Society Certificates of Thrift.
    MR. WILES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government, in providing for the acceptance of certificates of thrift from friendly societies under Clause 3, Section (1), subsection (b), of the Old-Age Pensions Bill, intend to direct that such certificates may be admissible if given, respectively, by any society registered under the Friendly Societies Act, any similar society although not registered under the Act, and other types of society which, while established for the purpose of promotion of thrift, are not confined to the provision of benefits in sickness and death.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) It is not the intention that any distinction should be drawn between registered societies and non-registered societies, as such, whose operations are directed to the encouragement of thrift.

    Uganda Railway.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will agree to a Return showing the complete accounts of the capital expenditure on the Uganda Railway, the charge involved upon the Exchequer by that capital expenditure, the gross and net earnings of the line for each year since it was opened, together with an Estimate of the further capital, if any, required to equip it for traffic.
    (Answered by Colonel Seely.) My right hon. friend has asked me to reply. A Return containing the information desired shall be prepared and presented to Parliament.

    Savings Banks and State Aid.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called

    945
    to the statement made by Sir E. W. Hamilton, in his evidence given to the Select Committee on the Savings Banks Funds of 1902, that State aid to savings banks would have a very demoralising effect; and whether, seeing that for some years past State aid has been given to the savings banks by making good deficiencies in the working accounts of both the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Banks, he purposes to take any measures to put an end to the demoralising effect resulting from this State aid.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The position of the Government in relation to this question was explained by my predecessor in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Preston on 19th March. He then stated that, although no sufficient reason has yet arisen for departing from the policy approved by the last House of Commons in 1904, the subject is one that requires to be, and is, kept steadily in view.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Wireless Telegraphy.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the wireless telegraphic messages sent by His Majesty's ships are continually tapped by ships in the merchant service, both British and foreign, equipped with the wireless apparatus; and whether there are wireless systems in use which, owing to tuning, cannot be tapped.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,): The Admiralty have not found any system of wireless telegraphy which cannot be tapped by other ships and stations possessing suitable instruments.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the system of wireless telegraphy used by the Admiralty requires so much horsepower for long-distance messages that it is not possible to send messages any considerable distance from ship to shore;
    946
    whether there are other wireless systems in regular use which do not require so much horse-power as the system employed by the Admiralty; and whether the Government will appoint a Committee of experts to advise the Admiralty as to the best system of wireless telegraphy to use in the Navy.
    MR. LAMBERT: The Answer to the first and last parts of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. So far as is known there are no other systems which require less horse-power than the Admiralty system to ensure reliable communication.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Are we to understand from that reply that the Admiralty are satisfied with the existing system?
    MR. LAMBERT: No doubt it is capable of improvement, but we think it is the best available at present.

    Naval Volunteers (Lands) Bill.
    MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the exigencies of Parliamentary time will now permit of his taking the next stage of the Naval Volunteers (Lands) Bill, of which notice was given on 29th January.
    MR. LAMBERT: It is hoped that the Bill will be passed this session, but it is not yet possible to announce the day of taking the next stage.

    Australian Commonwealth and the Navy.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the naval arrangements have been concluded between His Majesty's Government and the Commonwealth of Australia; and if he can state what has been the delay in bringing the matter to a close.
    MR. LAMBERT: The Answer to the Question is in the negative. I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the First Lord of the Admiralty on 21st May. The subject is an exceedingly complex one, and the scheme put forward by the Australian Government requires much amplification.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate in any way when this matter is likely to be brought to a settlement, or say what is the point about which there is a difficulty in coming to a conclusion?
    MR. LAMBERT: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any information as to when it is likely to be settled, and it would be too long in an Answer to a Question to give him details of the points which are being considered by the Australian Government and the Board of Admiralty.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will put an unstarred Question down for next week.

    Fires on Government Property.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many fires have occurred by which Government property has been destroyed during the last two years; and how many of those fires occurred during the night, and the highest amount of loss occasioned by any one fire.
    MR. LAMBERT: Eleven fires have occurred during the last two years, and, as far as is known, five have occurred at night. The highest amount of loss occasioned by any one fire is, approximately, £5,869.

    Royal Irish Rifles.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the strength of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Battalions Royal Irish Rifles in officers, non-commissioned officers, and men on assembling for annual training this year, the number who have joined the Special Reserve, and the number who have taken their discharge from each battalion, respectively; and can he state, with regard to the total number who have joined the Special Reserve, how many have joined for one year and longer periods, respectively.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND,): As these battalions only finished training on
    948
    Saturday last, I am not yet in possession of the particulars asked for, but I will call for a Report and furnish the hon. and gallant Member with the information.

    Manufacture of Scottish Tartans.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the cloth of which the uniforms of Scottish regiments are made is manufactured by and purchased from Scottish manufacturers; and, if so, whether the like treatment will be accorded to manufacturers in Wales in respect of the uniforms of Welsh regiments.
    MR. ACLAND: Highland tartan for the Army is made exclusively in Scotland. Should any Welsh manufacturers desire to tender for Army cloths, the War Office will be glad to receive applications.
    MR. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a strong impression prevails in Wales that the Scottish by some superior craft or subtlety get better terms in this respect?
    MR. ACLAND: I do believe they make the cloth better.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Are we to understand that Scottish tartan is to be made in Wales?
    MR. ACLAND: If the Welsh could make any cloth good enough, we should be glad, I think, to buy it from Wales.
    MR. LEIF JONES: Will the War Office take care to procure the best cloth for this purpose at the least possible cost?
    MR. ACLAND: Certainly.
    MR. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Wales he can obtain those conditions?
    MR. WATT: It is in Scotland that those conditions prevail.
    AN HON. MEMBER: And is this the United Kingdom!

    Army Service Corps.
    MR. HOWARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the practice not to grant corps pay to officers of the Army Service Corps when they are students of the staff college; and whether, in view of the fact that this involves a diminution of pay which makes impossible for officers living on their pay to attend the college, he can see his way in future to grant the pay to officers so serving.
    MR. ACLAND: Corps pay is issuable under the Regulations to officers to the Army Service Corps for every day on which they are employed on the duties of their corps; but when studying at the staff college with a view to qualifying for a beneficial appointment, they are not so employed, and like officers of other corps at the staff college they cease to receive the extra pay to which they are entitled when employed regimentally.

    Assam Bengal Railway.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the frequent thefts which have taken place on the Assam Bengal Railway; whether he is aware that this fact, and the recent fires at the jetties at Chittagong, have seriously prejudiced the interests of the planting community and of the public of the province of Eastern Bengal and Assam; and whether he will take steps to prevent a recurrence of the said railway thefts and jetty fires.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The Local Government are fully alive to the importance of ensuring the security of goods on the Assam Bengal Railway and the jetties at Chittagong, and have now under their consideration the Report of a Committee appointed in March last to consider the question.

    Communications with Tibet.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether It is proposed by the Government of India to make any allotments of funds
    950
    for the improvement of communications with Tibet in order to the development of the trade of that country with India.
    MR. BUCHANAN: No proposals have been submitted to the Secretary of State by the Government of India for improving the roads from India into Tibet.
    MR. REES: If this is not done, what advantage will the Government receive from the late expedition?
    MR. BUCHANAN: That raises a very wide question, and it is impossible for me to give an answer.

    Madras Landed Estates Bill.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether the sanction of the Government of India has yet been accorded to the Madras Landed Estates Bill.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The Answer is in the negative.

    Cost of Protecting the British Legation at Teheran.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the cost of the eight soldiers of the Indian Army stationed for the protection of the British Legation at Teheran is being borne by the Indian or by the Home Government.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The cost of the Legation guard at Teheran is divided equally between the British and Indian Exchequers in accordance with the practice by which all diplomatic and Consular expenditure in Persia is so divided.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is it proposed to increase this guard.?
    MR. BUCHANAN: That is not a matter which falls within my Department.

    Indentured Labour from Madagascar.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what communications have passed between

    951
    His Majesty's Government, that of France, and the Government of the Transvaal, since February, 1908, in respect of the recruiting of indentured labourers from Madagascar.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): No communications passed between His Majesty's Government and that of France. The Governor-General of Madagascar spoke in public strongly against the proposal, and it was understood that the French Government shared his objections. The Transvaal Government have since informed the Secretary of State that it is not desired that any further action should be taken in the matter.

    Tristan d'Acunha.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information as to the condition of the inhabitants of Tristan d'Acunha and the date of the last communications.
    COLONEL SEELY: A Report dated 28th April, has been received recently from the Rev. J. G. Barrow, the clergyman on the island, from which it appears that the islanders have not been subject to any privation lately. During 1907 twenty-eight ships were sighted, of which seven were boarded and letters were able to be sent off five times. According to this Report, Mr. Keytal, of Messrs. Stephan Bros., Capetown, intends to remain on the island this year with the object of working up a trade. He appears to have sent about 200 sheep to Capetown.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May I have a copy of the Report, if it is not confidential?
    COLONEL SEELY: I have not seen the Report; I will let the hon. Member know if he can have it.

    Nigeria—Land Alienation.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, pending the Report of the Committee on
    952
    Northern Nigerian land, he will suspend the alienation of land in Southern Nigeria where the conditions are similar.
    COLONEL SEELY: Under the Native Lands Acquisition Ordinance, which applies to the whole of the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria, no alien may acquire any interest or right in or over any lands in the Protectorate from a native except under an instrument which has received the approval in writing of the Governor, and the Governor has been instructed that only grants on leasehold tenure should be approved.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: Does that also apply to the Colony of Lagos?
    COLONEL SEELY: I am not sure. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question down.

    Lagos Railway Lands.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the 1,800 plots along the Lagos Railway that have been surveyed have been sold, how many leased, and for what length of lease.
    COLONEL SEELY: I have not the particulars asked for by my hon. friend, but the Governor will be requested to supply them.

    Sedition in Korea—Case of Mr. Bethell.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the prosecution of Mr. Bethell for spreading sedition in Korea through his newspaper was undertaken at the instance of the Japanese Government; and whether the rebellion which Mr. Bethell was fomenting was rebellion against the Japanese Government or against the Korean State.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The attention of His Majesty's Government was drawn to the conduct of Mr. Bethell by the Japanese Government, as well as by complaints emanating from non-Japanese sources; as regards the second Question, Mr. Bethell was prosecuted under Article 5 of the China and Corea

    953
    (Amendment) Order in Council, 1907, which provides (amongst other things) that "every person subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the Court, who prints, publishes, or offers for sale any printed or written newspaper or other publication containing seditious matter shall be guilty of a grave offence against the Principal Order." By Sub-Article (3) of the above Article, it is provided that "matter calculated to excite tumult or disorder.… shall be deemed to be seditious matter within the meaning of this Article." The case does not seem to me to be affected by the question whether the Government of Korea is controlled by Japan or not.
    In reply to a further Question by Mr. SMEATON,
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid seditious matter was described as matter calculated to incite to disorder.

    Case of Mr. Luxenburg.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to announce the result of his claim on the Russian Government for compensation in connection with the unwarranted arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Luxenburg.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Points which have arisen in connection with the case are still being considered in consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown. I cannot make any further statement.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I will repeat the Question this day week.

    Persian Unrest—British Legation Guard at Teheran.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of reinforcing the garrison of eight men of the Indian Native Cavalry guarding the British Legation at Teheran.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Charge d' Affaires has reported on more than one occasion that he anticipates no danger to Europeans in Teheran. I do
    954
    not, therefore, propose to take any steps to reinforce the Legation guard unless he should state that he considers it advisable to do so.

    The Position at Tabriz.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any intention of sending help to the British Consul-General at Tabriz to safeguard the lives, property, and interests of British subjects in that city, where the mob are reported to have seized the arsenal and to have the upper hand.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: There is no reason to suppose, from the reports received from His Majesty's Legation at Teheran, that the lives, property, and interests of British subjects at Tabriz are in any danger. His Majesty's Consul-General at that place has at his disposal a guard of six mounted men of the Indian Army.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the latest communication was received from Tabriz, and whether telegraphic communication has been or is now interrupted?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: No, Sir. We had the last telegram yesterday.

    Martial Law in Persia—Employment of Russian Officers.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Persia has been placed under martial law, which is to be administered by military officers of the Russian Imperial Service; and, if so, what steps, if any, are being taken by the Government to have constitutional government reestablished in that country.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Shah has issued a proclamation placing Persia under martial law. I am not sure what appointments the Shah has given to Russian officers. His Majesty's Government do not propose to interfere in the internal government of Persia.

    Russian Tea Duties.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the

    955
    contemplated revision of the Russian duties on Indian and Ceylon teas implies the removal of the imposts placed upon these teas in 1903, or the admission of all teas, whether they come from India, Ceylon, China, Java, or Japan, on the some footing, whether imported by way of Europe or Eastern Asia.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The former is the case; it is the imposts placed in 1906 that are to be removed.

    Protestant Missions in the Congo Free State.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state what the result of his representations to the Government of the Congo Free State has been regarding the refusal of that Government to grant or sell sites for Protestant missions within the State.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: No communications on the subject have passed with the Congo Government since the correspondence which was presented to the House in Papers Africa No. 2. In the event of annexation being delayed beyond the present session of the Belgian Parliament, the Congo Government will be pressed to give effect to the assurance referred to in their note of 28th March, last.

    Brussels Arms Conference.
    MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Brussels Arms Conference may be expected to conclude their labours; whether all that they can do is to report to their respective Governments the steps they may think it desirable to take; and whether, as the trade in arms through Muscat is increasingly dangerous and the Brussels Conference may take some time to report, he will consider the advisability of using pressure on the Imam of Muscat to stop this trade as much as possible.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot name any definite day at present as to when the Arms Conference may be expected to conclude its labours. I presume
    956
    that certain arrangements will be drawn up by the Conference which will be signed or reserved as the case may be by the representatives of the various Powers. As regards the suggested representations to the Sultan of Muscat, the matter has to be considered in connection with the obligations imposed on the Sultan by his treaties with other Powers besides Great Britain, and I can only repeat that the matter continues to occupy our attention.
    In answer to a further Question by Mr. HART-DAVIES——
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid the whole subject of this trade in arms was engaging the attention of the Government.
    MR. REES: Could it not be provided that European Powers when adopting new arms should not dispose of the discarded weapons in suspected quarters, for which they would be likely to be used on our frontiers.
    SIR EDWARD GREYasked for notice.

    Russian Legation Guard at Teheran.
    MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government are making any, and, if so, what, additions to the troops guarding their legation at Teheran; also whether there are any precedents for the participation by foreign officers on the active list of their own armies in acts of civil war in the country to which they have been lent by their own Government.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information to the effect that the Russian Government are increasing their legation guard at Teheran. There are, I am informed, several precedents for the loan to foreign Governments of officers on the active list, whose services would not necessarily be affected by the internal situation in the countries where they are employed.
    MR. LYNCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman cite one instance in our own case?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I should of imagine the appointment General Gordon was one.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the strength of the Russian guard?
    SIR EDWARD GREYasked for notice.

    Macedonian Agreement.
    MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange that the Papers embodying the agreement arrived at with Russia over the Macedonian question shall be presented to Parliament before the Foreign Office Vote is taken.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I can give no definite undertaking; it depends upon the progress of negotiations with other Powers.
    MR. LYNCHasked when Papers would be laid?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: As soon as we come to an agreement with the other Powers. Then we shall lay Papers on the points on which we are agreed. I can make no promise beyond that.

    Persian Refugees in the Teheran Consulate.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British consulate at Teheran is surrounded by Persian troops and all persons examined who pass in or out; and whether he can now state the nature of the securities which will be required before any refugees now in the consulate will be surrendered to the Shah's Government.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Persian troops who surrounded His Majesty's legation at Teheran have now been withdrawn. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, we require a written guarantee of the safety of the lives, persons, and property of refugees before requesting them to leave the legation; and in the case of any accused of crimes as distinct from political offences an assurance before
    958
    surrendering them, that they should have a fair trial at which a member of the legation would be present.

    The Reval Meeting.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the internal affairs of Persia were discussed at the recent meeting at Reval between His Majesty the King and the Czar of Russia.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Persian affairs were very little touched upon during the visit to Reval, and what mention of them there was related solely to frontier disputes and commercial matters. But the condition of internal affairs in Persia has formed the subject of communication between the two Governments on various occasions both before and since the visit to Reval.

    United States Liquor Licence Duties.
    MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the rates of duty charged on liquor licences in the States of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York; whether he can give the total sums annually raised by such duties for each class of licence and the number of such licences in these high-licence States; and, if he is not in possession of the facts, whether he would request His Majesty's Embassy at Washington to supplement their Report No. 657, of 1907, by furnishing the information.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The information asked for by my hon. friend in the first part of the Question is rather too long to be stated in a verbal Answer, but will be circulated with the Votes. As regards the second part of the Question, I will cause inquiries to be made at Washington.

    The Imprisoned Suffragists.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to ensure that women sent to prison as political offenders, whether in default of payment of fines or otherwise, shall receive the same treatment as men when imprisoned as political offenders.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Except where there is an express direction in the statute (as in the case of contempt of Court or seditious libel) the treatment of a prisoner in prison depends entirely on the order of the Court. Whether offenders are sentenced to imprisonment in the first, in the second, or in the third division, no distinction in treatment is made between and women. I have no reason to think that the orders made by the Court in the case of women have in any instance been more severe than the orders made in similar circumstances on men offenders.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that when Dr. Jameson was put in gaol for a political offence he was accorded special treatment; and whether, as there was considerable feeling on this subject of the treatment of women in prison, he would, on account of their more highly-strung temperament, direct that they be more considerately dealt with.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The case of Dr. Jameson was totally different. He was convicted.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the position generally, with a view to taking steps in this matter?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid. I cannot reconsider the law. The matter is entirely in the discretion of the magistrates.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman issue a circular to magistrates or take some step of that nature?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The matter must rest with the magistrate.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: But surely the right hon. Gentleman has discretionary power. He has used it before.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, I have no discretionary power.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: But has not the right hon. Gentleman made representations to magistrates?
    MR. SPEAKER: Really, the hon. Member should give notice of some of these Questions.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsubsequently asked the Home Secretary if he was aware that one of the ladies who had been imprisoned, Miss Logan, was the daughter of a former Member of the House of Commons, whom they all respected, and whether some means could not be taken to alleviate the undoubted distress caused to these educated women by the kind of treatment they were receiving.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have really no power to interfere with the discretion of the magistrate. I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that these ladies are surety prisoners and can come out at any moment they like.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not fair and reasonable, to say the least, that these ladies should not be treated more harshly in prison than were Dr. Jameson and other men who plunged this country into war?
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Is it not the fact that as a result of representations the right hon. Gentleman made to a certain magistrate on one occasion the ladies in prison did get better treatment?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Two years ago I did make representations to a certain magistrate and he was pleased to take notice of them. But it was his own action.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: If a person went down and gave bail for these ladies would they be turned out?
    MR. GLADSTONE: It might be a good thing to try.
    MR. HAZLETON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make similar representations in these cases to those which he made two years ago?
    MR. LUPTON: Considering that these ladies are specially desirous of going to prison, would not to turn them out of prison be the best punishment?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Police and the Suffragist Raid.
    MAJOR RENTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra labour was entailed on the Metropolitan Police, and at what cost to the public, if any, on 30th June by their duties in carrying out the sessional order prohibiting meetings in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament.
    MR. GLADSTONE: 1,694 extra police were employed on 30th June, but I am not able to state what was the total amount of extra labour involved. The cost to the public is represented by the expenses of travelling incurred by men brought in from distant places, and by the payment of refreshment allowance to those on duty for nine hours or more. This has not yet been ascertained.

    Church Army Midnight March.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any report from the police, in the ordinary course, with regard to scenes of drunkenness on the occasion of a midnight march in a limited area of Westminster on the night of 4th April last; whether he ordered a special report to be made by the police present during the march; and, if so, whether he will state what number of men, if any, in a drunken condition the police reported to have been in the streets on that occasion.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No report from the police was received by me on the occasion of the procession of members of the Church Army to which the hon. Member refers, but I have made inquiry, and am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the officers who accompanied the procession state that no case of drunkenness was observed by them in
    962
    the streets through which the procession passed.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: May I ask if there is any confirmation at all in the report of the statement widely published that from 150 to 200 men in a drunken condition were met in the area during that march?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I know nothing whatever of the statement to which my hon. friend refers, but I have given the facts of the case.
    MR. LEIF JONES: Was a report deemed unnecessary because there was no unusual amount of drunkenness on that occasion?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I can only repeat that no case of drunkenness was brought under the notice of the police.

    Motor-Bus Fatalities.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of accidents, fatal or otherwise, due to motor-buses during the last two months in London and the surrounding districts; in what portion of greater London have these accidents been most frequent; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy the evil.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The number of accidents in the Metropolitan Police District, caused by motor-buses, including both those which did and those which did not cause personal injuries, was 334 in April, and 483 in May. Five persons were fatally injured by such accidents in April, and 12 in May. The figures for June are not yet available. Such accidents have been most frequent in Oxford Street, where 67 occurred; in Barking Road with 30; and in the King's Road, Chelsea, with 33, during the time mentioned. As I have often said, the police do their very best, under the existing law, to put a stop to dangerous driving, but I am considering whether it would not be possible, and, if so, whether it might not be desirable, to reduce the speed limit of motor-omnibuses to ten miles an hour as a condition of their licence.

    Female Criminals.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it will be possible for his Department to extend the benefit of the Borstal system to the woman criminal.
    MR. GLADSTONE: If the Bill now before the House becomes law, the necessary arrangements will be made for this purpose.

    Chief Constables of County Police.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that only five out of the fifty-six chief constables of counties in England and Wales have been raised from the ranks; if so, will he say what class of men are preferred for these positions to those trained to the business; and will he indicate to the local authorities who have the appointments that he will not give his approval to others than constables until the proportion of those from the ranks is much increased.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of the precise number of chief constables who can be described as having risen from the ranks, either in counties, where the proportion is small, or in boroughs, where it is much larger. Among the chief constables are included former officers of the Navy and Army, the Royal Irish Constabulary, and members of other public services, in which they have acquired the necessary qualifications. The selection of chief constables is made by the local authorities; and I could not properly interfere with the full responsibility and discretion which they are bound to exercise by giving any such direction as is suggested.

    Lead Poisoning at Tunstall.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there has been reported to the Home Office an extraordinary incidence of lead-poisoning at the Woodland Pottery, Tunstall; whether a portion of Rule 2 in the amended special rules, established by the award of Lord James of Hereford, declares that if any factory to which the
    964
    rule applies shall, by reason of the occurrence of cases of lead-poisoning, appear to the Secretary of State to be in an unsatisfactory condition he may prohibit the use of lead; whether this rule has been put in force; and whether he will consider the propriety of applying it to such cases.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, eleven cases of lead-poisoning at these works (three of which, however, are doubtful) have been reported to the Factory Department, during the current year, as compared with three in 1907, none in 1906, two in 1905, nine in 1904, and one in 1903. Proceedings were taken in April last against the firm, and application made under Section 18 for an order prohibiting the works being used until the necessary alterations had been made. On the firm giving an undertaking to remedy the defective arrangements for drying and ware-cleaning, to which the heavy incidence of poisoning is attributed, the stipendiary, with the concurrence of the medical inspector and lady inspector in charge of the case, adjourned the hearing. The alterations, which are a difficult matter and will cost, I understand, some £5,000, are now being carried out, and are to be completed by 23rd August. As regards the second part of the Question, there is such a power as mentioned in the special rules; it is a power which is intended only for very exceptional cases and has not hitherto been used. In view of the action of the stipendiary, I do not think I could properly direct action to be taken under this special power at present; but the works will be kept under observation and if the heavy incidence of poisoning continues, I shall consider what further action, whether under the rule or otherwise, is required.

    Miners (Eight Hours) Bill
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can inform the House, approximately, upon what date the last ballot with regard to the eight-hours day in coal mines was taken by the Miners' Federation; and what were the specific questions then voted on by its members.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to a previous Question of the hon. Member on this subject on 7th May last.

    The Patents Act.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether diplomatic representations have been made asking for an extension of the time-limit under the new patent law beyond 28th August, 1908; and, if so, what is the decision of the Government in this behalf.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): Representations have been received from the Governments of the United States and of Germany in respect of Section 27 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, but His Majesty's Government have no intention of proposing the fresh legislation which I am advised would be necessary in order to modify the provisions of the section.

    Unemployment.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the fact that unemployment reached the percentage of 7·9 during the month of May; whether he can inform the House of the last year in which unemployment reached so high a figure during that month; whether he has any figures to show the amount of unemployment in London and the surrounding districts as compared with other parts of the country during May; also the amount of pauperism as compared with other parts of the country; and whether, in view of the fact that legislation based upon the Report of the Poor Law Commission will not be possible this year, he can state the steps which the Government is proposing to take to tide over the intervening period of unemployment.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. MASTEKMAN,): I am aware that the Returns made by trade unions to the Board of Trade show that in May last 7·9 of the members were unemployed. The extent of the unemployment was considerably affected by the in-
    966
    dustrial disputes in the engineering and shipbuilding trades. The latest date at which an equally high proportion of unemployment was shown in the Returns, was, I understand, May, 1887. So far as can be ascertained 7·5 per cent. of the members of the trade unions in the London district making Returns were unemployed at the end of May last. The number of persons receiving Poor Law relief at the same date in London and in the adjoining Poor Law unions was 160,698 or 22·5 per 1,000 of the population, the corresponding proportion in England and Wales generally being 22·3 per 1,000. The Government propose to renew for another year the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905.
    MR. SNOWDENasked whether the Board of Trade Returns did not exclude unemployment on account of strikes and lock-outs.
    MR. MASTERMANsaid that was so; but the unemployed in subsidiary trades affected by strikes and lock-outs were included.

    Westerhope School Site.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board why the Local Government Board in May, 1907, sanctioned a loan which included a loan of about £698 as the purchase price of about three-quarters of an acre for school purposes, between Westerhope and North Warbottle, in Northumberland, of which the annual value for rating is about 27s. a year; and whether the Board will take steps to avoid sanctioning further loans for the purchase of land at exorbitant prices.
    MR. MASTERMAN: I can assure my hon. friend that the Local Government Board will take all possible steps to prevent the purchase of land at exorbitant prices where it is in their power to do so. As regards the particular case to which he refers, at the time the loan was sanctioned the annual value of the land for rating purposes had not been ascertained, and the Board's attention was not drawn to its high price. I may add that had not the loan been sanctioned the two parishes

    967
    served by the school would have had to pay three-fourths of the cost of the site, or more than £500 out of one year's rates.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: When a county council makes a bargain, and three-fourths of the cost has to be paid by the parish is that body to have no voice in the matter?
    MR. MASTERMAN: The purchase was carried out by the county council with the sanction of the Board of Education. The Local Government Board sanctioned the loan at the request of the county council. Had there been no sanction three-fourths of the cost would have fallen on the parish.
    MR. HAROLD COX: If the Local Government Board knew the price was excessive why did they sanction it.
    MR. MASTERMAN: In these cases they do not make detailed inquiries unless some local objection is taken. In this case although local objection was taken at the county council, it was not sent to the Local Government Board.

    Cash on Delivery in Morocco.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the cash on delivery service will be extended to Casablanca and to all places in Morocco where the British Post Office maintains an agency instead of being confined to Tangier alone, seeing the boon such a step would be to British residents.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): In view of the present state of affairs in Morocco, and of the novelty of the cash-on-delivery system, I think it desirable to await some experience of the working of the service before extending it as the hon. Member suggests.

    Expenses of Local Education Authorities.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has made any provision whatever for additional grants to local educational authorities in view of the extra expense entailed
    968
    by medical inspection and the importance of encouraging such authorities, many of which are at present financially crippled, to carry out the wishes of his Department.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): I regret I can add nothing to the statements which have already been made by my predecessor to the effect that the Government are unable to hold out any hope of a special grant in aid of medical inspection in anticipation, of the additional sum which has been promised in connection with the Education Bill now before the House.
    MR. ALDEN: May I ask whether in the cases in which the expense has already been incurred that will be taken into account? Did not the right hon. Gentleman promise that assistance should be given in these cases?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Bristol Post Office.
    MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the contractor, Mr. Blake, of Plymouth, who is building a new wing to the post office in Small Street, Bristol, is not paying the recognised trade union rates of wages for overtime, and if he intends taking any action in the matter.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,): It appears that a small amount of overtime has been worked under a misunderstanding at less than the standard rates for such work. I am taking steps to secure that the standard rates shall be paid during the continuance of the contract.

    Small Holdings Act—Schemes Submitted.
    MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if any county councils have submitted to the Board more than one scheme under the Small Holdings Act, of 1907; how much land has been purchased under schemes which have been approved; how much land has

    969
    been leased; and whether any schemes which necessitate the use of compulsory powers have been submitted or approved.
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSE-HOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.: The Gloucester County Council have submitted six schemes; Norfolk, four; and the Isle of Wight, two. In regard to the ten schemes which have been provisionally approved or confirmed, it is proposed to purchase 315½ acres and to lease 455 acres. No schemes have yet been submitted which necessitate the use of compulsory powers.

    Small Holdings Act—Preliminary Inquiries.
    MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Commissioners appointed under the Small Holdings Act of 1907 have visited every county council area to which the Act applies; whether there is any area in which no action is being taken by the county council to ascertain the demand for small holdings; whether, although the Act provides that the Commissioners should ascertain such demand, in fact the county councils are doing this, from what source if the Commissioners acted as the Act provides would the expenses of such inquiry be defrayed; and from what source are the expenses of such inquiries now, in fact, being defrayed.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Commissioners, or an inspector acting under their instructions, have visited every administrative county except the Scilly Isles, and every county council is taking steps to ascertain the demand. The Act provides that councils shall furnish the Commissioners with such information as they may reasonably require, and this is what the councils have been doing. The expenses of their preliminary inquiries are defrayed out of the county rate. Similar expenses incurred by the Commissioners are paid out of money provided by Parliament.
    MR. MORRELL: Is there anything to prevent the county councils putting the expenses of these inquiries on the rents of the small holdings?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Certainly.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Is there any power under the Act allowing county councils to charge these expenses out of the rates?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: These preliminary expenses can be charged out of the rates.

    Small Holdings Act—Time of Holding Inquiries.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board of Agriculture have any information at their disposal showing in how many districts meetings have been held by county councils for the purpose of hearing applications under the Small Holdings Act at an hour when agricultural labourers and others who are occupied all day can attend; and, if not, whether the Board will take steps to obtain such information.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Such information as the Board possess on this subject does not suggest that any general inquiry is necessary, but the matter will be kept in view by the Commissioners who are in continuous communication with county councils.

    Hollesley Bay Colony.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board will send down to Hollesley Bay a Commissioner to investigate and Report upon the agricultural value of the work done on the farm, and lay the report upon the Table before the Local Government Board Vote is taken.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I would refer my hon. friend to my reply to his Question on this subject on the 22nd ult. The Board regret that they do not see their way to take the course suggested.

    Expenses under the Small Holdings Act.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset,

    971
    as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the salaries and expenses of any officers appointed by a county council for the purposes of establishing small holdings, and any salaries and expenses connected with the management and supervisions of small holdings after they are established, will be recouped by putting additional rent on the land occupied by the small holders.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Small Holdings Act, 1892, requires councils to fix the rents at such reasonable amounts as will in their opinion guard them against loss. The Board have no power to decide what expenses must be taken into consideration by a council in carrying out this provision.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Is the meaning of that that the expenses are placed on the rents of the small holdings?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The meaning is that no loss shall fall on the county rate.

    Small Holdings Act—Purchase of Land in Excess of Demand.
    MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether a county council having applications for 200 acres of land in one place under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, and having a suitable farm of, say 280 acres offered to it, is precluded by the Act from taking such farm, even though there be no difficulty in letting off the 80 acres not applied for to another tenant.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: A council is not precluded by the Act from acquiring an area in excess of that for which they have received applications.

    Co-operative Societies and Small Holdings.
    MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board's model rules as to the profits of a co-operative society letting small holdings and allot-
    972
    ments as laid down by subsections (1) and (5), will allow a society to put to the special reserve accounts such moneys as it thinks are required to provide against losses which may be incurred through defaulting tenants.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The rules provide for the creation of a reserve fund applicable for the purpose to which my hon. friend refers.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Have the Board any power to limit the profits, seeing that this House expressly refused to put into the Bill any such limitation? Further, will increased profits by these trading companies be made by an increase of rents?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Certainly the Board have power to prevent more than a certain profit being made.

    Loans to Jamaica.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any sums have been issued to Jamaica under Section 4 of the Public Works Act 1907; whether any applications have been received for loans; and what communications, if any, have passed between His Majesty's Government and that of Jamaica on the subject of financial aid for Jamaica.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): Application has recently been made by Jamaica for the advance of £50,000 as the first instalment of the loan authorised by Section 4 of the Public Works Loans Act, 1907, and the money will be advanced in the course of the next few days.

    Industrial Spirits.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, according to the provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act of 1902, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may authorise the use of spirits, without payment of duty, in art or manufacture; and can he state what special conditions other than those set out in the section have to be fulfilled by an applicant who desires to

    973
    avail himself of the provisions of this section.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: The conditions with which an applicant is required to comply, other than those set out in the section referred to, are mainly administrative, and a copy of them can be obtained upon application to the Board of Inland Revenue at Somerset House.
    MR. NANNETTI: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, if I can give him a concrete case of refusal to allow the privileges set out in Section 8 to a manufacturer in Dublin for the purposes of his trade, and who is willing to give the undertaking specified in the section referred to, will he see that instructions are given to the applicant as to the steps he should take to have the permission asked for granted?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Member will forward me particulars of the case I will give them careful consideration.

    Revenue Statistics.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what percentage proportions of revenue derived from direct and indirect taxes, respectively, bear to the total revenue of Ireland and Great Britain taken separately from the latest available figures subsequent to the financial year, 1903–4, omitting the figures for the amount contributed per head.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. friend has had a statement prepared in tabular form, which shall be circulated with the Votes.

    Old-Age Pension Disqualification Clause.
    MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to fix a qualifying period in the Old-Age Pensions Bill now before Parliament in respect to the aged poor who, since 1st January, have received outdoor relief, as is done in the case of recipients of outdoor relief under the Registration of Voters law, and, if so, will it be a fixed date or simply a twelve months interval; and would he, in view
    974
    of the strong feeling expressed in all parts of the House on this question, consider the desirability of altering the date of disqualification from 1st January to 30th June.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. friend can add nothing to what he said during the debate on the Committee Stage of the Bill in which the points raised by the Question were fully discussed.

    Civil Servants and Territorial Camps.
    MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a circular has been sent round to all the Government offices stating the terms and conditions under which public servants will be granted leave to attend the annual training of the Territorial Army.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: The necessary instructions have been given to the Departments concerned.

    Scottish Local Government Bill.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the secretary for Scotland whether he can give any information as to the Government's intentions to introduce a Bill to replace the Local Government (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill, which he hoped to introduce this session.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I still hope to introduce such a Bill this session if the course of business permits, and I regret that its introduction hitherto with any prospect of progress has not been possible.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring in a Bill early next session?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have said I hope to do so this session.

    New Fishery Cruiser for Scotland.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can now state the dimensions of the new fishery cruiser for Scotland; and when she will be completed.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I regret that I am not yet able to do so.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware this is the sixth time I have asked this Question?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I cannot hold myself responsible for that.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Are there any reasons for not disclosing the dimensions of this vessel?
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Fishery Board are working hard on the ship—they are preparing the plans.
    MR. PIRIE: Questions have been put to the Fishery Board for ten years, and we always get this sort of Answer.
    MR. WEIR: Has any money been paid for this cruiser yet?
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: When will the dimensions be given me?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am not withholding any information which is available. There are hundreds of considerations to be borne in mind.

    Irish Education Grant.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Treasury and the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have under their consideration a scheme whereby no part of the new school grant will be given to teachers of schools with an average below thirty-five; is he aware that the small schools were received into the system under rules which encouraged the establishment of such schools; can he state if the proposal referred to is devised for the purpose of starving out such schools, and whether under it certain teachers will be heavily penalised for no fault of their own; is he aware that small schools under Protestant management in isolated parts of Ireland will suffer particular hardship; and will he take steps to prevent this happening.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: At the same time may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended that schools with an average attendance of less than thirty-five pupils are not to participate in the grant for the increase of teachers' salaries which he has promised on behalf of the Government; whether he is aware that this rule would exclude one-third of the National schools in Ireland, the teachers in which are underpaid; and whether he can make any statement which will reassure the teachers in these schools in regard to the allocation of the grant.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOE IRELAND (Mr. BIREELL,): The Supplementary Estimate, which has been before the House for some time past, shows that it is proposed to confine the new grant to the teachers of schools which have an average attendance of not less than thirty-five pupils. The Supplementary Estimate is to be considered this afternoon, and hon. Members will then have an opportunity of discussing the principles upon which the new grant is to be distributed. This Answer applies also to the Question of the hon. Member for West Belfast.
    MR. J. MURPHYasked the effect of the increase of £20,000 on the allocation to schools with an average attendance of between twenty and thirty.
    MR. BIRRELL: I think I had better wait till I state our proposals more fully.
    MR. J. MURPHY: Is it meant for the excluded teachers and will it be an equal compensation to them for the sum which is to go to the remaining teachers?
    MR. BIRRELL: I would sooner not answer that Question now.
    MR. FLYNN: Is there any reason to believe that the small schools will suffer?
    MR. BIRRELL: All schools will be treated alike, whether Catholic or Protestant.
    MR. MOORE: But the hardship will fall on the Protestant schools, which constitute three-quarters of the total number.

    Cattle-drive on the Castlefrench Estate, Roscommon.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that early on Thursday morning, 18th June last, the grass farms at Ballygar and Ballinamore, on the Castlefrench estate, county Roscommon, were cleared of all the cattle, the property of a Mr. Burns, by a crowd numbering some hundreds; how many arrests were made; and what sentences were passed.
    MR. BIRRELL: On the morning of 16th June, fifteen head of cattle were driven off the farm of Mr. John Burns, near Ballinamore, by a large crowd, of whom fifty-three persons were identified by two policemen who were on duty at the place. Twenty-six of these persons were subsequently arrested, and all except one were bound to keep the peace.

    Mulcair Lands, Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether Mr. Barrington, of Barringtou's Bridge, Ahane, county Limerick, holds as yet the lands lately purchased from the representatives of the Dickson and Maunsell estates, commonly known as the Mulcair lands; and, if so, will he instruct the Estates Commissioners to put themselves in communication with the agent, Mr. John B. Barrington, with the view of ascertaining whether these lands are such as can be purchased by the Commissioners, so that, if purchased, they may be apportioned between the labourers and poor farmers' sons, who are very numerous in the locality.
    MR. BIRRELL: The estate in question is known to the Estates Commissioners as the estate of W. D. Dickson and another. The Commissioners have informed the owners that it will not be possible for them to prepare a scheme for the division of the estate for some time to come, and have advised that in the meantime the lands should be let for
    978
    grazing. The Commissioners are not aware whether Mr. Barrington is one of the persons to whom the lands have been let by the owners pending arrangements for sale.

    Cloncurry Estate, Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that there is, among what were commonly called the Campaigned estates, one in the parish of Murroe, county Limerick, the Cloncurry estate, the tenants on which were allowed back on such disastrous terms that they have been crushed almost out of existence by exorbitant rents; and can he hold forth any hope to them, either by the likelihood of legislation dealing with such cases in the immediate future or by recommending the Estates Commissioners to open transactions with Lord Cloncurry for the sale of the estate to those overburdened tenants.
    MR. BIRRELL: No proceedings for the sale of the estate in question have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners, and the Commissioners have no information as to the terms upon which the evicted tenants were reinstated, apparently some years ago. The Commissioners are prepared to consider any application which may be made to them either by the owner or the tenants.

    Lord Inchiquin's Clare Estate.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any negotiations have taken place with regard to the purchase of the estate of Lord Inchiquin, county Clare; whether any writs have been issued for the recovery of rent on this property; and whether he will communicate with the Estates Commissioners with a view, if possible, of bringing about a satisfactory sale of the estate in question.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of this estate have been instituted before them, and they have no knowledge of any proceedings which the owner may have taken for the recovery of rent. The matter is not one in which the Commissioners could interfere.

    The Dublin Crown Jewels.
    MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state who was responsible for the custody of the buildings in which the Regalia were kept at Dublin Castle; and if it was the fact that no one was allowed to reside in them out of office hours.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to his statement that no charge has been made against Sir Arthur Vicars except one of carelessness, he will state whether it is in accordance with precedent and practice to dismiss without pension on an unproved charge of carelessness an official of fifteen years' standing, as Sir Arthur Vicars was dismissed, owing to the loss of the Crown Jewels, the custody of which had only recently been legally vested in him.
    I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the position of the safe in which the Crown Jewels were kept was condemned by the Vice-Regal Commission; whether he is also aware that the position was chosen, not by Sir Arthur Vicars, but by the Board of Works; and whether he will explain why Sir Arthur Vicars was refused another safe by the Board of Works when the existing one was found to be too large to go into the strong room.
    And finally may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, prior to 1905 the custody of the Crown Jewels was legally vested in the Lord-Lieutenant by the old statutes of the Order of St. Patrick; and whether the custody of them was only made part of Sir Arthur Vicars' duty in the year 1905, subject, however, to the Royal Ordinance of His Majesty William IV. that the chief custody should remain in the hands of the Lord-Lieutenant.
    MR. BIRRELL: The subject matter of the four Questions which the hon. and learned Member has placed on the Paper was exhaustively dealt with by the Vice-Regal Commission appointed to investigate the circumstances of the
    980
    loss of the Regalia of the Order of St. Patrick; and the information asked for may be obtained from the Report of the Commission and the Minutes of Evidence which have been presented to Parliament.
    MR. W. MOORE: Is it a fact that Sir Arthur Vicars was dismissed first and tried afterwards?
    MR. BIRRELL: I dare say that may be so.

    Belfast Workhouse.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Local Government Board inspector, Mr. Agnew, on the Belfast Workhouse, and particularly to the inspector's references to the unsatisfactory nature of the nursing and medical arrangements; and whether any explanation has been forthcoming from the guardians with regard to these matters.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Report in question points out that the number of charge nurses employed in the Belfast Infirmary is too small in proportion to the number of probationers, and that in the auxiliary workhouse for consumptives the medical arrangements cannot be considered satisfactory. There are 1,600 beds in the infirmary, and about 180 nurses; and, apart from the matters mentioned, the inspector's comments upon the nursing and medical arrangements are most favourable. The guardians have adjourned the consideration of the Report in order that it may be printed and circulated among them.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Belfast Workhouse has always been considered to be a model institution of its kind and its condition always looked upon as most satisfactory?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Deportation of Paupers to Ireland.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total actual or approximate number of paupers

    981
    deported from Great Britain to Ireland under the Poor Law Acts, and also the total number so deported since the beginning of the present year; whether the cost of deportation is borne by the British or by the Irish unions; what the average cost of each deportation is; and whether there is any information available showing the length of time that the persons so deported were living in the districts from which they were sent back to Ireland.
    MR. BIRRELL: According to a Return to an order of the House Lords, prepared in the year 1878, the number of paupers removed from England and Scotland to Ireland between 1st January, 1876, and 1st July, 1878, was 963. No more recent Return on the subject appears to have been prepared. Cases are reported to the Local Government Board from time to time but they have no complete information as to the number of cases of deportation. A special inquiry would be necessary to obtain the information desired by the hon. Member, and it is doubtful whether trustworthy statistics would be forthcoming if required for a period of many years. The cost of deportation is borne by the union from which the pauper is deported, and the Local Government Board therefore have no information as to what the average cost may be.

    Deportation of Paupers to and from Belfast.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the system under which paupers who have not acquired a settlement in any particular union in Great Britain are removed to the union to which they originally belonged; whether he is aware that, under this system, poor persons are removed from English and Scottish unions to the Belfast Workhouse, at the rate of one per week, whereas poor persons in the Belfast Workhouse belonging to other unions cannot be removed at the expense of the rates; whether repeated expressions of opinion as to the injustice of this system have been put on record by the Belfast Guardians, in common with other Irish Poor Law Boards; and whether he will consider
    982
    the advisability of introducing legislation to remove this burden upon Irish rate payers.
    MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to the somewhat similar Question put by the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone on 20th May, when I stated that the subject of the Question will receive the careful consideration of the Irish Government in connection with the proposed Bill for amending the Irish Poor Laws which it is hoped to introduce next year.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Do the Government intend to introduce my Bill dealing with the whole question of Poor Law reform for Ireland?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have no doubt the hon. Member's Bill will afford us much assistance in dealing with the question.

    Women and the King's Scholarships Examination.
    MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, of the 389 women who passed in the first division at the last King's Scholarship examination, how many were monitors and pupil-teachers; how many vacancies will there be for women in the training colleges next course; and will he request the Commissioners of National Education to give a preference to those monitors and pupil-teachers.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the number of female monitors and pupil-teachers who passed in the first division at the last King's Scholarship examination was 207. The minimum lumber of vacancies for women students in the training colleges next session will be 366, but of these a proportion (to be decided by the authorities of each college) will be given to certificated teachers entering for a one year's course. The selection of students from among qualified candidates rests with the authorities of the respective colleges. In the case of Marlborough Street Training College, which is under the Commissioners' management, the rule is that the

    983
    candidates are chosen in order of merit. Monitors and pupil-teachers are awarded service marks which are added to the total marks obtained at the examinations in their final year, and they thus obtain an advantage over other candidates for admission to training.

    Queen's Colleges, Irieland—Status of Professors.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the present professors in the three Queen's Colleges, Ireland, are civil servants, and as such eligible for pensions payable out of the Consolidated Fund under a modern Superannuation Act; and have any professors of these colleges, when retired, received their pensions hitherto out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys voted by Parliament.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: Professors at present serving in the three Queen's Colleges, Ireland, who hold their appointments under Royal Warrant and who are required to give their whole time to their professional duties are deemed to be persons serving in an established capacity in the permanent Civil Service of the State within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1859, and as such, subject to the conditions laid down under the Superannuation Acts, entitled to pension under that Act. Pensions granted under the Superannuation Act, 1859, are not charged directly on the Consolidated Fund, but are subject to the Vote of Parliament, and all pensions which have been granted to retired professors of the college in question have been paid, and where still payable continue to be paid, out of moneys provided by Parliament.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: If the pension were payable here out of money provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund, would it set free a sufficient amount of money to pay for the Endowed Denominational Higher Education Bill now before the Committee upstairs?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the hon. and gallant Member explain the meaning of that Question?
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I will do so privately to the hon. Member.

    Irish Congested Districts Board.
    MR. DILLONasked if the Congested Districts Board had sent out notice stopping works, although this was the season when they could best be carried on. Was it not probable that this stoppage of work would cause great discontent on the West Coast, and what steps did the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to deal with the situation?
    MR. BIRRELLsaid he had telegraphed to the Board for information but had not yet received a reply. The question was no doubt an important one, and he had been in communication with the Treasury on it.

    Strangford Bar Whistling Buoy.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the whistling buoy the Irish Lights Commissioners have decided to place at Strangford Bar, County Down, is yet in position; and, if not, can he promise that it will be moored before the autumn, when rough weather is generally experienced in that locality.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Board of Trade have not yet given their statutory sanction to the expenditure for this work, and I am in communication with the Advisory Committee on New Lighthouse Works in regard to it. I am afraid, however, it will not be possible for such a buoy to be placed in position before the autumn.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: This has been going on a long time. Surely it does not take two years to supply a whistling buoy?
    MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to say it would be provided as soon as possible.

    The Autumn Sitting of Parliament.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, for the convenience of those Members of this House whose homes are at a distance, he can state on what day he proposes the House should rise for the autumn recess and on what day it should meet for the winter session.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement on this matter.

    Wholesale Wine and Spirit Merchants' Licences.
    MR. MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is intended by Clause 21 of the Licensing Bill that all wholesale wine and spirit merchants shall be obliged to make application to the justices for a licence to carry on their business, in lieu of obtaining a licence direct from the Excise authorities, which is their only obligation at the present time.
    MR. ASQUITH: There is no wine dealers' licence for sale by wholesale only. A justice's licence will therefore under the provisions of Clause 21 be required before an Excise licence to deal in wines can be obtained, in view of the permission to engage in retail trade given by that licence. The spirit dealer's licence on the other hand covers wholesale trade only and therefore does not come within the provisions of the clause.

    Franchise Reform.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to state when the Government Bill for the reform of the franchise will be introduced.
    MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.

    Old-age Pensions Bill.
    MR. W. R. REAasked if the Prime Minister was willing to recommit the Old-age Pensions Bill on Monday.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid he was willing to move to recommit the Bill in respect of the schedule and also in respect of the disqualification on account of the receipt of parochial or other relief, on Monday, about eight o'clock. In order to avoid the abrupt termination of the debate, he proposed to suspend the eleven o'clock rule, but he presumed there was a general agreement that the scope of the debate should not be extended beyond the points indicated.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasking for information as to next week's business, inquired especially whether then, or in some subsequent week an opportunity would be given for discussion on the Army Estimates for the Special Reserve, a matter of very great importance, on which the House of Commons had really had no opportunity of raising questions on the policy of the Government. Referring to the Prime Minister's earlier statement as to the recommittal of the Old-age Pensions Bill, he intimated that he was unconscious of any bargain or arrangement on this matter, and he imagined that the House would take its own course as to the manner in which it would use its time.
  MR. ASQUITH,in repeating the arrangements for Monday, agreed that there was no question of a bargain, but he must plainly state that if there was any disposition shown to extend the scope of the discussion on the recommittal of the Old-age Pensions Bill he would have to reconsider whether he should propose the Motion at all. On Tuesday he would take the Report Stage of the Old-age Pensions Bill, and, in order to leave an interval between Report and Third Reading, take the latter on Thursday, instead of Supply, which would be taken on Wednesday, the Navy Estimates being put down. Vote 5 would be taken first, then Vote 14, and afterwards, if time permitted, Votes 13 and 15, the remainder of the sitting being devoted to the Scottish Estimates—the Fishery Board and the Local Government Board Votes. On Friday would be taken the Motion customary at that time of the session relating to the sitting of the House after eleven o'clock, and afterwards unless an arrangement was arrived at in the interval with regard to the Report stage of the Irish Universities Bill, a Procedure Resolution relating to that measure. He would consider the suggestion as to Army Supply, although four days had already been given to it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURpointed out that they were broken days.
  MR. ASQUITH: I will, of course, look into the question.
  MR. JAMES HOPEasked if it was intended that there should be no longer interval between the recommittal of the Old-age Pensions Bill and the Report than the time between the close of Monday's sitting and the sitting of Tuesday.
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir, that is the case.
  MR. WEIRexpressed a hope that the Secretary of Scotland would be granted time to deal with questions other than these relating to Vatersay which occupied practically the whole of the sitting devoted to Scottish Estimates
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he believed the general desire was that he should put down the Vote for the Fishery Board first.

  COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [LORDS],
    POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL> [LORDS], AND

      STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [LORDS].
      Ordered, "That so much of the Lords Message of 1st July as relates to the time and place of meeting of the Joint Committee on the Companies (Consolidation) Bill [Lords], Post Office Consolidation Bill [Lords], and Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords], be now considered."—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)
      Lords Message considered accordingly.
      Ordered, "That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships."
      Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Mr. J. A. Pease.)

      CHILDREN BILL.
      Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
      Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 207.]
      Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 207.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 291.]

      SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
      Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Access to Mountains Bill): Sir William Anson; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Viscount Helmsley.
      Report to lie upon the Table.

    NEW BILLS.
      TEACHERS OF MUSIC REGISTRATION BILL.
      "To provide for the Registration of Teachers of Music," presented by Mr. O'Neill; supported by Sir John Brunner, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, and Sir George White; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 292.]
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
      "To further amend the Law relating to Local Government in Ireland; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Birrell; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 293.]

      SUPPLY [14TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
      Considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1908– 1909.

      CLASS IV.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £114,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,

      989
      1909, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland."
      MR. HAZLETONsaid that in rising to propose the reduction in the Vote for Irish primary education which stood in his name upon the Paper, he did not think it necessary to cover the general ground that had so often and so well been covered before on this question. The defects of primary education threatened, he feared, to become a stock subject of debate on the Irish Estimates. He could imagine no worse fate for any good cause, for it was very frequently the case that the oftener a subject was talked about in the House the less attention was paid to it, and the more it was misunderstood. Hon. Members had heard so much of this on previous occasions that the moment it was mentioned now they flow elsewhere, leaving the Solicitor-General to bear the burden practically alone. He did not, however, blame the English and Scottish Members for not taking an interest in Irish primary education. It was no concern of theirs. They had not to pay for it, their people had not to suffer under it, and they had no incentive towards seeking to have its condition improved. That, however, was not the case with the Nationalist Members, and they were there to raise the question once again, in spite of the discouragement of an indifferent House of Commons, an irresponsible Board of Education, and a hostile Treasury. He did not propose to cover the general ground that had so often been gone over. To those who took an interest in it a general statement of the case was hardly necessary, because they were already familiar with it. For those who did not take that interest it was still more unnecessary, because it would be merely waste of time. He would, therefore, content himself with a brief survey of the main points with which they had to deal. Their complaints as formulated up to last year, against the condition of primary education in Ireland, might be classified under three heads, the first concerning the school teachers, the second concerning the school buildings, and the third concerning the school programmes. Concerning the teachers, they had pointed
      990
      out for many years that compared with similar classes of teachers in England and Scotland, they were scandalously underpaid. They were unduly subject to dismissal, and they were unfairly deprived of the ordinary right of citizens. With regard to the school buildings, they had pointed out that the condition of a very large number of primary schools had been for long a disgrace to any civilised authority, ill-ventilated, unheated, providing totally insufficient accommodation, and very often in a shocking state of disrepair. With regard to the school programme, the foremost of their complaints had to do with the treatment of the Irish language, and the attempt which was made to strangle it as soon as it had acquired a foothold in the schools. The first question he proposed to consider was how far their complaints under these three heads had been met by the Government. He was glad to be able at the outset to acknowledge that under each of the three heads there had been an important improvement. There had been a distinct advance along the lines they wished to see followed, and the realisation of some part at least of those reforms which they had so long and so earnestly pressed upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not want it to be understood for a moment that they were satisfied with the progress that had been made under any one of these heads. They had asked for simple justice, and had merely received an instalment. It was only right and fair and reasonable to acknowledge that where others had failed the present Chief Secretary had succeeded in improving the conditions under which primary education in Ireland was being carried on. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman had restored the fees for the teaching of the Irish language which were withdrawn by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin. Under the head of school buildings he had procured an additional grant of £40,000 a year for three years. Under the first head, that of school teachers, he had secured a new grant, an addition of £114,000 a year to the salaries. He was not going to enlarge upon the virtues of the right hon. Gentleman as revealed by these facts. He contented himself

      991
      with placing them upon record. He was glad to be able for a brief moment before plunging into the criticism which it was absolutely necessary to make even with regard to the virtues of the right hon. Gentleman to acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman had done in this direction. The question he wanted to draw attention to was that of the salaries of the teachers in the National schools. In March of last year the present Secretary took upon himself the role of prophet and said—
      "I am afraid, although I shall continue to press the case for an increase in the pay of the teachers as strongly as I can, and although I expect to get a contribution towards that object, it will not be on a scale which will give satisfaction to hon. Gentlemen opposite."
      The Chief Secretary was right. He had secured an increase of £114,000, but it would be no news to him that not only the amount of this increase but its allocation would cause something more than dissatisfaction. Dismay was the only word that could properly describe the effect which this proposal had had amongst the teachers, particularly amongst the very large number of them who had been absolutely deprived of all benefit under the proposal. The demand of the teachers and of the National Board was for an increase amounting altogether to somewhere about £400,000. Of course they were told that Ireland was a poorer country than England, and that wages ought to be lower; and they were reminded that the schools were smaller, proportionately very much more numerous, and therefore more costly. But in this as in most other matters the British Government had reduced discrimination against Irish interests to the point of a fine art. All that was required by any standard of comparison before it was set up by the Government was that it must tell against Irish interests. For instance, on the basis of population, when Ireland was being enormously under-represented in that House they were told that population was not a proper basis for representation; but as soon as the population test began to tell against Ireland they were told it was the only sound principle. Then when it was shown that according to the taxable capacity of Ireland they were being overtaxed to the extent of nearly £3,000,000 a year they were
      992
      reminded that expenditure was the proper test, and not taxable capacity, to apply in the case of Ireland. In this case the population basis would tell in favour of the teachers and of an increase in their salaries. Therefore, it was not to be entertained. Likewise, if they turned to all the ordinary bases of comparison such as average attendance, the number on the school rolls and similar tests, they found that the one which was inevitably acted upon by the Treasury and by the Government was that which told most against the interests of the teachers and of education in Ireland. With regard to the increase of £114,000 the same criticism applied. It was the least possible increase that could be given, allocated in the worst possible manner. £14,000 of this sum was to go to teachers in schools having an average attendance of, at least, seventy, and the remaining £100,000 to teachers in schools having an average attendance of not less than thirty-five. The provision that no teacher under the National Board in Ireland was to have any share or part of this increase unless his school had an average attendance of thirty-five was of so extraordinary a character that he could hardly realise or believe that it had been seriously put forward. If there was to be a serious attempt to stick to it on the part of the Government he would tell the right hon. Gentleman frankly and at once that far from allaying the present discontent, far from remedying the present injustice, the proposal would accentuate both in the highest degree, and create an agitation of new and exceptional violence. It could not be otherwise when it was seen that this provision about an average attendance of thirty-five meant the absolute exclusion of 2,867 teachers from any share in this increase of salary. When it was remembered that these 2,867 teachers in the small schools were those who were most urgently in need of some increase in their salaries because in most cases at present they had not even a living wage, the cruelty and the meanness of the provision stood out in the strongest light. He did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman himself could approve of this contemptible action. He did not

      993
      believe that even the National Board could approve of it, and he believed that neither he nor they were responsible for it. He ventured to assert that as usual it was the ugly hand of the Treasury that had deprived this concession of its good effect by committing this horrible injustice on the teachers of the small schools. £20,000 more, a mere bagatelle compared with what they were entitled to, would have brought them under the benefits of this increase and avoided the creation of an intolerable situation which could not possibly be allowed to continue. The Committee would wait with interest to hear what explanation the right hon. Gentleman had to give of this business—how it was that he consented to such a proposal. Even if he failed to secure the necessary £20,000 that would have provided these 2,867 teachers with the increased salary, if the Treasury defeated him in his efforts to get that, surely it was his duty and the duty of the National Board to see that the £114,000 was so divided that no teacher would be excluded from a share of the grant. That at least was not an unreasonable attitude. But of this the right hon. Gentleman might rest assured, that the present arrangement could not be allowed to stand. Speaking on behalf of his colleagues he told him that they were not going to abandon the teachers of the small schools in Ireland to the rapacity of the British Treasury. The development of the small schools had been part of the settled policy of the National Board in the past. Through its power of the purse the Treasury had interfered more than once in the most flagrant manner with questions of educational policy altogether outside its province, and threatened now to push its prerogative to an altogether unconstitutional extent. They resented very strongly its action in this matter, and they would resist it resolutely to the end, for they could not and would not allow the question to rest until justice was done to those unfortunate people. The whole business illustrated very forcibly the utter hopelessness of this country ever being able to handle Irish affairs effectively or efficiently. They demanded an increase of salary for their ill-paid teachers. They gave them an increase of
      994
      £114,000, but they did it in such a way as to accentuate instead of to remove existing grievances and injustices. The fact was, of course, that do what they would, they could not govern Ireland successfully from Westminster. The Chief Secretary would no doubt inform them when he rose to speak that he tried his best to get the £20,000 for the teachers of the small schools, but that the Treasury told him that it had no money. No money! That was always the cry, and yet they were going now to spend £700,000 or £1,000,000 a year in Ireland on old-age pensions, without even asking them if they wanted it, merely because it suited English policy, and without any thought or concern as to whether they in Ireland could put that huge amount to better advantage in some other direction. He had, in what he had said, confined himself mainly to the one question of salaries, because he thought that at this moment to introduce other matters might tend to obscure that important issue. When all was said and done, the question of salaries was one of vital importance, because the efficiency of education depended largely upon the teachers, and the efficiency of the teachers depended largely upon their salaries. They wanted to attract the best material they could to the profession. They wanted to level up the standard of teaching. To do so was all the more important now that there was a reasonable hope of University facilities being extended to a large section of the Irish people who had hitherto been excluded from its benefits. However he might have failed in other directions, it looked as if it were in the sphere of education that the right hon. Gentleman would leave behind him the most lasting memorials of his rule in Ireland. As an educationist of distinction, the knowledge of that fact must be some satisfaction for the trials and difficulties of his position, but it ought all the more to impel him to leave no effort unmade to strengthen the foundations on which the work he had done for Irish education rested He urged him in this matter with all the earnestness at his command to do his utmost to remove without delay an injustice which, if allowed to go on, could not fail to impair and might imperil the future of Irish primary

      995
      education. He begged to move the reduction standing in his name.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £113,900, be granted for the said Service":—(Mr. Hazleton).
      MR. J. MURPHYsaid he desired to second the Motion Which had been moved in such an eloquent and clear manner by the hon. Member for Galway. He had had a close connection with primary education, and there were some points he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman in order to elicit a clear and definite statement, not only on the Supplementary Estimate, but on the entire question of primary education in Ireland. The debate was wisely and properly to be confined to a discussion in the first instance of the amount and distribution of the Supplementary Estimate, but there were other issues and other matters in connection with primary education upon which it would be well that the right hon. Gentleman should express his views and opinions. No harm would be done by recalling to the Committee what had happened in Ireland during the last few years. The Chief Secretary had broken the record, and attended a meeting in Ireland at which he delivered a speech that raised the expectations, not only of the teachers, but also of everybody connected with education in Ireland. They were all gratified with what he said in that speech, and they trusted him; and if they had been disappointed it certainly was not his desire to throw the blame upon the right hon. Gentleman. To a large extent he regarded the Chief Secretary as a strong man struggling with fate, and he would not be surprised if his mind was not something of a congested district in regard to Ireland. The question of primary education was one upon which the right hon. Gentleman's views were expressed most definitely and clearly, and they had the greatest possible hope at the time in regard to his future action. They had moved to reduce this Vote merely as a formality, because if they had the power their desire would be to increase it by £300,000. The hon. Member for Galway had pointed out that the claim put forward by the teachers was for
      996
      £400,000 in reference to salaries and improvements in their position. That was also the claim of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland, the body who had charge of primary education, who insisted that £400,000 was required to deal with the urgent grievance of the teachers' salaries and other matters connected with education. To meet this absolute necessity they had been presented by the Treasury with an Estimate of £114,000. The distribution of that sum was a matter about which there was likely to be serious dissatisfaction in Ireland, and it was most desirable that attention should be called to the fact that while not only were the representatives of Ireland, but also the Commissioners of Education, and, he hoped, the Chief Secretary himself, of one way of thinking as to the amount of the grant and as to the distribution of it, the Secretary to the Treasury, or the Treasury themselves, stepped in and over-rode the opinions and the representations of everybody connected with Ireland in the matter. That was a disgraceful condition of affairs, and it represented how hopeless and disgusting was the condition in matters of education, as in other matters, when they came to be discussed before the House. The hon. Gentleman who represented the Treasury knew nothing whatever about primary education in Ireland, and his predecessor was in the same position. When a Question was asked, the hon. Gentleman said that the Treasury had so decided the matter against the wishes and opinions of everybody in Ireland. That was a condition of affairs which the Chief Secretary should not allow to continue. The greatest dissatisfaction existed in Ireland in reference to the exclusion of 2,860 teachers of small schools from the proposed distribution of the Supplementary Estimate. The small schools had been created and the teachers put in them by the policy which was carried on in Ireland by the Commissioners of Education and the Irish Government, and it certainly could not be in reason for the Treasury or anybody else who undertook the government of Ireland to say that these teachers should now be left out in the Cold and receive no share of the money that was being distributed in Ireland in connection

      997
      with education. The difficulty he was in in discussing the matter was this. He observed that in the Vote for public education there were two subheads, E and H, under which certain money was voted for certain schools in Ireland. The two sums added together, there was a difference of £20,320 of increase over last year's expenditure for dealing with schools the average attendance of which had been between twenty and thirty. That kind of school would practically cover all the excluded schools, and the sum he had mentioned was exactly the difference between what would be necessary to include in the distribution all the excluded teachers. It was rather difficult for the Irish Members to discus this question without knowing exactly whether that £20,320 was meant for the excluded teachers, and whether, if it was given, it would be equal compensation to them for the other sum to be distributed among the remaining teacher in Ireland. Perhaps the Chief Secretary would indicate in some way whether he was right in thinking——
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to call his attention to the sum in Estimate E, where there is an increase of £26,260?
      MR. J. MURPHYsaid that was the increase under Subhead E, but there was a decrease of £6,000 under Subhead H, and of course when both were taken together there was an increase of £20,260.
      MR. BIRRELLsaid he was afraid the £26,260 represented simply the normal increase in the capitation fees paid to teachers under the existing regulations, and that it would not in any way be free to make up the deficiency from which the excluded teachers would suffer.
      MR. J. MURPHYsaid that that statement enabled him and his friends to know where they were. It showed that a substantial number in Ireland were to be excluded. That was a most unsatisfactory condition of affairs. These small schools existed in every part of Ireland. He knew one in the Gap of Dunloe which was placed there for the advantage of a limited number of children, the average
      998
      attendance of whom could not possibly come up. It was a question there of having a small school or no school at all. That case was similar to many in nearly all the other parts of Ireland. Most of these small schools were schools which could not be amalgamated, and therefore the teachers in them would have a hopeless existence if they were now to be told, as they were told by the present distribution of the Supplementary Estimate, that they could hope for nothing in the way of the betterment of their salaries and their position generally. What the representatives of Ireland should demand to-day was not a distribution of £114,000 among all the schools of Ireland, but that the right hon. Gentleman should insist on the Treasury giving the remaining £20,000 necessary to deal with all the teachers in a similar manner. It ought to be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to tackle the question and to bring the Treasury to recognise that Ireland had that claim, and to deal with it justly and properly. It was a question of the greatest concern to a vast number of the poorest people in Ireland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that Ireland got this £20,000 for the purpose of the present Estimate. If he was able to get it one of the difficulties of the situation would be overcome. They would have an opportunity of having every class in Ireland receiving the same benefit under the present Supplementary Estimate, and while, of course, all the Members from Ireland would be in agreement that it was not sufficient or so large as it ought to be, and while it would not prevent them from asking more, it would certainly give them the feeling that a first instalment of justice had been done, and the teaching body in Ireland would recognise that nobody was about to be excluded. Supposing he right hon. Gentleman allowed the Treasury to maintain their present attitude as to the distribution of the money, what was going to be the result? There would be 3,000 discontented teachers in reland, forming a third of the entire body. These teachers would be in a condition of unrest, and they would lave behind them the entire sympathy of the Irish representatives, and a storm would be raised over the matter which

      999
      would destroy the good which was being done by the right hon. Gentleman in obtaining the grant for other sections of people. All parties in Ireland and the representatives of Ireland in this House were unanimous on this matte. The last meeting which he addressed regard to primary education was presided over by a Catholic bishop, and resolution was moved by a Presbyterian minister, seconded by a Methodist, and supported by people of all political and social conditions in Ireland. Surely if they presented a case of that description to the right hon. Gentleman and his Government, and if they could say without fear of contradiction that the distribution suggested by the Treasury would go against the opinions and the feelings of all these classes in Ireland, and the necessary changes were not made, it became a hopeless task to discuss any question in the House. He believed that the intentions and the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman were well-directed in most matters connected with Ireland, and he appealed to him to do something in connection with this question which would remove the feeling of unrest and dissatisfaction and place the distribution on an equitable basis. He wanted to know how the assistant teachers in Irish schools, of whom there were a large number, were to be affected by the distribution. It was really not quite clear what was intended to be done with them. As the distribution stood at present it would appear as if the teachers of large schools were not only to get bonuses but capitation grants into the bargain. He wished to get an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of the proposal in both those respects. By doing so the right hon. Gentleman would put at rest the doubts and suspicions of a large number of people in Ireland. The question of teachers in small schools and of assistant teachers was of great importance to about 13,000 people in Ireland, and, therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make quite clear what he proposed to do in carrying out the distribution of the increased grant. Turning to the question of primary education in Ireland, he believed that the Irish Party had not receded one single bit from their attitude in reference
      1000
      to the constitution, administration, and the whole position of primary education, notwithstanding anything that had happened since the subject was last discussed by the House of Commons. Speaking for himself and for a large body in Ireland they felt that the constitution of the Irish Education Commission was not only wrong but un representative, and they desired as much as ever that it should be changed into something like a representative and intelligent authority. They could never have a sensible and proper system of primary education in Ireland so long as the Board was constituted of men who were past their prime and capacity. He had a special complaint against the Chief Secretary. During the past year there was a vacancy on the Board. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thought he could do nothing to improve the Board until the opportunity came to sweep it away altogether However, the Chief Secretary placed upon it General Butler. General Butler had spent all his life in the Army, with, he understood, a very creditable record; but he did not think it was quite the thing for primary education in Ireland that such a gentleman who had spent most of his life abroad in another service, should be brought in, or that he would be in a position to communicate what was necessary in relation to primary education to the Treasury and the Government. He knew perfectly well that General Butler had given many evidences of a keen knowledge of educational matters, and he merely mentioned his name in this connection as an indication of the settled policy of the Government in reference to the constitution of the Commission. He hoped that if another opportunity occurred the Chief Secretary would try another method and endeavour to place on the Commission someone belonging to the new ideas in relation to education in Ireland—someone who understood the present desires of the younger generation and who would be in touch with their wants and requirements—while he was waiting to make a greater change on that body. He believed that one such man could effect many changes of importance in regard to primary education. Questions were arising from day to day

      1001
      which at present there was no opportunity of considering. Dr. Starkie, he under stood, was practically the Board or matters of routine and detail. Dr. Starkie had a peculiar reputation in certain sections in Ireland, but when one came in contact with him it was found that he was not so bad as he was painted; and that if a case was put before him he was inclined to give it consideration. But it was not for him, or the Irish representatives, or the unfortunate people of Ireland connected with education to hunt after Dr. Starkie and explain every requirement. The Board ought to be so constituted that the resident officials would be in the position of seeking what was the right thing to do. Let him give a case in point. A rule had been made by the Commission making it practically impossible for a teacher in Ireland to hold a licence. He acknowledged that all Members interested in education believed that that was a right and necessary rule. He himself did not think that teachers ought to seek to obtain a licence in the future. But he thought that it was most unjust for the Commission to make the rule retrospective, and victimise a man who happened to marry a lady who had a public-house, and obtain a licence in that accidental manner, and in consequence of that had his salary kept from him by the Commission for a considerable time. In fact, no appeal which had been made to the Commission in regard to the matter had moved them. That was not an isolated case. There were more people in Ireland who had had licences in their possession in the way he had mentioned, and it was grievously unfair and improper that the Commission should withhold salaries in such cases. There was another point in connection with primary education in Ireland which affected not only the teachers but the children. The question of the maintenance and the methods of cleaning and heating the primary schools in Ireland had been often put before the Chief Secretary and the Commission, and he was personally disappointed that something had not been placed on the Estimates with the object of making the schools clean, warm, and comfortable. The teachers, much as they desired higher salaries—as was the way with
      1002
      ordinary human beings—had always put forward claims for greater assistance in connection with the cleaning and heating of the schools, but these had not been conceded; and so long as they had the power to call attention to this question they would press it forward and insist upon its being dealt with in a proper way by the Treasury. There was no difficulty about the money; there ought to be no difficulty about the money; and really it was annoying to find the President of the Board of Agriculture and the Secretary for Education rushing to the Treasury and other Departments for money to build up voluntary and technical education which would be utterly useless as long as primary education was in its present poor and needy position in Ireland. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman with all the force he could, that he should disregard most other claims dealing with education in Ireland until he had put on a proper, sensible, and well-conducted basis the education of the poor who were the most necessitous in the country from an educational point of view. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman that while lie said that he could not control the Education Commission good as a wink to a nod was as many of the officials in Ireland; and if he would nod to Dr. Starkie that when that gentleman was dealing with his inspectors he should induce them to adopt a sympathetic attitude to the teachers instead of the method of continuous faultfinding, it would effect a good deal in he way of smoothing over difficulties and improving the education in the primary schools. The teachers should be able to look upon the inspectors as their friends, who would have regard to their virtues and not always to their faults. He desired to put the question of the supplementary grant in the first place, but the whole question of primary education in Ireland was pressing and urgent, and the settlement of it would be watched with interest. They still remained in regard to primary education where they were a year ago. The subject was calling for reform, and the Irish Party were determined to use all their efforts to rouse public opinion until there would be a storm in Ireland that would succeed in obtaining a

      1003
      system of primary education well supplied with money, well constructed, leading the youngsters of Ireland to being properly equipped for their position in life, and giving them such an education as they required, deserved, and had shown themselves capable of benefiting by.
      MR. WALTER LONG: It will be convenient if at this early stage of the debate I speak as an Irish Unionist representative and for the Irish Unionists. They most cordially and unanimously support the view put forward by the hon. Gentleman who has spoken with regard to the new grant of £114,000. With all the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman it must be understood I do not altogether agree. I have had the honour of holding the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland for some time and was brought into close contact with Dr. Starkie and the National Education Board; and I have seen a good deal of Dr. Starkie and his colleagues. Of course it is very easy to criticise any body of public men, whatever their duties and functions may be; but I think it would be well if all public bodies discharged their functions as efficiently as the Irish Board of Education. Dr. Starkie is, in my opinion, one of the most earnest and devoted servants of education to be found in this or any other country. I regret that a cause so important as this should have been brought forward in a House which does not appear to be very interested in what is going on. I cannot help noticing that there are a wonderful number of seats vacant on the benches opposite. I know that one of the causes of the absence of some Members of Parliament on this occasion is that they cannot serve on Grand Committee all day and come here also in the afternoon, and therefore we have a thin House to discuss a question of vital importance. The hon. Members below the gangway are very kind. So far does their kindness carry them that they will do what I should have thought hardly any supporter of the Government would do. They will break the Government up into compartments and seek to draw distinctions between the Irish administration and the Treasury.
      MR. J. MURPHYsaid the right hon. Gentleman was stating the exactly
      1004
      reverse position to that on which he insisted, namely, that the Treasury and the Irish Government were the same.
      MR. WALTER LONG: The mover of the Motion stated that this was not the Chief Secretary, but the horrible hands of the Treasury again, and that they knew the right hon. Gentleman would do everything that he could. I cannot take that view. The Government must be regarded as a whole. It is impossible to shelter the Irish administration behind the Treasury. With regard to the old controversy between the Irish administration and the Treasury this is not the first time by many that it has been raised, and no doubt we shall hear more of it in years to come. But I hold very strongly that it is the duty and function of the Treasury to decide what money shall be allocated to the different parts of the United Kingdom for different purposes, but that when it comes to the distribution of that money in the countries concerned, the Treasury have no right to speak upon that matter. I earnestly beg the Chief Secretary, who has the reputation of being a strong man, to take this occasion to assert his right as head of the Irish administration to take the money allotted by the Treasury and make the most of it, and to get more if he can. This is not one of those occasions of which it has been said that all the Irishmen are agreed for the moment because they are going to get more money out of the Treasury. That is not the reason for the agreement between the Irish Unionists and Nationalists on this occasion. Our reason is that not only do you fail to do good by the change that you are making in the system of education, but that you may do very great harm. I am astounded when I find the sum is put at another £20,000. The Estimate that was shown to me was rather larger, but we may take it that £20,000 would cover the difference in regard to these small schools. It is, therefore, inconceivable that when you have made up your mind to give a grant of £114,000 you should spoil your whole scheme for £20,000. Assume that the object of this change is to bring about a reform which in the opinion of every educationist in every part of

      1005
      the United Kingdom is a wise reform. If it be possible to secure so far as you can the amalgamation of small schools you secure economy and educational improvement. But in the Irish case this reform is an impossible one for two reasons. First you have the religious difficulty, which makes amalgamation impossible, and then you have the still greater difficulty—a difficulty which is insuperable—that in some parts of Ireland, notably in the South and West, the schools which come below the average attendance of thirty-five are the small schools in the scattered districts in which the children cannot come to them except under conditions which would make school attendance absolute cruelty. But even supposing that it were possible and advisable, I protest against this way of doing it. If it is believed by the powers that be that amalgamation of schools is necessary, by all means amalgamate them, but do it in the right way. If you cannot do it without punishing somebody, punish the right people. Here you are doing it in the wrong way and punishing the wrong people. You are not seeking to give special advantages to any amalgamation by way of examination. Your amalgamation should be carried out with advantage to the schools concerned, but you are seeking to do it by punishing these small schools who have nothing to do with it and who by their own energy, ability, and industry have done much to make up the shortcomings of the system. Yet the teachers of these schools, the most unselfish and most devoted class in the whole of the land, are the people you are punishing for the sake of £20,000. We are told that out of the 13,000 national school teachers some 3,000 will be affected. In Connaught there are 1,418 National schools, and 607 of these will be excluded from the benefits of the new capitation grant, the average attendance in them being 26·7 and the total number of children attending no less than 16,257. It is almost incredible that for the sake of £20,000 or £30,000 you are going to inflict an injury so grave on the younger generation of the Irish people. It is sometimes said that Ireland ought to contribute more to the cost of educa-
      1006
      and that the cost is larger in proportion to other parts of the country, but there are difficulties existing there which create an inevitable necessity for a larger number of schools than exists elsewhere. I do not think that against either of the churches in Ireland the charge can be made that they have not put their hands into their pockets and paid generously for the provision of educational facilities. Surely you are not going to spoil the generosity of a grant like this by making it fall so much below the necessary amount as to do harm where harm will be most felt and where the people are the least able to protect themselves. I welcome the increased grants as an improvement in the condition of the teachers in the larger schools, but they are the strongest of the teaching body and best able to defend their own rights. The teachers in the smaller schools are the weaker members of the community, least able to defend themselves, yet they are the victims selected for this treatment. It is not because we are united for the purpose of making a joint raid upon the public purse that we ask the Government to reconsider their policy. I do not know who in Ireland would be found to approve of this change. I am sure the National Commissioners have done their best to prevent it. No education authority in Ireland approves of drawing this unusual and unmerited distinction between the two classes of teachers, and in regard to the children there can be but one opinion. I am informed that if the change is insisted upon it will result in the destruction of some of the smaller schools. I do not know whether efforts can or would be made to preserve them. I am assured that there is great risk of some of them being overwhelmed. We are entitled to ask the Government what is their policy in the event of this result following from the alteration in the grant. In England and Scotland if you destroy by legislation or administration the voluntary schools, you have a substitute ready to hand, and machinery to provide schools at the cost of the public, but you have no system of that kind in Ireland. If the benches opposite had been fuller, if the majority of the Members of the House were present, to whatever party or

      1007
      creed they belonged or whatever views they had upon denominational education, they would be convinced that a gross act of injustice is being done and that every effort should be made and influence brought to bear to induce the Government to change their ground before it is too late. The case is simple in the extreme. There is much to be done for the improvement of the condition of the teachers in national schools; there are heavy arrears to be undertaken in regard to many conditions of elementary schools in Ireland. I admit that everything cannot be done at once, but if you are taking a step forward, if you are really going to do something effective in the cause of education and improving the condition of the teachers, then let your policy be general, let it apply to all concerned, in order that it may leave behind it no rankling feeling of injustice and soreness, and you will have done something not only to help the teachers but the children.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he did not suppose that there was any single phase of Irish government which so completely showed how the country suffered from lack of self-government as the question of education. There was, of course, general agreement that in no country in the world was the subject so much one of national interest, and so carefully watched as in Ireland. Yet it was perfectly true to say that in Ireland the cause of education had suffered probably more than had any other matter concerning the national daily life of the country. He re-echoed the wish of the right hon. Gentleman who just sat down that the Benches opposite had been better filled, for hon. Members would then have seen that there was good reason why the Irish people so passionately desired to be allowed to manage their own affairs, in their own country, and without, reference to that House. The voice of Ireland was one upon this matter. The hon. Members for Galway and Kerry represented the Nationalist Members in urging the matter upon the Government, and they had been supported by the right hon. Member for South Dublin, who led the Unionist Party in Ireland. They found that from East and West, North and South of Ireland, Unionists and Nationalists,
      1008
      Catholics and Protestants presented a unanimous case to the Government. It certainly would be most interesting to hear what the reply of the Chief Secretary could possibly be to the demand that had been put forward. They were sometimes told that no matter how well disposed the Government might be, they found it impossible to carry out their good intentions because of the action of the Treasury in refusing to grant sufficient money to carry out what everybody in Ireland believed to be necessary. That might have held good with the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, but were they to be told that the Treasury which was now under the control of the Liberal Government, the Government which had expressed its entire sympathy with the Irish people in their national demands, was still to pursue the old tradition of denying to the Irish people what was necessary to meet their requirements in a matter so vital as education? He yielded to nobody in his belief that the Chief Secretary and many of his colleagues were deeply in sympathy with the demands of the Irish people, but the right hon. Gentleman must allow him to say, with every possible deference, that the time had really come when the great majority of the people of Ireland would refuse to continue their belief in the sympathy of the present Government unless they saw some practical effect given to it in such a matter as that which they were now discussing. The right hon. Member for South Dublin, had pointed out, in enforcing arguments already used by hon. Members on the National benches, that it was a piece of absurdity for the Government to spoil the entire work, which they proposed to carry out in granting £114,000, by excluding that very class of national teachers who stood most in need of something being done. What did the Chief Secretary think would be the result in Ireland if the present expressed intentions of the Treasury was carried out, and the majority of school teachers received no improvement of their position, while two or three thousand of the poorest and most deserving of national teachers received no increase in their pay as well as no improvement in their position at all? The natural

      1009
      result would be the utmost dissatisfaction from one end of the country to the other. He appealed to the Chief Secretary to set up a precedent Let him stand up at that box and tell the Secretary to the Treasury that this was a matter in which the Department must meat the unanimously expressed desire of the Irish people. They knew that there were differences of opinion as to other matters in which the Treasury was approached daily from Ireland for money—matters relating to the building of labourers' cottages, for the erection of artisans' houses, for forestry, and for numberless other matters; but in this matter of education there was absolutely no difference of opinion whatever in Ireland, and they ought clearly to understand where they were before the discussion was brought to a close. Was the Secretary to the Treasury prepared to get up and say that on this matter, involving some £20,000 extra—it was impossible to give an exact figure, but it had been ascertained that £20,000 would enable the same benefits to be given to all teachers in Ireland under the improved scheme—the Government would run the risk of causing dissatisfaction and of really spoiling the concession which had been made? Were they to go back to their constituents and say that not merely a Tory Government, but the Liberal Government, the Government which had voted for Home Rule, were determined to penalise two or three thousand of their poorest, most needy, and most deserving national teachers in Ireland, because the Treasury of this great Empire refused to complete the scheme with an additional £20,000 or more? If that was the message with which they were to be sent back to Ireland, nobody could be surprised it there should be a wave of indignation from one end of the country to the other. Though he should personally regret any act of discourtesy towards the Chief Secretary, he very much doubted, if they were sent home with such a message, that the right hon. Gentleman would be again so enthusiastically received as he once was by the national teachers of Ireland. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentle-
      1010
      man had done his best in the matter, but he himself should see that the whole force of the Cabinet was brought to his assistance; and he thought if only as a matter of courtesy, that there should have been more Members of the Cabinet present. The Chief Secretary was not all powerful. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman had to resist influences brought against him; and he knew also that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might claim that at the present time he was engaged in serious work connected with his department. Still, the fact remained that while discussing a question which vitally affected the national well-being of Ireland, there was an entire absence of Members of the Liberal Party, and of every Member of the Cabinet except the Chief Secretary, who had with him the Secretary to the Treasury and one of the Irish Law Officers. [Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE entered the House at this moment.] He was very glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman had come in, because at any rate it added one to the audience of four. The Chancellor of the Exchequer understood this question, he had no doubt, already. But he would make a personal appeal to him to see whether, even at the eleventh hour, it was not possible to make some alteration which would do even-handed justice. He did not wish to ask for any favour in the matter. He did not believe that there was a man in the House of Commons on the other side who denied the fairness and justice of the proposition which they submitting. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that after very many weary years of agitation, after numberless Questions in that House, and debate after debate under numerous Governments, at last they had secured a recognition of the fact that the national teachers in Ireland were a body of public servants extremely underpaid, that in proportion they were paid far worse than the school teachers in England, or Scotland, or Wales. They had secured a recognition of the fact hat not only in common justice and fairness to the teachers, but also for the welfare of the children under them, their salaries should be increased, and

      1011
      their position improved to some extent. They got the recognition of their contention that the national teachers ought to be better treated, but everyone knowing the requirements of education would support their claim that £114,000 was inadequate, and even such as it was it did not make provision for any improvement whatever in the condition of 3,000 of the poorest and most deserving of the national teachers. That was not a proposition which could possibly give satisfaction. The schools below thirty-five in average attendance were the most needed schools. They were quite as necessary and useful as the largest attended schools, yet simply because the average was not more than thirty-five, they were to continue to have unjust treatment. They were told it was all because the Government stopped short of an additional grant of £20,000 a year. That was a position which could not be defended. Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to allow the Treasury to put their hand to this matter, to make as far as they were willing to go, a complete job of it, and not to benefit one man because he happened to have 50 or 100 scholars, and to leave another man in a state of practical destitution simply because the inhabitants were sparse, and he could not get more than thirty-five scholars? The position could not possibly be defended, and he appealed to the Chief Secretary to do his best. He believed he always did his best, but after all, could they not in these matters sometimes come to the point of insistence? Sometimes in Ireland men were called to task because they used extravagant and violent language. They were told it was unconstitutional and that nothing was to be gained by it. But a situation of this kind was of itself, without the addition of any other injustice, sufficient to make people, from one end of the country to the other, rebel. There was no civilised country where such a proposition could be made in reference to education, as was now calmly put forward by the Treasury. The injustice perpetrated on 2,000 or 3,000 of the most deserving men would not be tolerated and it would make the whole task of the Government in every other direction much more difficult.
      1012
      There would undoubtedly be unrest, and whatever benefit there might be in the suggestion of the Government would lose all virtue. The besetting sin of English government towards Ireland was always that when a concession was made to the just and right claims of the people it was never made freely, generously, and ungrudgingly. There was always something which spoilt the good contained in the concession. There they had the same story again. He was grateful for the concession, as far as it went, but it was accompanied by a situation fraught with the greatest injustice to the most deserving class. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether the grant could not be enlarged. The teacher of the small school had to work as hard as the teacher of the large school. Let them not go back to Ireland with this fresh proof of the injustice that was now asked to be put upon the teachers of Ireland by helping a certain class and leaving unhelped the most deserving portion of the whole community. He had written a public letter to the Chief Secretary, but he supposed he made it a rule never to read letters addressed to him. Last winter in bitter weather he had visited many National schools on the borders of Clare and Galway. It was enough to go to any man's heart and soul to see on a wet, chilly day, the poor children in schools without any provision made for the proper heating of the room. In one school, a new one, with good roof and windows and stone walls, there was no fire of a proper kind, and the children, many of whom had walked long miles in the rain and mud, sat there all day practically shivering with their teeth almost chattering. It was hard to find turf anywhere in Ireland last year—the weather was so wet, but in some cases the children had actually brought with them in their poor little arms, sods of turf, which smouldered in the fireplace without any spark or gleam of red fire. One teacher he knew spent the money that he could ill afford in trying to keep the children warm, and the managers of many schools also out of their own resources helped to heat the schools. It was said that this was the greatest Empire the world had ever seen, though he had

      1013
      his doubts about it. Anyhow it was one of the richest. Our fleets were everywhere and our flag flew everywhere. The other day when the French President went to the Opera, £2,000 was spent on decorating the walls of Covent Garden with flowers. The other day an hon. Gentleman wanted to insist that the Union Jack should be unfurled over every school in Ireland and Great Britain. They could hoist what they liked over them so far as he was concerned, but let them keep the life in the blood of the children and light fires in the schools. If they hoisted flags over some of these schools that he knew they would probably try to light the fire with the flag. The report of Mr. Dale, the educational expert, showed that what he said was perfectly true as to the lamentably deficient state of these schools in regard to heating, lighting, and sanitary arrangements. It was not a large point, but it went very near the life of the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer occupied one of the greatest positions of the Empire, which he had won by his ability, and those who had seen his career, admired the way in which he had come to the front by his own unaided efforts. But with all that, what he admired most about him was that in his great position he retained a vivid recollection of his days in the Welsh land that he came from when he was, perhaps, a more or less poor boy there, and he knew what the poor had to suffer. He appealed to him in Heaven's name, whatever might be left undone, to see to it that next winter every school in Ireland was from a sanitary point of view put in order and had a good fire. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did this, his name would be regarded with deep respect in Ireland, and they would say that there was at last at the head of the British Treasury a man who in the midst of all his great work had a heart to feel for the sufferings, the requirements, and the needs of the little ones who went barefooted along the road in order to get that knowledge which their parents were anxious they should have. He felt very strongly upon this point because he had investigated the matter for himself. In a letter which he wrote to the Freeman's Journal he invited the Chief Secretary to deal
      1014
      with the matter and he asked the Government to see that next winter, at any rate, this state of things should be rectified, and that in future the schools of Ireland were properly ventilated and put into a proper sanitary condition. If this were done it would have the effect of benefiting the children, enabling them to learn more, and it would also make the burden of the national teachers of Ireland much lighter.
      MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he desired to raise his voice in support of what had been said upon this question. The small schools referred to had been created and maintained as the result of the express legislation of that House. In 1892 after a protracted struggle between successive Governments, the different religious denominations in Ireland held out for denominational education of the strictest kind, although temptations on the basis of undenominational schools were offered. In the end the Government felt overcome by the universal opposition, and recognised that the only system upon which primary education could be run in Ireland was on strictly denominational lines. The necessary consequence of that policy was the springing up of small schools containing on an average of anything from twenty to forty pupils. Anyone who knew anything of the state of Ireland, particularly in the west and south, and many counties in the north, must recognise the fact that there were many places in which the members of a particular religious denomination could not get within a radius of three or four miles more than about twenty or thirty children to attend a particular school. If they closed up that school or did anything that would render it impossible to carry it on, inevitably they would leave those twenty or thirty children without any provision for education or else they would compel them against the express wishes of their parents and the approved policy of Parliament to attend schools under a different religious management and of a different persuasion altogether from that in which their parents believed. Accordingly in many parts of the North there were schools under Roman Catholic management where the

      1015
      entire children within three or four miles of the school did not exceed anything from ten to thirty. On the other hand, in the West of Ireland there were small isolated communities of Protestants, and the same in the South, where they found it impossible if those schools were to be conducted under teachers and managers of a different religious persuasion to run them with any prospect of getting more than twenty to forty pupils. Parliament had recognised this principle and from time to time had held out attractions and inducements to those various religious denominations in Ireland to fall in with the national school system on the understanding and undertaking that Parliament would support and retain those small schools. In the year 1892 there was passed a National Education Bill for Ireland which expressly recognised that a capitation grant was to be provided in schools of an average attendance of 10, and a salary for a teacher was to be provided in schools with an average attendance of 20. From that day under the authority and sanction of Parliament any number of those small schools had been founded in different parts of Ireland where the average attendance was anything between 10 and 40. He did not know who was responsible for the principle upon which the grant of £114,000 had been allocated. They had been told that in the allocation of the grant no teacher was to get any bonus unless there was an average attendance of 70 in his school, and that the extra capitation grant of 5s. a head to each child was to be confined to schools with a minimum attendance of 35. It was self-evident that such an allocation and distribution must do grievous injury and wrong in the very quarters where it would be felt the most, and to the very persons who stood most in need of some benefit. While he agreed that those teachers in schools with an average attendance of 35 or 70 were undoubtedly in an unfavourable position as contrasted with the teachers of England and Scotland, and that undoubtedly they had a claim upon the Treasury for a substantial addition to their salaries, it could not be denied that they were in a stronger position than their poorer brethen who were receiving
      1016
      the salaries of third-class teachers in schools where the attendance was between 10 and 20. It was an extraordinary thing that the principle should be adopted which necessarily excluded from any benefit the very class of people in the very class of schools which stood most in need of help. He had been deluged with remonstrances and complaints because it was evident that the allocation now proposed was a new policy and effected a new departure. Evidently the idea in the mind of the Treasury was that it they were to allocate this grant on the lines proposed in the Estimate, the result necessarily would be the closing of a number of the smaller schools, and in the long run the Treasury would save what they granted this year a few years hence, because by the closing of schools they would save the salaries of a large number of the present teachers. If there was any idea of that kind abroad, or in the mind of the Treasury, he could assure them that it would meet with unanimous opposition from every quarter in Ireland, because if there was one thing more than another that the parents of children in the national schools in Ireland were determined upon, to whatever creed they belonged, it was that those schools should be under the management of persons of the same religion as the parents who sent their children to them, and that the children should have the fullest opportunity for training and teaching in the religion professed by their parents. That had been the idea and the principle of all denominations in Ireland in connection with primary teaching in elementary schools. He quite agreed that the Report referred to by the hon. Member for Clare, made by Professor Dale, showed that a great deal might be done in certain quarters in the way of amalgamation with a view to economy and efficiency. He also agreed that in some towns there was a multiplicity of schools, and a good deal could be saved by reducing the number of schools in some of the larger towns. That, however, was not the complaint they made. What they complained of was the new development in this particular allocation, because it would affect not merely the schools in towns whose average attendance might be below the required figures, but also those

      1017
      in the rural part, including the small schools and the country schools, and they would be most hit. Those were the schools and the portions of Ireland that were least able to stand or submit to such an injustice or inequality. He had had a communication from the Diocesan Board of Education in connection with his own Church in different parts of Ireland, and one and all told him that if this policy was persisted in, if this scheme of allocation was forced upon the people in Ireland, it would raise a storm of indignation and protest, not merely on the part of the teachers who were pecuniarily interested, but on the part of the parents of children and all those religious people who took any interest whatever in primary education in Ireland. While he did not pledge himself to the accuracy of the figures which had been given, yet, if it was a fact that an additional sum of £20,000 would have remedied this injustice and prevented the inequalities in the proposed allocation and distribution, it seemed to him to be absolutely impossible to explain or understand the action of the Treasury or anybody else who might be in the slightest degree responsible for the proposition. If it was the case that an additional sum of £20,000 added to this £114,000 would have enabled the distribution to be made among the teachers of all schools, all he could say was that it seemed to him a more miserable or a more miserly act on the part of the British Treasury it was impossible to conceive. While he was very glad to support the remonstrance made in the interest of the teachers themselves, he warned the right hon. Gentleman that there was a much larger and greater question involved in the matter—not merely that which affected the rights and the status of the teachers, but that which affected the rights of the children themselves. He understood that it was the feeling of all sections of people in Ireland that they never would consent to have forced upon them, after fifty years of an opposite policy, by indirect means, a new departure of this kind. The system which had prevailed up to the present was that the parents should have the right to insist that their children should be taught in schools which were under the management and
      1018
      control of members of the religion to which they themselves belonged. He would urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider that if this policy of amalgamation was to be insisted upon and forced upon the country, at least it should be confined to any district in which it was possible for the children of any particular schools which had been closed to get education in an adjoining school under the same management within reasonable distance. There were cases with which hon. Members from Ireland were familiar, where in the west, south, and north of the country it would be impossible to get a school within a radius at all reasonable or acceptable—a similar school and under similar management. It was for these districts and managers that they made the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time he did not intend to overlook the present demand of the teachers themselves for justice in this matter. He joined with his colleagues from Ireland in making this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury, asking them not in this small and miserable manner to make a departure which would be opposed to the sentiments of every person in Ireland who took an interest in primary education and was inconsistent with the ordinary elements of justice and fair play due to the unfortunate teachers involved.
      MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he was pleased to observe that when the hon. Member for Kerry said there ought to be no difficulty about money the Chief Secretary cried out "Hear, hear." Evidently from that endorsement of what his hon. friend said the Chief Secretary was not the originator of this parsimonious treatment. The right hon. Gentleman knew well that the Treasury had always treated the demand of the Irish people in respect to education in the same parsimonious spirit. The Commissioners of National Education in Ireland has asked for £400,000 in order to improve the position of the national school teachers of Ireland, and at all events to make them approach the condition of the national school teachers of England and Scotland. The Government had not acceded to the request of the Commissioners of National Education in this respect, any more than

      1019
      they had acceded to the requests in respect of other matters in connection with primary education in Ireland. In their report for the year before last the Commissioners asked that they should have £100,000 per annum for five years in order to bring the schools into a sanitary condition, and last year, after a delay of building and repairing for more than four years, this niggardly Treasury through their mouthpiece the Chief Secretary for Ireland gave £40,000 for three years in order to meet the demands. His hon. friend the Member for East Clare had drawn a picture of the condition of things in the schools of Ireland. It was not the first time that hon. Members from Ireland had harrowed the feelings of sympathetic Members by describing the miserable and insanitary conditions of these schools. It was impossible that the children attending the schools could receive the full benefit of the education the teachers were willing to give them under these miserable conditions, and yet the Treasury, when approached by its own representative in Ireland for the purpose of getting money in order to remedy this state of things, instead of giving £100,000 for five years, gave this miserable £40,000 for three years. How did this compare with the manner in which primary education was dealt with in England? Between 1902 and 1906, as the Estimates showed, the grants for primary education in England increased by no less than 45 per cent., and last year's Estimates contained on the top of that an additional sum of £200,000. Scotland, in the four years 1902–05, received an increase in its educational grants for primary education of no less than 52 per cent., and on the top of that there was an increase last year. During that period of four years the increase for primary education to Ireland was only 1 per cent., and now when the Treasury pocket was opened at last and they recognised the claim of the Irish teachers, what did they give? A miserable £114,000, which was only an increase of 9 per cent. on the amount previously granted. England and Scotland were revelling in luxury in the matter of education grants, while Ireland with its increase of 1 per cent. within the period referred
      1020
      to had meted out to it a further increase of 9 per cent. That was the manner in which Irish demands were met by the Treasury. What was the reflection that was forced upon one's mind by this condition of things? They knew that Ireland was contributing more than its proper share of the revenues of these countries to the extent of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 per annum. It was common knowledge that the English Treasury had its hand deep down in the pockets of the Irish nation, and that by the exertions of its officials in the Revenue Departments it had extracted from the pockets of the Irish people this exorbitant overcharge, and when they asked for a return in the cause of education—which after all was the greatest cause of the Empire—it was meted out to them in doles, while the English and the Scottish people were getting all they wanted in that respect. There was a grievance in regard to the way in which Ireland had been treated in respect of educational grants. The grants were based on attendance. The grants made to Ireland before the time of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach in the '70's were made on the basis of her contributions to the Imperial revenue. While that state of things continued Ireland had, as compared with the other countries, not very much reason to complain. Ireland got something like her proper share, but it would never have done to have Ireland in such a favoured condition, and accordingly, agreeing to a suggestion which came from Scotland, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach changed the manner of making the grants and placed it upon the basis of attendance and not of contributions to the revenue. From that day to this the manner in which these grants had been made had militated against Ireland in educational matters. That would be to the advantage of Scotland, 75 per cent. of the population of which was urban compared with 25 per cent. in Ireland. He would like to know what would be the effect of this increase of 5s. capitation grant upon the teachers that it would touch. The position revolved round the condition of the teachers, and his submission to the Committee was that their condition was bad all round. That had been recognised for many years. Mr. Bryce on 29th

      1021
      March, 1906, when admitting that educational matters in Ireland should be looked into, said that their conditon was bad. He said—
      "Let us begin at once with the condition of the teachers and the state of the schools."
      The present Chief Secretary when addressing the school teachers of Ireland in conference on 4th April last year, said—
      "Well, now, ladies and gentlemen, I state unhesitatingly that you Irish teachers can invite the most careful examination of your claims, because anyone who has acquaintance with the work you have done must admit that the scale of your salaries is most meagre and insufficient, and that your chances of promotion are not only poor but disheartening."
      It would only be necessary to point out to the Committee what was the difference between the position of the national school teachers in Ireland and that of the school teachers in England and Scotland, when the Committee would see what was in the mind of the two last Chief Secretaries when they said that the position of the school teachers of Ireland was bad. The average salary of male teachers in England was £160 3s. 9d.; in Scotland, £179 6s.; in Ireland, £102 19s. 6d. The average salary for female teachers in England was £109 13s. 6d.; in Scotland, £90 6s.; and in Ireland, £82 11s. 9d. The assistant teachers in England had an average salary of £114 per annum; and it would, therefore, be seen that the assistant teachers in England had absolutely been getting a higher rate of salary than the principal school teachers in Ireland. He submitted that that was a state of things that ought not to be allowed to exist, and those figures must have been present in the mind of the Chief Secretary when he made his demand on the Treasury for this miserly grant of £114,000 in order to bring the salaries of the Irish teachers up to a higher figure. He contended that the right hon. Gentleman had not fulfilled the promise made to the teachers last year, and the promise made by Mr. Bryce to the Members of the House. He could go on quoting extracts from the speech of the Chief Secretary. It was a very hearty and sympathetic speech, and one for which the teachers were very grateful and for which they on the Irish Benches were none the
      1022
      less grateful. So much on the subject of the teachers generally. But he must emphasise to some extent all that had been said in respect to the teachers who were eliminated from the benefit of the concession. From an Answer given to a Question put by the hon. Member for East Kerry it appeared that the concession would not affect 2,858 schools in Ireland. That was the number of schools that had an average attendance of less than thirty-five scholars, and necessarily the number of teachers who would not be benefitted would be 2,858, not counting the assistants. Very strong language had been used in regard to this subject by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University. He had stated at the outset of his speech that the Chief Secretary had cheered the statement of his friend the Member for East Kerry that there ought to be no difficulty about the money.
      MR. BIRRELL: What I meant to say was that there is great difficulty about finding the money.
      MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid that the sense in which his hon. friend used the expression was that there ought to be no difficulty about the money; and then he backed that up by saying that there was no difficulty about the money, and that was cheered by the right hon. Gentleman. The debate, so far as it had gone, ought to strengthen the hands of the Chief Secretary in his demands on the Treasury. He did not need to say, to stiffen his back, because the right hon. Gentleman had a good stiff back, and he had the best intentions and the best goodwill towards the community for the government of which he was responsible. The debate ought, therefore, to help him in any future demand the right hon. Gentleman might make on the Treasury. He was pleased to see that the right hon. Gentleman had a representative of the Treasury beside, him, and he hoped that the debate would also have its due effect on that hon. Gentleman. What was the position of the 2,858 teachers who were disqualified from getting any benefit from the concession? They could not rise in the ranks of their profession as could the Scottish and English teachers, who had a larger

      1023
      attendance in their schools. In order to acquire promotion to the first grade of teachers there must be an attendance of at least seventy, or of fifty to be promoted to the second class in the first division. All those teachers in Ireland who had an attendance of thirty-five were disqualified from ever rising to the first division, and were doubly damned because they could not receive the 5s. capitation grant. Their position was, therefore, hopeless. What incentive had these men to improve themselves? With no hope of promotion, they would not study. What incentive had they to teach the children carefully when they had no prospect of reward? Therefore, the Government as a whole, by their conduct, seemed to indicate that they did not care three straws for the children of Ireland, or whether they were taught well or ill. Sixty per cent, of the schools of Ireland had an attendance of under fifty, and their teachers, therefore, could not aspire to any higher position, while their assistants had no incentive to improve themselves or give a better education to the children. What was to be done for the assistant teachers of Ireland? They were still poorer, and had even smaller salaries than teachers of the third grade, and those teachers whose school attendance was under thirty-five. The rule seemed to be: "The poorer you are, the less you will get; those who have least get less, and those who have much will have more." So long as those schools were allowed to exist, no matter how small they were, the teachers ought to be adequately rewarded and not treated worse than an ordinary labourer. When a labourer was dismissed he could go elsewhere for work, but there was nothing done to encourage good men to enter the teaching profession. In the case of 60 per cent. of the teachers of Ireland there was nothing before them; they were condemned to remain in the same position the whole of their lives. He, therefore, joined with his colleagues and the hon. Gentlemen above the gangway who had expressed themselves as dissatisfied with the grant. He had not entered into the manner of the distribution of the grant as he was in hopes that when the Chief Secretary came to the House to fulfil his
      1024
      promises to the teachers and to the House itself, he would come forward with a noble scheme. But instead of that he produced a miserable amount which would not meet the requirements of the case, thus indicating that the Irish nation would not get anything more from this Government than any other which preceded it.
      MR. BARRIEsaid the grant made by the Treasury for this matter was admittedly short of the requirements, and cruel and harsh in its application. Nothing that had been said to-day was too strong with regard to the case of the school masters who had been rigorously excluded from participating in this grant. Reference had been made by the last hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact that the salaries of the teachers in Ireland were greatly lower than they should be. Even with tht grant they were still less than those of teachers in England and Scotland, and the principle of the new grant seemed to be that: "To him that hath shall be given more, and to him that hath little even less shall be given." What they all felt that afternoon was that they ought to treat honestly and adequately the persons who were serving the State, the men and women who had entered their positions, not attracted by the emoluments, but expecting those emoluments to be increased from year to year. They got £40,000 last year for the improvement of school buildings, and that grant would be continued for two years more. It was miserably inadequate—but they were thankful for it—and they could do with another £100,000 to bring their schools up to the standard of those in England. They found that some 3,000 teachers were not to benefit in the slightest degree from the change which was being made. He represented a religious minority in Ireland and the religious community to which that minority belonged had made no small sacrifice to maintain their schools, and if the further grant now asked for was refused the additional burden would be found ultimately to fall upon them. In answer to a question that afternoon, the Chief Secretary had said that he was not responsible for the allocation of the money.
      MR. BIRRELL: No.
      MR. BARRIEsaid he understood him so to state, but if the Chief Secretary was responsible he would like to know on whose advice he had acted. He hoped it was not yet too late to give them the further £20,000 they wanted. He was sure the teachers who would gain by the present plan were generous enough to say that inadequate as their gain was they would rather it was whittled down than that some 3,000 teachers should get nothing at all. He hoped that that important matter would be pressed home as it had been that afternoon. They had had very guarded language used from the Nationalist benches and they had been told that if a Unionist Government had been on the Treasury bench it would probably have been less guarded. He was not going to deal with that, but a Member of the present Government, the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture, addressing a meeting a few days ago, had said that someone had suggested that if the Chief Secretary and he were much longer in Ireland, Ireland would be run at a loss, the inference being that the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture and the Chief Secretary made a great impression on the Treasury. He would like to see a little more evidence of that in the grant they were then dealing with. He felt very strongly that in that miserably inadequate grant the Government was not sufficiently responding to the claims of the friends of education in Ireland.
      MR. POWERthought a great deal might be said of the advantages of large schools in every country. In the first place it was easier to get more competent teaching and better sanitary arrangements, but in these matters they had to be practical and look at things as they were and not as they would like them to be. He hoped that the refusal to give to the teachers of the small schools in Ireland the compensation or the increase which they were entitled to receive was not the thin end of the wedge towards abolishing the small schools altogether, but it looked very like it. If the teachers were starved out of those schools the consequence must be that by degrees the schools would be closed up, and
      1026
      the people in the districts served by them left without education. Anyone who knew anything about educational matters at all would agree that three miles of road was too long for children who had to tramp to school and tramp back again, particularly in bad weather. Many of these mites went to school none too well fed and without any provision for lunch during the day. While they stood up for these schools it must be remembered that they were not responsible for the legislation that had made the population so sparse in Ireland. Such as these schools were they must continue to exist if the people were to receive education. He could not understand the allocation of the money which it was proposed to make. If there was one profession the members of which must be carefully selected, it was the teaching profession. Schoolmasters required a great deal of tact, a certain perception of character, and an undounded supply of patience. Anybody who did not possess that was unfit to bring up children. The present system was no encouragement to people of good class to become schoolmasters and mistresses. The future of Ireland depended upon the proper education of the rising generation. It was impossible to overrate the importance of good teachers. Not only was it their duty to teach ordinary subjects but also to impart morals and manners to the children and if proper persons were required to impart information to and educate the young they must be paid respectable salaries. In Ireland they were wedded to a denominational system of education, and the Government would have a united Irish opposition against them in opposing a system which tended to close up many of the schools and destroy the denominational system. To destroy it by legislation would be the worst thing the Government could do. His hon. friend near him had referred to the condition of the schools, and to the wretched provision made for heating them. Of his own knowledge he had seen poor children, in the County of Tipperary, which was by no means an impoverished county, walking to school with only one sod of turf under the arm for the purpose of kindling it to give them warmth during school hours. That sort of thing should not exist in a civilised country. They

      1027
      now had an increased number of cottages with their ground attached erected throughout the country, and he thought it very necessary that children attending the schools should be taught something of agriculture. It would be a very wise step if the Department of Agriculture acting in conjunction with the Education Department endeavoured to take measures by which there would be imparted to the children some useful and practical information on agriculture. For his own part he would be pleased to see attached to all these schools a system which would give the people information as to the best way of cultivating small plots of ground, information which they could afterwards put into practice. He believed that if these small plots were worked properly, the people would find it better to live in their own country than to fly to other lands which they enriched with their labour. He thought with proper attention to that matter a better knowledge of how to cultivate these plots might be imparted, which would be of great advantage to the community as well as of great advantage to those who attended the schools. The salaries paid to teachers in Ireland compared most unfavourably with those paid in England, Scotland and Wales. In regard to this question of education, he recalled the time when Lord Randolph Churchill was over in Ireland. He was a man always observant of what occurred in Ireland, and took a great interest in that country. They did not see eye to eye with him in many respects, but at the same time he was a man who had the interests of Ireland at heart. He had sat with him in that House for a good many years, and he did not remember hardly ever hearing him say any unsympathetic word as to Ireland. Lord Randolph Churchill went through many schools in Ireland, and he recollected his stating that the Government had lost a great opportunity in not utilising the system which prevailed in the towns of Ireland conducted by the Christian Brothers. That body had a very admirable system; it was ready to hand, and he could never understand why some use had not been made of it. The people having become wedded to a certain system of education, surely
      1028
      that which was pursued by the Christian Brothers might be utilised with great advantage. Nothing could be more derogatory to this country than that for generations it should have endeavoured to foist on the people of Ireland a system of education which was abhorrent to them. If the people of Ireland were to some extent uneducated it was because the British Government had insisted on their adopting a system of education in which the people did not believe and which was abhorrent to them. He ventured to submit these remarks to the Chief Secretary, whose interest in education they all appreciated. Perhaps, before this session was over, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to solve the question which had baffled many statesmen before him. If he did that it would be a proud feather in his cap. He ventured to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman not to take the backward step which he was at present about to take—a step which would deprive the poorest districts of what they believed to be absolutely necessary. The adoption of the course the Chief Secretary was now taking would, he feared, be the thin end of the wedge in the direction of abolishing schools which were certainly necessary owing to the depopulation of the country caused by the British system of Government.
      MR. BUTCHERsaid the Chief Secretary must have been impressed by the striking unanimity which had been shown that afternoon by all the representatives from Ireland. It might be said that whenever there was a raid to be made on the Treasury, Irish representatives were unanimous; but in this case he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was something which went far deeper than that. It was the feeling not only that the action of the Treasury was parsimonious, but that it was also unjust; and it was the injustice of it even more than the parsimony of it, to which they desired to object. For himself, he objected to both. He had held for a long time that the national teachers in Ireland were the most ill-paid body of servants of the United Kingdom; and the thing which, to his mind, was

      1029
      to be condemned under these proposals which they were discussing, was that the most ill-paid men belonging to the most ill-paid body were precisely the men who were to be sacrificed. The Chief Secretary would remember a deputation to the Treasury about a year ago, on which occasion the case of these teachers was put to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he thought he might say that it was done with unanswerable force. The old official defence which the Treasury used to put in for the ill payment of Irish teachers, was at that time abandoned. The old defence mainly was that because the schools were remote and the pupils few, therefore the teachers should be mulcted for these peculiarities of the country. He had always thought that an unsound defence, and he hoped it was now practically abandoned. But they had before them the fact already alluded to, that 3,000 out of the 13,000 teachers, and very nearly 3,000 schools out of 8,000 were to be excluded from the increased grant. That meant that about a third of the schools and about a fourth of the teachers of Ireland would get no share of the benefit of this increased grant. Therefore, this was not merely a personal question. From the personal side it seemed to him grossly unjust. But there was also another side to it. It had been suggested several times that afternoon, and he had no doubt truly, that the proposals of the Government were intended to initiate a much larger reform in the whole school system of Ireland, in regard to the amalgamation of schools. Personally he thought there was considerable room for a reform as regarded that system. He thought that in many cases small schools might be amalgamated, and with great advantage to the scholars who attended them. There were cases both in the north and south of Ireland where by amalgamation they might get an efficient school in which there would be two trained teachers instead of one untrained teacher. But any such reform must be carried out with the utmost care, for otherwise it would strike down to the root of religious liberty. Owing partly to the physical character of the country, and partly to the distribution of the
      1030
      population, and of the different classes of population, there were over a large part of Ireland districts in which it was imperative that they should have more schools than existed in similar areas in England. There were places in the South and West where there were scattered minorities living among large majorities, differing on religion. In the South and West of Ireland the minority was generally Protestant. There were similar Catholic minorities, though not so many, in Ulster. The conviction of everybody in Ireland was that in these cases they must protect the religious liberties of the minorities. He knew that in connection with the movement for the amalgamation, a good many schools had come to be very anxious about their future. In his own county of Kerry, there was a Protestant school at Kenmare—a parish which spread over twenty miles. The next nearest Protestant school in the adjoining parish was seven and a half miles off, and the next again from that was twenty-one miles off. A school inspector had been down there making inquiries as to whether that school could be abolished and cease to receive the Government grant. In connection with that particular school £250 had been spent on building a teacher's house, and £200 had been spent on the school building, out of a loan by the Board of Works, the repayment of which was privately guaranteed. These persons naturally looked with anxiety to this new policy, which they had never had any reason to anticipate. He was not for one moment saying that the policy reducing the number of schools in Ireland could not be equitably carried out. But it was a profound mistake to mix up these two things together the increase of the teachers' salaries and with it the new policy of suppressing small schools. It involved great personal injustice, caused very great apprehension, which went deeper than personal interests. If the policy was to be one of amalgamation let them have the policy properly articulated before them. Let them know exactly what it meant. But in attempting to reform the whole school system let

      1031
      them not do it by simply starving the existing teachers. He could not imagine anything more dangerous in a country like Ireland, from the point of view of statesmanship, than to create a discontented class out of the men in whose hands lay the upbringing of the youth of Ireland.
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the hon. Gentleman had spoken about the parsimony and injustice of this grant. He wanted to ask about its legality. He wanted to know when did C. Hobhouse become the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. This was a most extraordinary constitutional question which seemed to underlie this very audacious document which had been issued to Members. There was in Ireland a body called the National Board and that body worked under statute. There had been subsequent Acts passed for regulating the manner in which the National Board should do its duty and in which the moneys of the National Board should be distributed. He wanted to know when it became either the law of Parliament or the law of the land that a Treasury clerk could, by inserting a direction in an Estimate for which there was no constitutional warrant and no statutory authority, fetter the hands of the Chief Secretary and of the National Board. They could not legislate by Estimate. That Committee was merely a Committee upon which the Appropriation Bill would afterwards be founded. The Appropriation Bill would not contain any reference, he took it, to the words which were used in the Estimate and yet forsooth the Estimate they were told was to have statutory effect. The Government were granting a sum of £114,000. Was that done under an Act, and if so, under what Act was its distribution provided for? Was there any Act showing this:— "(a) Bonuses for scale for year ending 31st March, 1908,number of teachers paid by personal salary who are employed in schools having an average attendance of seventy pupils and above, approximate numbers; 510 teachers at £5; 415 teachers at £10; 140 teachers at —20; 150 teachers at £30; total, £14,000. (b) Extra capitation grant, 5s. per unit of average attendance of pupils, three to fifteen years of age, to teachers in
      1032
      all schools having an average attendance of not less than thirty-five pupils for the year ending 31st March, 1908; approximate attendance, 100,000; grand total, £114,000. Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 22nd June, 1908.—C. HOBHOUSE." Was that statute? If it was not statute, why did they not bring in their Bill in order to warrant and enforce the distribution of this £114,000 in the manner provided by the Estimate? He did not say he was very familiar with the Irish Education Acts, but when he saw this extraordinary note he began to wonder how they were being governed, and accordingly he turned to the last Act regulating the distribution of grants in Ireland, the Act of 1892. Section 18 provided for the manner in which the grant was to be allocated—
      "After the financial year ending 31st March, 1892, there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament an annual grant, in this Act called the school grant, in aid of education in elementary schools conducted in accordance with the regulations of the Commissioners of Education, £410,000 or such other amount as Parliament may determine, having regard to the amount of the fee grant under the Intermediate Education Act, 1891."
      That was an English Act, and it simply provided, as far as he could make out, that there should be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, the sum of 10s. per child, and accordingly the Irish Act went on and provided how that money should be distributed in the Fourth Schedule—
      "The school grant shall be applied by the Commissioners in accordance with the regulations to be made by them, with the concurrence of the Treasury, first, in augmenting by 20 per cent the existing rate of class salaries of teachers and of assistant teachers, and by 3s. 6d. the capitation grant to teachers; second, in granting a bonus of £9 to each male and £6 10s. to each female of five years standing; third, in awarding third-class salaries to each teacher of a school having an average attendance of twenty to thirty children."
      So that the very case of schools having from twenty to thirty children was contemplated by the Fourth Schedule of this Act of 1892, and a special provision was made for it, and this they were told was exactly the class of children who were now to be excluded from all benefit whatever under this grant—
      "Fourthly, the residue shall be distributed as a capitation grant as nearly as possible in proportion to the average number of children daily attending the several schools in aid of

      1033
      whom salaries or other money payments are paid by the Commissioners."
      If any subsequent statute had been passed after that Act of 1892 he would be much obliged if the Secretary to the Treasury would refer him to it. But if no subsequent statute had been passed he wanted to know by what authority this Parliament discriminated between the kind of teachers and the kind of school that this money was to be divided and distributed amongst. They must have a discriminatory statute. Where was it? That brought him to this question. Were they governed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland or by the Secretary to the Treasury? He would have apprehended that this Minute would have been signed by some Irish authority. He was not aware that C. Hobhouse had ever seen Ireland in his life. When last they heard from him he was coming from India and he got this job on the Indian Ocean somewhere. Was it on the Indian Ocean that he picked up this method of distributing these Irish moneys? Certainly it was an extraordinary thing if that hon. Gentleman without any statutory authority whatever could propose to allocate this money. He did not blame the Chief Secretary in the least, and he dissociated himself from some of the criticisms recently passed upon him for his handling of this question. He thought he was doing his best and he trusted he would not take his criticism as personal to himself. But he thought the time had now arrived for them to make some stand on the constitutional aspect of the matter, and on that question he would like to refer to another incident that had taken place owing to the conduct of the Treasury in Ireland in the present year under this very Act of 1892, because this was just as base a scandal on the public of Ireland as they had already committed in regard to the teachers. In 1892, when compulsion was first applied to Ireland, the Members at that time, and notably Mr. Sexton, criticised the Act considerably as it was going through. It was provided for the first time that parents should be fined for not sending their children to school where there were schools within two miles radius. That was entirely novel in many parts of
      1034
      the country, and accordingly Mr. Sexton inserted this Amendment in the Act of 1892—
      "The expenses of school attendance committees and the salaries and expenses of the officers shall be defrayed by the local authority out of the local rate, and any revenue from penalties under this Act in the place or district shall be applied in relief of the local rate."
      It was almost inconceivable. When he thought of the meanness of it, the illegality of it—it was almost impossible to use a word to describe the chicane of this transaction. England passed an Act on the faith that when this fine was inflicted the money arising from the fine should go in relief of the local rate. A Conservative Government passed the Act and, as long as they were in power, so long the fines were handed over to the local authority in accordance with the statutory enactment. In came the Liberals and in came the hon. Member for Tyrone, flush from election in a popular constituency, and in came the Attorney-General for Ireland, flush from election by Irish votes in Liverpool. These two gentlemen were ordered by some Treasury clerk to reverse this Statute. It was all very fine to say they had the Treasury's orders. They got a postcard from Downing Street. Was there no such thing as independence in the Irish Office? They reversed the action of the Conservative Party which had almost acquired the force of custom because it had been in existence for something like thirteen or fourteen years, and they dug out the Pines Act passed in 1850, and said, "The King cannot give up his revenue without express words," and as His Majesty's name was not mentioned in the Irish Education Act of 1892, Parliament was only poking fun at the Irish people when it said that any money derived from fines should be applied in relief of local rates. They paid the Attorney and Solicitor-General to argue that the Statute of fifty years before overrode the Act of 1892. It was said that the King could not surrender his revenue. How was it he surrendered it under a Tory Government? How was it he surrendered it from 1892 to 1908? How was it these changes to the detriment of the country were only made when the Liberal Party with Liberal law officers elected by popular constituences were sent to deal

      1035
      with these questions? Was Dublin Castle an annex of Downing Street? Was there no such thing as a personal equation to be found in that building or a Law Officer bold enough to say "I will not argue that foul is fair." What was good enough for the Right Hon. John Atkinson for fourteen or fifteen years ought to be good enough for the hon. Member for North Tyrone. He had said there should be a Committee of Parliament sitting upstairs to watch the Treasury day after day. When this scheme was in embryo and these little clerks—it was difficult to speak of them with respect—when these little animalculæ in the Treasury were planning how to swindle the country—that was the time when they needed to be alert. The time had now come when they should learn distinctly who was master in Ireland. Was it the Chief Secretary or the Lord-Lieutenant or the Irish Law Officers or some gentleman on the Indian Ocean who on his arrival at Port Said happened to find he was made King of Ireland?
      MR. MOOREsaid he regretted that the action of the Government should fall so hard upon the smaller schools of Ireland. He spoke with a certain amount of feeling because owing to circumstances with which they were all familiar the effect on the small schools would fall more heavily on those of the Church of Ireland than any other. Since the year 1902, public monies had been devoted to schools which had a legal statutory limit of not less than ten and not more than twenty, but now apparently without any sanction of the Legislature the administrative custom of fifteen years was to be abandoned with the result that the smaller schools would be squeezed out of existence. That required some explanation. At present there was a mystery about it, but there were so many mysteries surrounding the action of the Chief Secretary that one more did not matter much. Was this policy adopted in order that it should fall more heavily upon the Church of Ireland than upon any other Church? Was it intended to squeeze out three-quarters of the schools of one particular Church, and that a Church which was politically opposed to the Chief Secretary? He would like to hear it justified on the ground of fairness.
      1036
      The Chief Secretary would find when the result of his proposed policy became known there would be a regular outburst on the part of those people who for the past fifteen years had been working to maintain the schools to which he had made reference. He joined in the general complaint as to the deplorable and disgraceful sanitary condition of the school houses. The Government had full knowledge of it but remained absolutely indifferent so far as action went, and even the National Members had done nothing. It was left to the Member for East Down to bring in a Bill for the heating and ventilation of schools in Ireland.
      MR. BIRRELL: What did your Party do during these fifteen years? I am doing something.
      MR. MOOREsaid that Mr. Dale's reports were four years old. The Chief Secretary never raised a finger to further the Bill. He held the Bill in his hand, and he thought it was a modest and useful measure which would have met the real difficulty. They ought to have a little more sympathy in this matter from the Government, and he hoped that hon. Members from Ireland who were supporting the Amendment would show that they meant business and go to a division. He remembered a similar occasion since this Government came into power when the same arguments were used as had been used on the present occasion. He regretted to say that the Amendment was withdrawn at that time. He hoped there would be a division that night, for the Chief Secretary had done nothing to meet the representations which had been made to him as to the necessity for improving the sanitary condition of the schools. The Government were entitled to credit in one matter—namely, the relaxation of the rules of the National Board as regarded the civil rights of teachers. Three years ago teachers were not allowed to go to fairs, to talk to their neighbours on politics, or to do a single thing which ordinary intelligent persons were allowed to do. These conditions which ought to have been removed long ago, had now been relaxed, and this had given great satisfaction to the teachers

      1037
      throughout the country. He though that the men who were charged with the responsibility of the education of the youth in their districts, who were consulted on matters of law, medicine divinity, and everything else, should no be subjected to the irritation of having to observe such rules.
      MR. J. MURPHYsaid the Government had only changed a portion of the rules.
      MR. MOOREsaid he was informed by schoolmasters, friends of his own, that the rules had been relaxed. One of his friends told him that he had received communication on the subject; he die not know whether it was a circular or a letter, and the teacher was, therefore going to attend a political meeting. He did not know the special rule to which the hon. Member referred. [An HON MEMBER: The meeting was in North Armagh.] The meeting was not in North Armagh. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence in another matter, that was, in securing fixity of tenure. The Roman Catholic teachers were in a better position than the Protestant teachers in this respect, for their managers had assented to a form of contract under which any matter of conflict was left to the arbitration of the highest authority of the diocese. The Protestant teachers, unfortunately, had been unable to agree with their managers on any court of arbitration, and he asked whether the Commissioners had taken any steps to heal this administrative sore.
      MR. BIRRELLsaid the difficulty was that the Commissioners could only put in an arbitrator who was likely to meet with the consent of both parties. They were, however, trying to solve the difficulty.
      MR. MOOREwas satisfied with this statement, but complained of the ludicrously inadequate salaries paid to the teachers in Ireland. If there must be an allocation, it seemed to him that it might be carried out at small expense. He was told that the sum of £15,000 would be ample to provide inducements to teachers who had gone to the trouble and expense of obtaining University
      1038
      degrees. If a teacher had gone to that expense, he ought to get the reward of merit in his own profession. He was not sure of the exact military term which was used in this connection, but he thought the teacher ought to get something in the nature of brevet rank for having so qualified himself. It would encourage the teachers, and it would have a tendency to bring additional students to the new universities. They were all agreed that teachers in Ireland were worse paid on the whole than policemen. He believed there was a Report in favour of increasing the pay of the police, and he was not sure that there was not to be legislation on the subject. [An HON. MEMBER: It has been promised.] It was on the tapis at any rate. While the police were to have their salaries raised, the unfortunate teachers who were engaged in schools with an attendance of less than thirty-five were shut out altogether, though the teachers in schools with over that number might get someing more. He did not think it would take very much to give the teachers in the small schools an increase also. It was recognised that in education they had the real salvation of the country, and it seemed illogical and unjust that the people who were trained to impart it should be left impoverished in this way.
      MR. MURNAGHANcomplained of the large number of elementary schools in Ireland which received no assistance whatever from the State. It was bad enough to underlay teachers, but it was worse to deprive large number of the school-going children of any capitation grant whatever. The older members who had sat through the discussions of Education Bills had been told that every child born within these realms was entitled as a birthright to be furnished with at least the rudiments of education. That might be the case, and he believed that it was the case in this country and Scotland, but certainly it was not the case with regard to thousands of boys in lost of the towns of Ireland. He had tried to get from the Chief Secretary by question a report as to the number of school-going children in Ireland, but he was only able to get a return of those

      1039
      who attended the national schools, and model schools; he had obtained no information whatever as to the Christian Brothers' schools which were to be found in almost every town in the South and West, and also in many towns in Ulster, some of which contained to his knowledge several hundred pupils. He referred to the schools of the Order of Christian Brothers, which he believed gave education annually to from 15,000 to 20,000 boys. In 1892 the Minister who was then Secretary to the Treasury, speaking on this subject, after visiting the City of Cork declared that the Christian Brothers' schools were admirable and well-conducted. In passing, he might say that these schools, as regarded internal arrangements and sanitary accommodation were as complete as any in the United Kingdom, and that as regarded the teachers, there were none more efficient to be found in this or in any other country. That Minister declared that to refuse to make to these schools the same grants as were given to other voluntary schools was a state of things that could not be justified or defended. In 1896, Mr. Jackson, who was now a Member of the Upper House, but was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, was in charge of an Education Bill, and during its progress through this House he was confronted by the Nationalist Members, led by Mr. Sexton, with criticisms of certain provisions of his Bill, and particularly with a demand for a capitation grant for these schools. He promised that he would take steps to have the Christian Brothers' schools brought into line with the other schools in the matter of payment. On the strength of that assurance the Irish Members withdrew their opposition and the Bill passed. It might be only another illustration of broken promises given by Ministers, but Mr. Jackson, when charged with failing to give effect to promises while in office, replied that his term thereafter was very short and that he had handed over the carrying out of the arrangement to his successor, then Mr. Morley, who no doubt was as sympathetic to-day as he was then in regard to this matter, when he declared himself a strong supporter of the demand for a grant to the Christian Brothers' schools. Mr. Morley admitted that these
      1040
      schools were absolutely entitled to the Education Grant, and when pressed by Irish Members to give effect to the pledge given by his predecessor that he would do all he possibly could; and while he could not go so far as to give a solemn pledge, yet he would give an assurance that he would do what he could to have a regulation framed to meet the case and secure a contribution from the Education Grant to the Christian Brothers' schools. The right hon. Gentleman added that for himself, he did not wonder that the Irish members took every opportunity of pressing the claims of these voluntary schools on the attention of every British Government, whether Liberal or Tory. Fifteen long years had elapsed since that was said by Mr. Morley, and the demand for recognition of the schools had lain dormant all the while. He did not know why, unless other larger and more controversial questions had been brought forward and overshadowed this modest educational demand. However, he thought the time had now arrived when this claim should be pressed upon the House. Here perhaps it was right for him to say that he was giving expression to his own views and that he only spoke on his own behalf; the Christian Brothers themselves had made no application on the subject as far as he was aware. They had had no public meetings to further their claims; they had written no letters to the newspapers, or indeed made any complaint that the State was taking advantage of their silence and self-denial to evade a duty the performance of which in ordinary schools would cost about fifty thousand pounds a year. They were satisfied with silently doing their duty, and quietly carrying out the rules of their great founder, working with patience and hope. But that was no reason why Irish public men should allow them to be overlooked. Hence the thought had come to him as one who held for these humble men a high regard and whose children had been benefited ay their teaching, to renew now the application made sixteen years ago by the then representatives of Ireland, full of the belief that the present Chief Secretary was likely to be sympathetic n the matter. While no doubt these schools would be carried on whether the

      1041
      Government aided them or not, because Catholic parents who supported them would continue to make sacrifices to do so, was it right or fair that their labours should go unrewarded as far as the Treasury was concerned, or that wealthy England should take advantage of the conscientious scruples of Irish Catholics or of the silence and self-denial of the teachers in order to deprive Ireland of the sum required to educate her Catholic boys? As he had said, the Christian Brothers' schools contained from 15,000 to 20,000 boys; they were studded all over the cities and towns of Ireland, and many of the children went three, four, and even six miles to attend because their parents knew that their children would not only get a safe and sound education in the different branches of knowledge, but that their moral fibre would be strengthened, and their character formed by the example and admonition of their teachers—all which was for the benefit of the national weal. He assumed that the Christian Brothers were willing to adopt the same conscience clause in their primary schools as had been in use for the last twenty-five years in their intermediate schools, and no doubt they would be open to inspection and examination of pupils so that really there ought not to be much difficulty in framing a rule under which the grant would be available. In 1892 the Commissioners submitted two propositions but neither was acceptable to the Government. That was how the matter was when Mr. John Morley took office and that was how it stood to-day. He understood that the two obstacles in the way of the "Brothers" getting the grant were emblems and books. They refused to remove the cross, and they insisted upon using their own books. The Government need not ask the Christian Brothers to hide the cross behind a screen. That they would never consent to. They would follow faithfully the rules and regulations of the good man who founded them 100 years ago, and their mission would continue whether or not State aid was granted. He thought at this time of day there should be no insistence that the Emblem of Redemption should be removed from the schools. And as for their books, he would ask the Chief
      1042
      Secretary to look over them, and was willing to leave to him the decision as to their fitness, both from the literary and moral standpoints. This was a question easy of settlement, because it did not require legislation but sympathetic treatment, and could be done by the Chief Secretary and the Treasury. That being so, he hoped something to remove the grievance would be done without delay. He felt sure the Chief Secretary would have the support of Lord Morley if he brought the matter before his colleagues in the Cabinet, and it was full time that an end was put to the educational inequality which placed upon Catholic parents the burden of educating their boys while the education of Protestants was paid for by the State.
      MR. SLOANsaid he was a member of the deputation of the teaching profession which waited on the Prime Minister when Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were then told that not only the schools and the salaries of the teachers, but the whole problem of primary education would be investigated. It was, therefore, with the greatest disappointment that they now found that in the Supplementary Estimate of £114,000 the most needy and probably the most useful class was to be excluded from the grant. He thought the question of primary education was going to be treated in a universal manner, and that the policy was not going to be to assist one part of the profession to the detriment and destruction of another. He did not think any Irish Member would suggest that the proposed increase in the salaries of the teachers who came under the conditions of the £114,000 grant was in any way too large, nor would it be suggested that it should be taken away. What they suggested was that the system under which primary education was carried on at the present time should not be more aggravated than it was. The only logical way out of the difficulty was to see that while the salaries of one portion of the teachers were increased, injustice and great hardship was not meted out to that section which was the worst paid. He would like to know whether hon. Members considered it just that teachers who were receiving from £120 to £200

      1043
      should get by the allocation of this grant an increase of £15 or £20, while the teachers of £56 got absolutely nothing. It was lamentable that in the effort to remove the legitimate grievances of the Irish national schools, further friction, dissatisfaction, and in the teaching profession itself a great amount of jealousy should be created. From the Northern point of view small schools were not only desirable but absolutely necessary, and while he agreed that in some cases the amalgamation of schools would promote economy, they were bound to face the fact that small schools were absolutely necessary. If they were not available the children would be left without education, and, therefore, in a far worse state than at present. If Scottish and English Members had listened to this debate untrammelled by party ties they would, from an educational point of view, have voted for the poorer teachers in the rural districts of Ireland having some of the benefit of the grant. He had been specially asked by the Protestant Teachers' Union of the North of Ireland to bring before the Chief Secretary the very hard conditions under which they suffered on account of attendance. It was quite true that the Catholics had a more complete system than the Protestant teachers for preventing the arbitrary dismissal of a teacher, by means of arbitration. The Protestant teachers were liable to be dismissed without even knowing the charge which had been made against them. The teacher did not know what charge was made against him, and they had no power over the National Board to interfere. He did not wish to make any attack on the National Board. He thought that it had done its duty, though it was somewhat antiquated; but reform became absolutely necessary when it refused to make a rule or reguation which would give the teacher an opportunity of defending himself against a charge which might involve his dismissal. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion had referred to the Commissioners of Education. He must say that he judged of a man as he found him, and he had always found Dr. Starkie courteous and desirous to do what he considered to be in the best interest of the Board, and at the same
      1044
      time to do his duty as a public servant. He did not blame Dr. Starkie; he blamed the Government which permitted such a system to exist. Were the Government powerless? Could they not help them out of this dilemna? These teachers were serving the State under difficulties, and reports were made against them without their having an opportunity of defending themselves. They knew what human nature was, and how there might be malice and spite operating on the part of a manager against the teacher. It was not fair that these teachers should be paid an inadequate salary, and that they should be put into a category where there was no fixity of tenure, and where there was no defence against possible malice on the part of one man against another. That House was the only place where those things could be remedied. He knew that the Chief Secretary was communicating with the Board of Education, and that he referred these matters to that body. He did not expect that the Chief Secretary was capable of looking after the whole of the numerous boards in Ireland, but he might have subordinates to assist him. Surely here was a grievance on the part of a class of servants in respect to which the Chief Secretary should exercise not only his judgment, but his authority and power, by letting the National Board understand that a condition of things would not be tolerated any longer in which private circulars were supplied as to the characters of the teachers, good or bad, and which might contain charges of which the teacher never heard, and therefore had no opportunity of answering. In British justice, and under the Liberal Government of reform, the teacher with £56 a year, who taught in a hovel, or a mud cabin called a school, with an attendance of thirty-five, and who was not considered worthy of an increase of salary, even he should be given an opportunity of defending himself against the arbitrary conduct which had sometimes been used against him. There ought to be some way out of this system, which was cruel and absurd. Public money was being spent, yet there was no power over the people who received the money, nor power to see that they who received it paid it to the teacher.

      1045
      He knew of the case of one manager who took a dislike to the teacher. He went on his holidays, and the warrant for the teacher's salary was sent on to him, and not to the person who had done the work. The manager put it in his pocket, where he kept it for almost a month, so that the teacher did not receive the money he had earned, though he needed it to furnish himself with the necessaries of life. Why should a national teacher have to wait for a month before he received his salary? Why, a Cabinet Minister was not kept waiting in that way. The National Commissioners might be a little proud in their own way; in fact, as constituted they were outside public criticism. Let a Member put a Question down in that House with regard to the National Board, and where did that Question go? It went to Dublin Castle, to the very people who made the change, and it was they who gave the answer. And the Chief Secretary read to the House what was given to him in this way, so that the Member who asked for information was just as far forward as when he put the Question. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to refuse this request which was being made for a paltry addition to the grant. A sum of only £20,000 or £25,000 was required to bring these 3,000 teachers up to the level of their colleagues, and he thought that the Government which supplied additional sums for old-age pensions might at least afford this small amount. The Government had with one stroke of the pen added £300,000 to the sum which they had set aside for old-age pensions, to meet what was considered a case of hardship, yet they were refusing this paltry sum which would put these teachers in the same position as their colleagues. He appealed to the Irish Solicitor-General and to the Chief Secretary, who were sitting in a House from which Liberal and Tory Members were absent, and where only Irish Members were in their places, as though in a Parliament at College Green, to grant out of the £3,000,000 which came from Ireland to this country in taxation, this paltry sum of £25,000. Surely the Government recognised the reasonableness and justice of the demand, and had authority sufficient to grant it, not merely because
      1046
      it was backed by the unanimous voice of Ireland, but because it was just in itself, and that the justice of the case was reason sufficient for the additional grant.
      MR. HARRINGTONsaid it was not his intention to prolong the debate, and he would not have intervened but for the observations made by the hon. Member for North Armagh. The hon. Member had congratulated the Chief Secretary on the changes which he had made, and had made a reference to the independence which he had shown. But he wished to refer to two cases which were most prominent before the people of Ireland last summer. One was the case of a teacher who had got married to a publican's daughter. The National Board refused to pay his salary, and said they would continue to do so as long as he continued to be connected with a public-house. There was nothing in the rules to justify that action. Their rule was that they were not to give a salary to a teacher so long as he was connected with a public-house, and they refused to pay so long as his wife was connected with a public house. But that was no reason why they should have kept that man's salary for two years. Fortunately, the teacher was able to maintain his position. The manager was in touch with him, and he kept on the school. A short while after complaint was made to the present Chief Secretary, and at length the Board itself gave way, and paid the teacher the salary which they had kept from him for two years. The other case which was referred to by the hon. Member for North Armagh was one of the most shameful cases of a man's dismissal that was ever known. He was a teacher at one of the Rathmines schools. He had occupied the position for twenty years; he was of the first division and first class by a special resolution of the Board. That was in 1896, when the Board had power to take in consideration a teacher's special services He was promoted in view of his excellent service, but the manager took occasion to dismiss him, and he appealed to the Archbishop, who refused to sanction the action of the parish priest. The next time the inspector visited the school, he gave a

      1047
      hostile report, the first ever given to the school. Immediately after that, the National Board went to dismiss the teacher, but it was put off for six months. The next time the inspectors went, not to examine the school, but to see him personally, they again presented a hostile report. In neither of these examinations, which were held for the purpose of dismissing the teacher and nothing else, was a pupil examined. It was the plain duty of any board to have given that man first a copy of the complaint against him and next a copy of the reports, especially having regard to the fact that they had themselves on their own Motion raised this man to the highest rank which they could give him for highly-efficient service, and a year or two afterwards dismissed him from his school. He did not look for another school, of course; he decided to have done with the Board. They would have sanctioned him in another school, but the whole thing, it was perfectly plain, was not to carry out the rules of the Board but to do away with the appeal to the Archbishop. They were able now to insist that a teacher must get a report, and if he desired another inspection he could get it, and he had practically three appeals now, so that it was impossible that they should do what they had done in the past. This unfortunate teacher who was dismissed from his employment without any compensation was altogether thirty years in the service of the National Board; he was only forty-two years of age, and consequently was without a pension, and without any consideration he was cast out of the service, though, without a doubt, it was entirely his fight and the attention drawn to it that settled the question of the future management of these schools.
      MR. LARDNERsaid he agreed with the hon. Member for South Belfast when he said that this grant was spoilt. In his county there were 188 schools, only eighty-eight of which participated in these grants, and only sixteen of which got the bonus given to schools with an attendance of over seventy, and the bonus, with the exception of one case, was only £5. The maximum bonus under the Estimate he saw was £30. That was undoubtedly an illogical and inequitable state of affairs,
      1048
      but the case became much more illogical and inequitable when they took a specific case that had come to his knowledge, a case of a high-class teacher in a small school. He had the highest possible qualifications, and the very best reports from his inspector, but he had the misfortune to have under thirty-five in average attendance. He knew two other teachers who had anything but good reports, but they had the good luck to have over thirty-five on the roll, and they participated in this capitation grant from which the first-class teacher was excluded. They were told that the rain fell on the just and the unjust, but in this case the Treasury trickle seemed to be reserved for those who were perhaps less deserving than this unfortunate man who was serving one of the noblest purposes possible in a backward and poverty-stricken country. There was a multiplicity of small schools, and, therefore, education was more expensive in Ireland than it ought to be. The Chief Secretary had said that this was absolutely essential if the people were to get any education at all, and he fully agreed that the charge was not to be laid to their door. It was the Commissioner of Education themselves who were responsible. But the Treasury seemed to have made up its mind to starve out the small schools, and they would starve education in such constituencies as his. If in the past they had allowed this wrong system to grow up and to grow strong, they had accepted the responsibility for it, and they were bound to maintain it; it was their bounden duty to pay the teachers, the men who put brains into the children, a better salary than they paid the men who beat the brains out of them—the Irish constabulary. Not alone was the grant of £114,000 too small, but the additional £20,000 was too small. Had the whole thing been doubled they would not be giving nearly the salary which was paid to the Scottish, teacher. The Scottish and Irish rural districts were very much the same, but the average attendance in Ireland was lower because in certain seasons of the year children had to work on the farms, though if they took the maximum roll at a time when there was no work going on in the country, they were responsible for the education of more boys and girls

      1049
      than teachers in similar schools in Scotland. The teachers, the people, the Irish Party and the councils were protesting against the basis of the division of this money. The Commissioners of Education themselves were protesting. The Chief Secretary on one occasion told them to formulate their demands. There was one solitary Minister and one solitary Liberal on the benches behind him, and Irish Unionists and Nationalists were joining in a demand to give them £20,000 to enable one-third of the teaching profession to be fairly treated.
      MR. K. DUNCANsaid that as the subject of finance was associated with all their great reforms it might not be amiss for one who represented the Conservative Party and who was a representative of Scotland, to state his opinion in regard to the finance of this question. It had been said that one desire was to strengthen the hands of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in dealing with the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman was known to be a thinking man and an honest man, and he was generally credited with a desire to do something really effective for the good of Ireland. He would say nothing to discredit that belief, but if the Chief Secretary really wished to go forward he should rid his mind of the idea that either England, Scotland, or Ireland would grudge money for education. Was not education really the most important subject they had to deal with? After the parents themselves the teacher had the most to do with the making of the coming generation. He had a strong feeling of reverence for the spirit of loyalty that forbade them to quit their old church when they thought she was perhaps not altogether what they desired. Religion was international and had to deal with men and women of all countries. At one time they heard a great deal about what were humorously called the three R's, but he hoped to see the adoption of the three D's—duty, discipline and drill; he would even venture to add a fourth in Development, of which they were not afraid in Scotland. It was the hope of some of them that Ireland would go forward, retain its religion, and also welcome the spirit of knowledge.
      1050
      It was a rapidly growing opinion in Ireland that education must be dealt with not in a niggardly but in a generous spirit.
      MR. SHEEHYreminded the Committee that when the late Government were in power with a full treasury the money exhausted not in social reforms or upon education, but at the behests of the Jingo Party in war. He complained of the inadequacy of the sum allocated for this grant, although he did not think it lay in the mouth of the Tory Party to complain of what the Government were doing for education in Ireland. They complained, as they had a perfect right to complain, not merely of the inadequacy of the money allocated, but of the manner in which it was to be spent. They complained of the old practice by which anything given to Ireland with the right hand was immediately obliterated with the left. They complained that the schools in the districts which most needed assistance were being left in the worst position by the manner in which the money was to be distributed. The process of amalgamation would go on, and by that very process many schools in Ireland would be shut up and made useless, all because the population of Ireland did not enable these schools to be filled with an adequate number of pupils. This was a question which affected not only the poor districts of the west of Ireland, but also the richer counties of Kildare and Westmeath. It was a very strange thing but it was a fact that more money was being spent on the constabulary in Ireland than upon education. They claimed that the money spent upon intermediate education in Ireland was purely Irish money, and there were other monies ear-marked for education which, had been used for other purposes. All they were getting in return for all that was £114,000. He would not complain so much if that money was going to be administered fairly and properly, but the way it was proposed to administer the money would only lead to a worse condition of affairs in the rural districts where the children had to tramp many miles in order to get to school. The manner in which the money was allocated made it worthless, and the education

      1051
      system dangerous. Under those circumstances he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to alter the allocation, because if he did not great harm would be done to education. Every hon. Member who had taken part in the debate had spoken condemnatorily of the allocation which had been adopted. The National Board of Education was a most extraordinary product of British legislation, but even they were opposed to the allocation proposed. It was this kind of blundering which was constantly arising, that created bitterness, whereas, if the people of Ireland were treated fairly, no such bitterness would be engendered. The Government were not only allocating an insufficient sum, but they were allocating it wrongly, giving it to those who could well afford to do with less and giving nothing at all to those who deserved it most. Inspectors had gone down to places in the West of Ireland for the purpose of arranging the amalgamation of schools, shutting up one in one place and sending the children to another school. He had heard threats made that if these inspectors went on in this way they would not have a very easy task in the future. If the present allocation of the money was adhered to be was afraid a very serious injury would be done to primary education in Ireland.
      MR. DILLONthought that the debate had convinced the Government that for once the Irish representatives were unanimous, and not only they but the entire body of the Irish people. The present Supplementary Estimate and the accompanying Note indicating the distribution of the money were an indication of a most singular condition of affairs even under the singular government of their country. There was a body called the Board of National Education which had control of primary education. It was a nominated Board that was quite independent, and was not responsible even to the Irish Government, and certainly not to the Irish people. They had continuously protested against it and had sought to have it abolished or amended. The extraordinary fact emerged in this debate that even that Board had not
      1052
      had its way with regard to the distribution of the money and that all the negotiations had been conducted in the dark and behind the backs of the Irish people. Not one single man among the representatives of Ireland had been let into the secret or consulted in any way. He would like to ask the Chief Secretary, what was the opinion of the National Board on the matter. What had been the nature of the communications that had passed between the Board and the Treasury? Would the right hon. Gentleman lay the correspondence on the Table? It had been said that to attempt to separate the responsibility of the Chief Secretary from that of the Treasury was to throw dust in the eyes of the Irish people. No doubt the correct constitutional theory was that the Government was responsible as a whole, but as a matter of fact the Treasury interfered with the government of Ireland incessantly and most mischievously and exercised an undue influence over Irish affairs. He contended that the Treasury had no right to interfere with the distribution of this money. What right had the British Treasury to cross over to Ireland, or even without crossing, to engage in long-winded correspondence with Irish Departments as to the use of money which had already been granted, or was about to be granted, to Ireland as if those gentlemen who sat at the Treasury had special knowledge of the needs of Ireland? He thought it was the most monstrous thing he had ever heard of. Whatever might be the constitutional theory, he asked the Chief Secretary to compare what was done in respect of Ireland with the administration of English Departments. Compare, for instance, the attitude of the Treasury towards the Board of Education with the intolerable system which had prevailed in Ireland. If the Board of Education in England obtained a Vote of money from Parliament, as they did very easily whenever they wanted it, they were not subjected to the strain and stress in dealing by the Treasury which Irish Departments were subjected to. When the English Board obtained a grant of £1,500,000 for the purpose of carrying out their views on primary education—he thought it was for a purely political purpose—there was no more correspondence between the

      1053
      Treasury and the Board of Education. They distributed the money as they thought fit. But look what happened in Ireland. He would take one instance—the grant for the building of Irish schools. For fifteen years a correspondence went on between the Treasury and the Board of National Education in Ireland. Again and again when the representatives of Ireland raised the question they were told that it was still under discussion. They were not shown the correspondence. It was not published. During the period covered by the correspondence the whole question of school building was hung up, and many schools were allowed to fall into a ruinous condition. Whatever the constitutional theory might be, the practice in Ireland was entirely different from that in England. He did not acquit the Chief Secretary of all responsibility in this matter, because he had always recognised the solidarity of the Government; but they knew that the Treasury had interfered, and in so doing they had exhibited gross ignorance of the conditions of Irish life. He warned the Chief Secretary that an attempt to carry out these conditions would create a condition of absolute, chaos and revolt, not only among teachers, but among the whole body of the population, irrespective of their religious beliefs or political opinions. As a Home Ruler he was not sure that he ought to object to such a policy, because it would afford an example of the British Treasury against the whole of the Irish nation, and that would be rather a wholesome state of affairs. What they complained of, first of all, was that Ireland was not treated in the same way as England and Scotland. If Ireland were treated on equal terms with England and Scotland, the amount of the grant for teachers would be £400,000 instead of £114,000. The result of the differentiation was that many of the best teachers were leaving Ireland in order to obtain payment upon a higher scale elsewhere. It was impossible to defend a system under which English and Scottish teachers were paid 40 or 50 per cent. more than were teachers in Ireland. He did not sympathise with those extremists who suggested that the Chief Secretary should be abused and attacked. The right hon. Gentleman was the fifth
      1054
      occupant of his office since the agitation for the better payment of Irish teachers was started, and he was the first who had done anything in this matter, and, therefore, to hold him up as a malefactor was idiotic, and it was a course not calculated to make other Irish Secretaries follow on the same lines. He was not going to dwell on the insufficiency of the grant. So far as the grant went they ought to be thankful for it, for it was some result of the agitation which had been carried on. When he turned to the question of the proposed distribution of the grant, really language failed to express his opinion. The grant was accompanied by a Note unlike anything he had ever seen in any previous Estimate. The Note had already been quoted. Those who taught in small schools with an attendance of under thirty-five were to get nothing at all. Language failed him to express his opinion of that. The teachers in the small schools in Ireland had, owing to the recent changes and to the method of promotion, been cruelly dealt with under the present system. In his view, the national teachers of Ireland, under the old system, although the salaries were very poor, had great incentives. Promotion was open to them; if they were able men, they could rise in the ranks of their profession, even if they had only twenty-five pupils. He had known some of the ablest of the whole body of Irish teachers who were employed in these small schools, and whose reputation had spread over all Ireland. When the new system of grading was introduced seven or eight years ago, those unfortunate teachers from no fault of their own at all, but from want of influence—and indeed those things were done from influence, and not by merit—could not get promotion to larger schools. They were condemned to remain in the lowest ranks of their profession all their lives, no matter what their abilities might be. That was a system which he had condemned for years. These teachers were already in a very bad position, but when this instalment of justice which had been looked forward to for several years by the teachers of Ireland—this £114,000— came along, these men were informed that because they were poor they would get nothing; and that the

      1055
      men who had the largest schools, comparatively, were to get all this money distributed among them. A more monstrous and grotesque system never was submitted to a Committee of the House. He had had communications from various parts of Ireland showing how some of the ablest teachers in the country in those small schools were barred out from promotion. The proposal before the Committee discriminated against these men. It had been said by one or two of his colleagues that if £20,000 were added to the grant, it would enable a grant to be given to the small schools; but he did not think that that would meet the necessities of the case. It would only amount to about £6 a year, and that was a very poor offer to make to the poorest and most unjustly treated of the Irish teachers. His objection lay not only to the exclusion of all the small schools from the distribution grant, but to the whole method of distribution. A teacher with 200 pupils would get from £10 to £15 additional salary, and a special bonus of 5s. a head, which would amount to £40 or £50; while a teacher of one of the small schools, who deserved more consideration from the grant, would only get £6. He suspected that the new distribution was adopted as a matter of policy, but these poor men had no power over the education policy of the Board of Education. If the Government policy was to amalgamate small schools, let it be openly declared; to amalgamate the small schools in Ireland by starving the small school teachers, who had no influence on the policy of the Government, was monstrous cruelty. It acted unfairly to the masters of the smaller schools and to the assistants of the larger schools. The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, who had joined the Nationalist Members in this matter, had a theory as to the cause of the existence of the small schools in Ireland. He said that it was necessitated by the provision of small schools for the different religious sects. That might apply to Ulster to a great extent, but he absolutely denied that it applied to the provinces of Connaught and Munster. It was a total misconception on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The cause of small schools was the character of the country, mountainous and with bad roads,
      1056
      and the sparse population. Ireland was in its present condition, or the greater part of it, a country of small schools, and it must remain so unless they adopted the system which was followed in some parts of the United States of consolidating small schools, and organising a system of transportation by means of char-a-bancs or cars of children from the scattered districts to central schools. If they penalised the teachers of these small schools, which in absolute fact were a necessity of the country, they were declaring war on the only system of schools which could serve the population. Did anyone who took an interest in primary education deny the fact that the teacher in a small school—say with only thirty children—ought to be a better teacher than the master of a larger school? He deserved the utmost consideration instead of being punished as under the present system. In a large school the pupils were divided into classes, and the head master did not take them all himself. He had assistants. But the man who had only twenty-five pupils had to divide them into five or six classes, and take them all himself, which was the hardest work possible. Another consideration which had been forced upon his mind was that in a great many districts owing to this starvation of the small school teachers there were no educated men now except the priests and rectors. It was peculiarly unfortunate that that should be the case. When he was a boy, in his own district in the County of Mayo there was one of the most efficient teachers he had ever known in the course of his life. Boys came from places thirty to forty miles distant to get their education from him, and were content to board in the hovels of the peasants. That man rose under the old system to be master of a school, with a salary of £230 a year, while he was still quite a young man. His influence over the whole parish was extraordinary, and numbers of his boys succeeded remarkably in businesses established throughout the district, simply from the training they had got. Now, under the present system all these poor parishes were condemned to put up with the refuse of the teaching profession, because, once there, the schoolmaster was without hope of promotion. Over his

      1057
      school might be written the legend of Dante hung over the gates of Hell: "All hope abandon ye who enter here." When a man got into a small school, ambition was killed; he had no incentive to study or to make his school a success. Therefore, under the present system the Education Department were doing everything in their power to discourage and destroy education over a large portion of Ireland. He had a letter from the President of the Western Union of School Teachers, who said that the country was in a state of absolute revolt over this matter. This gentleman gave him the following figures:—In County Galway there were 390 schools. Of these, 138 had an attendance of under thirty-five pupils, and therefore got no benefit from the grant. In County Leitrim there were 197 schools, of which 118 were entirely excluded from the benefit of the grant, or more than 60 per cent., although Leitrim was a very poor county. In County Mayo there were 387 schools, of which 138 were excluded; in County Roscommon there were 230 schools, of which 104 were excluded; and in County Sligo there were 202, of which 109 were excluded. In the province of Connaught there were altogether 1,418 schools, of which 607 were entirely excluded from the benefits of the grant. The effect of this proposal would be not in any degree to satisfy the schoolteachers but to arouse a perfect storm of indignation and anger throughout the country. A speech of the Chief Secretary had been quoted, in which the right hon. Gentleman stated that Ireland was necessarily a land of small schools. That was undoubtedly true, but he asked the right hon. Gentleman to imagine the feelings of the teachers who were now being met with this slap across the face. He had received a letter from a teacher in which it was stated that to teach a small school more skill and ability were needed than to conduct a large school, and that letter was written by a gentleman who had taught successfully in both classes of schools. The Irish Members were opposed to the whole system of education in Ireland, they objected to this nominated Board, and they hoped before long to see it swept away and some form of authority established in Ireland responsible to the
      1058
      people. But pending this reform, they demanded that the fullest information should be given as to the communications that had passed between the Irish Board of National Education and the Treasury, and that they should be laid on the Table of the House. Then there was the question of grants to school buildings. There again the Chief Secretary had done a very substantial thing. They were ten or twelve years fighting to get the building grant for the Irish schools and they were never able to get a penny until the present Chief Secretary came into office. He had obtained for them £40,000 a year for three years. That was not £100,000, but it was better than nothing, and he protested against the theory that because they did not get the whole that they asked for they were therefore to reject and repudiate it—and belabour and beat the man who had given them what they had got. They were, however, promised that they would have a large additional grant from the Irish Development Fund. He remembered that when this fund was commenced he always believed it would be grabbed for all kinds of improper objects. They were promised a considerable addition to the £40,000 a year. But he found that in the Estimates for this year the distribution of the Development Grant was most singular and extraordinary. According to the Estimate there was a balance to the credit of the grant from last year of £91,000, to which was added £185,000, making in all £276,000. Then came the distribution which was made by the Lord-Lieutenant. In the course of the distribution came national school-buildings; £25,000 was the balance of a grant of £70,000, towards the cost of rebuilding necessitous schools in Ireland. That would have given, between the Development Grant and the grant direct from the Treasury, £65,000 towards the building of new and the rebuilding of old schools. That was not £100,000, but it was a good way on. But what was their horror and astonishment to find a reduced Estimate issued only last week, according to which the balance was not £95,000, but £51,000. The £40,000 had disappeared and there was no explanation. That was the result of this kind of finance, and when

      1059
      he turned to the distribution the unfortunate schools were the sufferers. National school buildings got £5,000; 20,000 had disappeared. What had become of the £40,000 and the £20,000? He objected to the disappearance of the balance of £40,000 and still more strongly to the fact that the loss was immediately saddled on the grants for repairing these unfortunate national schools. Of all the various conditions there was none which illustrated so much the necessity of Home Rule for Ireland as that of education. The education of Ireland had been ruined on every hand by that House. There was not to-day in the whole civilised world a more disgraceful system of education than that in Ireland, and that after 108 years of the government of that House. Yet when they brought forward this supreme and vital question they were faced by an absolutely empty House. It was an intolerable scandal that in these matters which Englishmen did not and could not understand, they would not take the trouble to listen to the debates, and that Irishmen, should not be allowed to settle these matters for themselves.
      CAPTAIN CRAIG: On a point of order——
      MR. DILLON: I refuse to give way. There is no point of order. [Cries of "Sit down, Craig!"]
      CAPTAIN CRAIGpersisted and on being called on by the Deputy Chairman he asked if the hon. Member was at liberty to raise the whole question of Home Rule.
      THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL,): As I understand it, it is an incidental allusion.
      MR. DILLONsaid that after more practice in Committee Rooms upstairs the hon. and gallant Member would know what order meant. The debate had been an illustration of the extraordinary attempt to control the affairs of Ireland when great vital questions were treated as the question of education had been treated that day. It was not until some great disturbance arose in Ireland that they could in any
      1060
      way get the attention of the House of Commons.
      MR. BIRRELL: We have had a long and interesting debate, in which, of course, there has been a great deal of repetition of arguments, owing to the undoubted fact that everybody has been of the same opinion. That, consequently, has prevented that variety of view which one often notices on Irish questions. I have had a good deal of advice given to me to which I have listened attentively as to the whole duty of a Chief Secretary. Some of the speakers have indicated a view that it is the duty of a Chief Secretary to make himself the spokesman of all the just and legitimate financial demands of the country. I quite agree with that, and I think if my conduct were known, I should be found to have discharged the whole duty of a Chief Secretary in this matter. When one goes to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and make these demands, he, of course, meets you with courtesy and consideration, but he points out that you are not the only one of his colleagues who presses demands upon him, he points to the several financial conditions of the country and indicates pretty plainly that he cannot give you an undue preference, adding that were he to concede the demands which he might conceive just and proper, bankruptcy and deficit would stare him in the face. Then the question arises, having regard to these statements, what is the Chief Secretary to do? He has only one course open to him; which course occurs naturally to his mind every week, and that is to tender his resignation, and say he will not be responsible any longer for the government of the country unless his fair financial demands can be instantly met, and that unless all other claims are put on one side and special attention given to him, he will take his seat with a light heart on a back bench, and indulge in that freedom of criticism which is generally noticeable on the part of those who have left the Government. My own opinion is that a person who is always threatening resignation is, after all, somewhat of a coward, and unless he is satisfied that he can do no good in the position he occupies, he had better remain there and bear the brunt of all

      1061
      criticism directed against him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, my predecessor in office and, therefore, always very friendly disposed, so far as political differences will allow, to a man in my position, pointed out—and I accept his view—that it would be absurd for a Chief Secretary to repudiate his colleagues of the Treasury. He has no right to do so, and that was why I admitted that I had a direct responsibility for this Estimate. We do not live in watertight compartments, we are bound one to the other. It is not until you go to a back bench that you have freedom of criticism. If on any particular point you are over-ruled by a Government of which you still remain a member, because the financial necessities do not admit of your request being granted, you have got to put up with it and allow yourself to be criticised and even abused for not having done more for the country you represent. I quite agree with that view. Then the right hon. Gentleman expressed a view with which I do not know if, constitutionally, I can altogether agree. He said that although I was bound to the Treasury, if I succeeded with the Treasury and got a grant of money for Irish purposes, I could waive all their terms and conditions on one side and say: "The money is mine and a fig for your conditions. You promised me £114,000, and it is not for you, but for me, for the Irish Government, to decide what is to be done with it." I cannot agree with that, because one cannot deny the right of the Treasury—it is not necessary to have a few animalculæ in a back room—one cannot deny the right of the Chancellor of the Exchequer——
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Under what statute?
      MR. BIRRELL: I will come to that. This is entirely new money. It is not subject to any existing Act of Parliament. It is quite open to the Irish Government and to the Treasury to endow Ireland with new money, and it is open to the Treasury to impose in the Resolution by which the money is voted what terms it likes, which terms become, under the Appropriation Act, part of the law of the land.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: That is not what the Auditor-General said in 1882.
      MR. BIRRELL: It is, at all events, news to me that, if new money is granted by way of a Supplementary Vote on an original Estimate for education in Ireland, it is immediately bound by previous statutory conditions with regard to money paid over to the National Commissioners or anybody else. I imagine, this being new money, it is open to the Treasury to impose what terms they like as to its disposition. I, therefore, cannot altogether agree with the right hon. Gentleman. After all, however, these are matters of constitutional law and learning and are a little bit beside the mark. I do not think it can be taken as a maxim admitted by everybody that, once the Treasury has acceded to the demands of a Chief Secretary with regard to a particular grant for education, it is not for them to impose terms as to the manner in which that fund is to be distributed.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us where the Treasury get that power.
      MR. BIRRELL: I do not know. It is the Treasury, and that is why I accept the responsibility for this Estimate myself. I apprehend the Treasury would have the power. It goes without saying that any branch of the Government which has the control over money, would have the right to say: "We give you this money upon certain conditions as to its disposition, because we are anxious to procure a particular result." I cannot imagine what power there is in the Constitution to prevent that being done. I pass away from that to the merits of the question. I say at once that I presume the reason, as it has always been explained to me, of the conditions of this Estimate is that the Government is anxious to reduce the number of unnecessary schools in Ireland. No-Body disputes that the figures with regard to schools in Ireland are rather remarkable as compared with Scotland. For example, you find the two countries with practically the same population. In Ireland, with an estimated population of 4,399,000, there are 8,659 schools,

      1063
      while in Scotland with an estimated population of 4,652,000 there are only 3,240 schools. Therefore, in two countries with practically the same population and, in some respects at all events, in some parts of the country with very similar physical conditions, you have an enormous disparity in the number of schools. I quite agree when you come to investigate the circumstances of the two cases, these figures, although obviously striking, are not really so forcible as some people might suppose, because you find, for example, when you examine the last census, that there are forty towns in Scotland which have a population of over 10,000 each and with a total population of 2,369,705; that is, 52·9 per cent. of the entire population live in towns, whereas Ireland, with a total population nearly equal to that of Scotland, had only twenty-one towns having a population of over 10,000, with a total population of 1,033,232, or 23·2 per cent. of the entire population. In other words, more than one half of the population of Scotland is found in fairly large towns, while under one quarter of the population of Ireland is found in towns of the same size. At the same time, everybody who knows anything about Ireland knows that there are in different parts of the country an unnecessary number of schools. I am not speaking of the desire to send Protestants to Catholic Schools or vice versa, but of schools under the same management. Undoubtedly there are surplus schools in Ireland, and it is a most desirable thing, although a most difficult thing for anybody really interested in the financial position of Ireland, to reduce those schools. I quite agree I have not very warmly attached myself to the terms imposed by this Estimate. I think in all these cases you ought to consider the geographical circumstances and position of the school, and you ought not to punish a school simply because it happens to be in a part of the country which is sparsely inhabited and where you cannot possibly, under any circumstances, have a large average attendance, and where in point of fact you have to make up your minds between having no school at all and having a small one. At the same time I cannot allow it to go forth that there is not a very grave
      1064
      necessity for the reduction of a very considerable number of these 8,000 odd schools in different parts of Ireland. Nobody, I think, can claim to consider himself an educational reformer in Ireland who is not most anxious to do everything that can be done to reduce the number of these schools. That is one view which has to be borne in mind. Now we come to the actual Estimate. Although I quite agree that there is very much to criticise, I must say that had there been more people in the House they might almost have been led to believe, from what has been said, that the Government are taking away from school teachers pecuniary increment which they at present enjoy instead of making an increase thereto. It has been said that the effect of the proposed distribution will be to shut up schools, but I am not prepared to concede for a moment that those schools will be closed, even although the teachers in them have to go on receiving their present somewhat insufficient salaries. After all, the Committee must recollect that what we are discussing is an additional grant of £114,000 by way of increment to the salaries of school teachers. I quite agree the Irish people are entitled to have a voice in this matter. We are here to consider the most fair mode of distributing this not inconsiderable sum of money. You cannot meet altogether the demands of Ireland. I own I was slightly surprised to hear that a sum of £400,000 would have to be forthcoming before you could place the salaries of teachers in the rural parts of Ireland on the same footing as the salaries of the teachers in the rural parts of Scotland. I do not think that would bear investigation. I think on examination it would be found that there is very little difference, if any, between the salary of a teacher of a comparatively small school in Scotland, and the salary of a teacher of a comparatively small school in Ireland. I am quite willing to admit that £114,000 does not meet the necessities of the case, but, at all events, it is quite as large a sum as was in my mind when I went into the lion's den and addressed the teachers of Ireland. I am bound to say I have always found confidence is strictly observed in Ireland. If you are addressing people there, and you

      1065
      tell them in confidence you hope to get it for them, they always respect your confidence most scrupulously. I certainly gave many of the teachers cause to believe that some such sum as this—a sum not much exceeding £100,000—would be the very most I should be able to do for them for some time to come, and, though they did not say they would take that as a full discharge of their claims, they did not feel the profound discontent which the language of some speakers in the debate would lead us to suppose. They live on a small income, and they are desirous to get an addition to it to which they are clearly entitled. I think, therefore, so far as the amount of this Estimate goes, it is quite as considerable as in the bottom of their hearts they anticipated getting. It took a good deal of getting, and I certainly pleaded their cause with far greater pertinacity and emphasis than I ever pleaded any cause with which I had personally to do. Therefore, I am glad I have got this sum. It must be remembered also that there was £40,000 given for three years for the building of schools, and the schedule to the Irish Universities Bill. This Government has also produced a Budget which undoubtedly from an Irish point of view is the best they ever had. The reduction of the sugar tax will leave £340,000 a year to fructify in the pocket of the Irish peasant, and, in a literal sense, sweeten the cup of many a poor peasant in Ireland. And then it has been calculated that old-age pensions will represent a sum of something like £700,000 in the case of Ireland. So that, after all, great as has been our debt to Ireland and cruel as has been its treatment, owing chiefly to the ignorance of Ireland in this House in times gone by, I really think we are entitled to say we are doing our best to repay the debt. We have, therefore, got to consider now the best mode of distributing this fund. I cannot at present hold out any promise that it will be enlarged by one penny. I will not play the role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has played it himself at this box a good many times during the last week, and we all know what he says, and, having regard to other demands on the Treasury for purposes
      1066
      connected, it may be, with land purchase, certainly with the Congested Districts Board, with afforestation and other things, it would be very foolish of me to quarrel with the hand which is to feed me. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to ask why we should spoil a good job for a miserable £20,000 a year. There are so many miserable £20,000 a year, and they mount up to a considerable sum. Of course were education the only thing which had to be done for Ireland I quite agree it would be a contemptible policy to spoil a good thing by parsimony, but parsimony is sometimes not parsimony at all, but stern necessity. At all events I stand by my colleague in this matter and share his responsibility, happily in a less degree as far as the national finance is concerned, and I am not authorised to increase this fund this year. Therefore, the question simply is, how is it to be distributed. The hon. Member for Mayo said he thought he was entitled to know the opinion of the Commissioners on this subject. I do not mind tolling him that the Commissioners favoured drawing the line at schools of twenty instead of thirty-five. The schools in Ireland with an attendance under ten are only eight; under twenty, 434; under thirty, 1,467; and between thirty and thirty-five, 908. These are the figures of the schools. Now I am bound to confess that I personally very largely share the views expressed by many Members in this House. I am no enemy of small schools, assuming always that they are small by virtue of the physical conditions of the locality. When I was at the Education Office I was often appealed to by small schools which had been suppressed, by perfectly justly economic considerations of county councils—I was appealed to to allow them to continue and I had in my time four or five of those appeals. One appeal was for a school in Bedfordshire where the country is in many parts very bleak and exposed, the roads very high and the weather very often exceedingly severe from falls of snow and otherwise. I never had one of these appeals without being convinced in those cases that those small schools were doing an exceedingly good work, and that the suppression

      1067
      of them would have meant the suppression of an influence for good. In all those cases my bias was strongly in favour of keeping up the small schools. Here in Ireland I agree in the great majority of cases in the South and West these small schools must exist, and they are most admirable and useful institutions. We might gather from the hon. Member for Mayo that the Government ought to give the biggest amount of the grant to the teachers with the smallest number of pupils. But the teacher with 200 pupils, under him does not get the grant for the whole 200—he might get the capitation fee for about seventy, and the balance is divided amongst the assistant teachers. So he is not such a capitalist as that. But when you come to consider the lot of a teacher with a class say of twenty, I quite agree his duties are most interesting, and he has an opportunity of impressing his personality upon his pupils, and if he is a man of fine character and generous disposition, they will learn more from him than they would do from the teachers perhaps in a very much larger school where there is not the same room for personal influence. The teacher with only twenty pupils, if he is a man of fine character and generous disposition, and takes all the classes, has a greater opportunity of impressing his personality upon his pupils, and he cannot expect the same remuneration as the man in a big school in a crowded locality with all the diverse duties imposed upon him. I feel that you must strike a distinction. Some men think it is better to be a country curate than a bishop. At any rate, the clergyman has the opportunity of enjoying the same simple natural life as the people amongst whom he lives. It is quite impossible to give the teachers in the smaller schools a slight superiority in capitation fee over those in the larger schools. I really think the teachers in the smaller schools derive certain advantages and benefits from their natural, simple lives, and they do not expect so large a remuneration as those who live in crowded localities. I quite agree with what has been said about the grading rule. Having had an opportunity of discussing the point with the Commissioners I think that any rule that
      1068
      prevents promotion or stereotypes a man for ever in a particular class of school is, in my opinion, a great mistake. It may very well be that a young teacher develops his teaching abilities better in a small school when he takes all the classes and exercises sole control. But if he is stuck there for the rest of his life, without chance of promotion, that would be a harsh rule. The Treasury, however, has nothing to do with that, but I will certainly see whether some reconsideration may not be given to the point, although I have no control over the Board of Commissioners. I think it is not only a harsh rule, but it is a very foolish rule in the interests of the Treasury. I now come to the question of what is to be done in regard to this matter. The Commissioners propose that the capitation fee should be divided in a way that would leave out 442 schools. I have been brought up in the Court of Equity, where I was taught that equality is equity, and equity is equality, and my own natural disposition is to see this sum, extracted not without toil, distributed amongst the teachers, but whether all the teachers should be included, or whether those in the schools of under twenty scholars should be left out, is a matter which requires to be most carefully considered. Unlike one of my colleagues I cannot take the sense of the House whilst standing on my legs. There is not much in the point, but it must be borne in mind that I cannot get any more money. If I do what I have promised, the capitation fee will have to be reduced, but I really think there is sufficient solidarity and esprit de corps among the teachers to be willing for the present to submit to this reduction. I do not know that I can usefully say more than that now. The course I propose to take is to withdraw the Estimate in its present shape and, after consultation with the Commissioners of National Education, to bring it up again in a form including all schools. I must repudiate the idea suggested by an hon. Member from Ulster that there is in the policy of the Treasury any hostility to the schools of the Church of Ireland. Whatever the Treasury may be, and it has many faults, it at any rate is a most undenominational body, and the idea that the Treasury would wage war upon the

      1069
      schools of a particular denomination in order to destroy them is altogether out of the question. Undoubtedly what the Treasury has in mind, and what every educational reformer in Ireland must have in mind is the desire to reduce the unnecessary number of schools in particular parts of Ireland. I could give instances, but I do not want to rouse the denominational spirit. In some places there are as many as four schools belonging to four different Protestant denominations. The object to be aimed at—unpopular though it may be—is to get the children of these districts into two schools—if not into one—instead of into four; and I am glad, to notice a disposition among some of the Protestant bodies to bring about a reduction of school staffs by amalgamation. The duplication of staffs is a great and undoubted evil, arid it cannot be denied that we were justified in putting a certain amount of pressure upon the Board to pursue that subject. Whether the right way of putting on that pressure was to reduce the increments of the teachers is a subject which it is not now necessary for me, having acceded to the general wish of the House, to deal any further with. I hope, however, I may be allowed to obtain the first Vote on the Paper, and then I will bring up the Supplementary Vote in the form I have suggested.
      MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested the withdrawal of the Vote.
      MR. BIRRELL: I am the last to stickle over a matter of form, so long as I get the money.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I do not quite understand the point of order. The question put from the Chair is the Supplementary Vote.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Quite so. You only put the question, as I understand
      1070
      it, that the sum of £114,000 be granted to His Majesty for the service stated. You do not attach to it all the embroidery attached to it by the Treasury.
      MR. DILLON: The Chief Secretary offered to consult all parties. If the Vote is withdrawn now, we shall have an opportunity of saying something about it again. If we vote the money now, we shall not be able to do it.
      MR. BIRRELL: I cannot agree to withdraw the Vote now, for I want to say a word upon a question which excites very strong interest. It was referred to by the hon. Member for East Clare, namely, the sad state of many of the schools in Ireland, particularly in wet and cold weather. The weather in Ireland is not particularly cold, but it is extraordinarily wet. I have seen the thing for myself, and I know about it from conversation with inspectors. They have often told me that in going into one of these schools on a soaking wet day, and finding the children cowering in clothes saturated with damp round a miserable turf fire, they felt that, in the interest of the children themselves, the best thing was to tell them to go home and forego the inestimable benefits of education for that day. That is a very shocking state of things, and, of course, a claim has been put forward for the heating of the schools. But it is impossible to overlook the fact that in Ireland there is no such thing as a school rate, and that it was undoubtedly always contemplated that the form which the local contribution would take would be in seeing, as a matter of parochial pride, that the schools should not be in the lamentable condition in which I have solemnly to admit they are. Prone as I am to love everything Irish, I cannot in this matter exonerate the local authorities from considerable responsibility. The sums required are not large. The people left to themselves

      1071
      are a generous people—the most generous I have ever been brought into contact with, most generous to one another; but they have got the notion that everything that has to be paid for in connection with the schools should come from the British Exchequer, and they have forgotten—I do not blame them; people do forget these things—perhaps some of them did not even know, that it was certainly always the understanding that, there being no school rate in Ireland—though there are rates now for labourers' cottages and the like which they bear with astonishing patience—they should look after the comfort of the children. I think they ought to have brought home to them that it is something of a shame that they should allow the children to whom they are so deeply attached to incur the risks of tuberculosis and those other terrible diseases which ravish the children of Ireland, and that they have as much obligation to the children and their school-house as to anything else they hold dear. Although I have pressed this case, and I daresay shall continue to do so, I find it difficult to resist the argument that it is really a matter in which the Irish people might, at no great cost to themselves, be brought to take a personal care and interest. I have at all events, failed in obtaining the grant I sought for. I would have liked to have been able to make some proposal in regard to this; but I hope the words I have said will not be taken amiss by any Irishman or lover of Ireland. Other little matters have been referred to. I listened to what the hon. Member said about the Christian Brothers. He told me the other day that he might take the opportunity of referring to them. I have seen what has been said by my predecessors at different times in regard to them, but I do not require to learn from them, for I have seen for myself whilst in Ireland, the schools of the Christian Brothers over and over again. I have seen their famous school
      1072
      in Cork. Everybody who sees their schools appreciates their value, and the part they have played for many a long day in Irish education. Although I am on terms of friendship with the Christian Brothers they have never approached me and I am not certain what their views are. I think they value their freedom. The hon. Member was careful to say that he did not represent their views to me. I also wish I had a little more freedom myself, for I value it. They do a great work in Ireland. Parents prefer their schools partly because they carry out their work in their own way without being bothered by the public authorities. Although so far as inspection as to the value of their educational work is concerned, they have been willing to submit to it, I am not sure what their views are on the subject, and were they to present them to me, I should consider them most sympathetically, I do not think that the books used in the schools represent the difficulty it was at one time. I think we have got past that, always assuming that the books are educational and up to the mark. I cannot think that there will be any difficulty on that ground, because the opinion is exploded as to children using the same books from the north to the south of Ireland. With reference to the sacred emblems of religion, that is a matter I am not now going into. I do not know what the feeling in Ireland now is on the subject, but I certainly share the opinion expressed by more than one of my predecessors upon the value of the work done by the Christian Brothers, and were I assured that they were desirous of parting to some extent with the complete freedom which they now enjoy I would be willing to consider any proposal they might make. Having regard to the great work they do in Ireland, I think it would be impertinent on my part to express anything more than I have done.
      MR. DILLON: What of the £35,000?
      MR. BIRRELL: I am sorry that, this not being on the Vote, I have not the material before me to answer the hon. Member's Question. I have taken a note of what the hon. Member said, and I expect that I shall be able to tell him of the missing £35,000 when inquiry has been made. Something was said about an appeal in the case of Protestant teachers. That is a very important question, and I am all in favour of a schoolmaster feeling that he is not liable to be dismissed by the arbitrary will of anybody, because we all know that in scholastic matters tempers are often short and hasty things may sometimes be done. In the case of the Catholics there is a willingness to submit any case of dispute to the bishop of the diocese. Roughly speaking, it may be said that the appeal to the bishop is satisfactory. The only thing is to find an equally satisfactory appeal in the case of the Protestant community. I understood the hon. Member for South Belfast to say that the teachers were prepared with an appellate jurisdiction but that the managers did not agree; but I am quite willing to put the case again to the Education Commissioners.
      MR. SLOANsaid that what he had stated was that the teachers had made representations to the right hon. Gentleman himself; that he had put them before the Board of Education without success; but that he did not know whether the managers would agree.
      MR. BIRRELL: I know that difficulties have arisen. I quite understand that the teachers and the managers are not quite agreed at present as to whom they should appeal to; but I will refer it again to the Commissioners, and I hope some satisfactory appellate Court will be found. It is, however, a little too much to put on the Commissioners
      1074
      the duty of finding a Court for two rival parties in which each has equal confidence, and it would be rather difficult to force a Court on one of the parties if that party was indisposed to accept a decision of that Court as final. It is a matter for negotiation, but it is a most important matter to come to some speedy decision about. My hon. friend the Member for East Kerry was a little troubled about the licensed house question. I am bound to say that I think it is preeminently undesirable that any one occupying the position of a teacher should be directly or indirectly, or even accidentally, connected with a public house. I am assured by the Commissioners that their rule has not really had any retrospective effect, and, therefore, I must, for once, stand by the recognised authorities. I feel that this debate has been useful, though I do not know whether there will be any sore hearts over it. I believe that the Committee has exercised a wise judgment in being so comparatively unanimous on the subject; and I hope good will come out of a decision which will, at all events, not carry with it to anybody the sense of injustice. I am quite with the decision of the House that the Government has done its best.
      MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the Chief Secretary had made a reference to a remark he had made earlier in the debate in which he thought the right hon. Gentleman had somewhat misrepresented him. First of all, he wished to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the dexterous way in which he had extricated himself and his colleagues out of a somewhat difficult position. He was very glad he had seen fit to change the attitude of the Government and make the valuable concession he had promised, but he regretted very much that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to go a little further and get the extra £25,000 which would have enabled the

      1075
      poorer teachers in the smaller schools to get a pro rata addition without deducting anything from the teachers in the larger schools. The right hon. Gentleman had poured contempt on his description of the £20,000 that was wanted for the smaller schools, but the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that earlier in his period of office he had extracted from the Treasury a promise of £680,000 to sweeten the Government of Ireland—a great portion of which was intended for education.
      MR. BIRRELL: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know the sad history of the past, that £650,000 was calculated on the basis of giving £100,000 to education.
      MR. WALTER LONGsaid that Ireland no doubt would have benefited enormousl by getting the £650,000, but the right hon. Gentleman might have been able to get the extra £20,000 or £25,000 for the smaller schools. He was, however, very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had made the concession he had. With regard to his view that the Irish Government ought to maintain their own right to distribute the money conceded by the Treasury, the Chief Secretary said that the Treasury had only exercised its constitutional right. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, who was a high constitutional authority, he did not admit that for a moment, his view being that where a Government Department, whether it was the Irish Government, the War Office, the Admiralty, or any other, had established its right to Government money for a particular purpose it rested with the Department to distribute the money for the purpose defined. Supposing that the Treasury granted money for educational purposes in Ireland, it would be quite wrong for the Irish Government to spend it, for instance, in the establishment of hospitals, but it should have
      1076
      the right to decide how it should be applied educationally. That was exactly what had happened in this case, because it was the Chief Secretary and not the Treasury who had announced the change of policy to which they had listened. Therefore the action of the Committee was a vindication of the view he had put forward, and he hoped that the step the right hon. Gentleman had taken would help in asserting the right of every Minister to distribute money granted for a particular purpose within his own Department in the way that he thought most beneficial, efficacious, and just. He thought that the Chief Secretary had somewhat misunderstood his hon. friend behind him when he referred to the Church schools. His hon. friend had not for a moment suggested that there was any covert attack made on the Church of Ireland schools. What his hon. friend referred to was that in some parts of Ireland the operation of the Supplementary Estimate would have a severe effect on Church of Ireland schools. They had held very strongly that if the money were distributed as had been proposed it would operate very unfairly on a very deserving class that could not defend itself, and he rejoiced that the Chief Secretary had receded from that position.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,)said that he spoke on behalf of a Department that must always be an unpopular one, because it had to control rather than encourage expenditure. After an experience of a month or two at the Treasury he would not have ventured to lay down any rule unless he had had behind him the experience of the Department. He ventured to assert that during the time of office of the late Chief Secretary it had lever been successfully held by any Department that the Treasury was not entitled not merely to interfere in the

      1077
      gross amount of the sum to be expended, but to criticise the method in which that sum was to be spent, and to make conditions that it should be spent in a certain way.
      MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was well known that the Treasury and the various Departments had their negotiations, and in every case there was behind all the authority of the Cabinet, who settled whether the Department or the Treasury was to have the final word.
      MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that that imparted an aspect which the right hon. Gentleman had not put before the House. Nothing had been said of the power and authority of the Cabinet.
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he had no hesitation in thanking the Chief Secretary for the efforts he had made to improve education in Ireland. He recognised that he had made great efforts, and that he had given great assistance to the national schoolmasters; he had given them about three times as much as had been given to University education. There was, however, no doubt that the Treasury had been a curse in the life of Ireland, and he thought they must take some stand against the growing attitude the Treasury was assuming of attempting to legislate for the country. That was why he now said it would be better from the constitutional point of view that when grants were given to Ireland they should not have a fresh Estimate put forward and a fresh attempt at legislation. He denied altogether that the Treasury was entitled to say how this money should be spent. The Appropriation Act had been referred to as legalising what had been done in this case. He denied that. He recollected that when Mr. Gladstone, in 1881, sought to increase the salaries of certain resident magistrates he argued that it was legalised, first, by the passage of a
      1078
      Resolution in Committee, and then by the Appropriation Act, but in the result the Comptroller-General disallowed the amounts, and Mr. Gladstone brought in a Bill to legalise the payments, and it was defeated. That was not a precedent in favour of the Government, but against them. To bring forward a fresh Estimate and to say that by it schools with twenty or thirty scholars were to have money allocated to them in a particular way would be illegal. The Treasury must remember that Ireland had certain rights under the Act of 1817 by which the Irish and British Exchequers were amalgamated. The Chief Secretary misinterpreted the feeling of the Nationalist Members if he supposed they were ungrateful to him.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORexpressed a hope that next year the Chief Secretary might be able to increase the amount of the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman having met the Nationalists in regard to the allocation of the grant, he advised his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment.
      MR. BYLESsaid that year after year Irish Members brought before the House the gross inequality with which Ireland was treated in regard to education, and they were met with sympathetic speeches by the Chief Secretary, but still with a non possumus. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that while he was called the King of Ireland he was not the King of the Cabinet, and that he could not get what he wanted. As an English Member he listened year after year to these stories of injustice with sorrow and a sense of shame. Parliament had been justly charged with gross injustice. Why should a child because he was born on the other side of the Irish Channel be handicapped in his opportunity for primary education? He knew these country schools in Ireland where the little children with bare feet,

      1079
      and often scantily clothed, stood on the clay floor, their only comfort being the miserable turf fire, and then he thought of the council schools in England, and the infinite opportunities given to the English child, and he wanted to know why the Irish child should be treated with this inequality. The English nation ought to feel their responsibilities in this matter and to be ashamed to be charged with gross injustice. They ought to say: "We are rich and they are poor. We are a big country, and they are a small and despised people." ["No."] He would be only too glad if that word could be withdrawn, but he was only too afraid there was some truth in it. They were in the minority, and they came a great distance to plead their case, but they kicked against the pricks and could do nothing. They came and laid their case before the Government and were met with a non possumus. ["No."] He thought hon. Members next year would have very nearly the same tale of injustice to unfold. If it were not so, he would be only too glad. He asked Members of English constituencies to consider this argument. The Irish child had just as strong a claim as the English child and ought to be just as well educated.
      MR. O'DOWDsaid he knew female National teachers of high training—teachers who had increased the efficiency of their schools to a considerable extent, but whose services as principal teachers were discontinued solely because the average required by the Commissioners of National education could not be reached. This meant, in a number of cases, the abolition of separate female schools, and the practical dismissal of teachers. Parents who objected to have their daughters sent to mixed schools were placed in a position of great inconvenience, especially in rural districts, where children had had to travel for miles in order to reach female schools. He hoped the matter would be inquired into.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question again proposed.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      £670,818, to complete the sum for Public Education, Ireland.
      Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to Sit again upon Monday next.

      ADJOURNMENT.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)
      MR. MULDOONprotested against the adjournment of the House before eleven o'clock. He thought the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Amendment Bill might very wel1 be passed. It had received the acceptance of all parties in Ireland.
      And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

      LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
      Not amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; Bill read the third, time, and passed.

      URBAN DISTRICT COUNCILS (ADVERTISING) BILL.
      Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
      Bill withdrawn.
      Adjourned at two minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Crystal Palace Company Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Swansea Valley Gas Bill [H.L.]; now Tawe Valley Gas Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Buckie Burgh and Buckie (Cluny) Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional; Order (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from; the Select Committee without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
Doncaster Corporation Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Troon (Loch Bradan) Water Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been reported from the Committee; and to be read 3a on Monday next.
Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1.) [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3. Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Order Confirmation (No. 2.) Bill [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Regulations for the training of teachers for elementary schools. (In force from 1st August, 1908).
  Code of regulations for public elementary schools in Wales (including Monmouthshire) with schedules, 1908.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY.
  Regulations for the Territorial Force and the County Associations.
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906.
  Rules made by the Board of Trade. Dated 1st of June 1908; dated 19th of June 1908.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (TREASURY) (AFRICAN COMPANIES).
  Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents among the records of the Royal African Company and the company of merchants trading to Africa, which have been removed from the office of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury and deposited in the Public Record Office, but are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the first Amendment standing in my name is to insert the word "yearly." That is a purely drafting Amendment. There are two similar Amendments following which are also of a purely drafting character.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 18, after the word 'of,' to insert the word 'yearly.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 4, after the word 'separate,' to insert the word 'yearly.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 11, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'yearly,'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPEKDOWN: My Lords, my next Amendment is in Clause 4, page 3, line 26, to leave out from the word "say" to the words "Valuation Acts" on page 4, line 5, and to insert a long Amendment which I shall ask your Lordships to allow me to explain. The Amendment itself is an important one, and is intended to deal with the case of the man who unreasonably withholds land from building in, or in the neighbourhood of, a town.
  I must be allowed to remind your Lordships of what occurred on May 14th, when we were in Committee. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh had moved certain words which I proposed to omit, and your Lordships finally agreed to omit those words. It was pointed out that the result of that might be to leave entirely undealt with the case of the man who unreasonably withholds land from building. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack appealed to this side of the House. He stated that that was the result, in his opinion, of what we had done, and he said himself that he thought it was a very difficult case to deal with in view of the action the Committee had taken, and that he was not willing to attempt to find the words himself, because the Bill in its new shape, annual value having been substituted for capital value, was not such as he personally approved. It was replied from this side of the House that we did not wish in any way to support the man who could be proved to be unreasonably withholding from building land which actually at the moment was suited and required for building; and the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, as well as others on this side of the House, said that if words could be devised they would be quite willing to give them their favourable consideration.
  Since then this matter has been taken into serious consideration, and the result is the Amendment which I have now placed on the Paper. With regard to the first of the Amendments, your Lordships will observe that I have struck
  904
  out the whole of the present definition and inserted a new definition. The new definition includes a good deal—in fact, in substance nearly all—of the Amendment of which it proposes to take the place, and I put it in that form for the purpose of making the Amendment more simple and more clear to the House, so that everyone could understand it merely by reading it. I thought that was preferable to putting down a series of small Amendments proposing to leave in certain parts and to leave out certain others. I propose to read my Amendment to your Lordships, and to comment briefly on the important words as I pass. I move to insert the words—
  "'Yearly land value' means such part of the yearly rent or value of any lands or heritages as is fairly attributable to the land alone, (1) divested of buildings, erections, or improvements of whatever nature on, in, or under the soil, woods, fixed or attached machinery, and work of drainage and of reclamation, making up, levelling, and the like, where the benefit thereof is unexhausted at the time of valuation."
  That was in the original Bill, and subsection (1) stands as it was. Then follows—
  "(2) Subject to all building restrictions, servitudes, and contracts imposed thereon or existing in relation thereto."
  The words "subject to all building restrictions and servitudes," were inserted by your Lordships in Committee, and the additional words "and contracts imposed thereon or existing in relation thereto," I have been advised are necessary to be inserted. Now comes the important proviso—
  "Provided that in the case of laud proved to be required in the public interest at the time of valuation for building or industrial purposes, and to be unreasonably withheld from use for such purposes, the yearly land value shall be estimated as if such land were in use for the purposes aforesaid."
  Your Lordships will observe that that goes a very long way—in fact, I do not know how it could well go further—in the direction of enabling land to be assessed, or, at all events, to be valued, which is being withheld unreasonably. The main difference, I think, is in the word "proved." We held—and, if my memory serves me rightly, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack agreed— that in these cases where it was proposed to assess a man on more than he received, the onus of proof should lie on the

  905
  assessor and not on the man whose property was going to be valued.
  The next word is "required." It is not sufficient that the land should be suitable. Acting on the principle which this House asserted in the earlier stages of the Bill, it is provided that the land must not only be suitable but must be required, and must be required at the moment of valuation. It is not enough to say, as the noble and learned Lord's Bill proposed, that we are simply to take the purchase value because the purchase value embraces everything, prospective as well as present. What we say is that it must be actually required at the time of valuation for building or industrial purposes, and it must be required in the public interest. By that I do not mean for public buildings, but that it is in the public interest that there should be buildings upon that land and in that particular district; and also it must be proved that the land is unreasonably witheld from us for such purposes. Surely before land is valued on this excessively high valuation it is right that the owner should be proved to be witholding it unreasonably, whether the question be one of price or anything else. The question as to what is unreasonable will, of course, rest in the hands of the ultimate Appeal Court, and it seems to me that that Amendment, as I have described it to your Lordships, goes a great length in the direction of redressing the grievance which is said to exist. I say "said to exist" because your Lordships will recollect that we on this side of the House do not believe that there were many of these people. What we say is that, if it can be proved that there are such, we have no desire to shield or shelter them; and it is for that reason, and for that reason alone, that we are willing to go beyond the rent actually being received at the moment. That, as I say, is the most important part of the Amendment, and it is to that proposal that your Lordships will, I presume, mainly direct your attention.
  Now follow certain exceptions. These are necessary, because if you do not have any exceptions whatever from this rule it might be made imperative upon a man to build over every bit of land he possesses in the neighbourhood of a town. Take, for instance, the case of a villa which has an eighth of an acre round it. If there is a heavy assessment on site
  906
  value the result will be to promote what everyone is agreed ought to be prevented as far as possible—namely, congestion. The exceptions, four in number, are—
  "Land shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld from use—
  "(1) which is maintained as an open space or recreation ground."
  I do not think any objection will be taken to that. It was recognised in the Scottish Bill, and I do not think it is necessary to trouble your Lordships in regard to it.
  "(2) Which is required for the amenity or convenience of a dwelling-house."
  Those words, too, are to be found in the Scottish Land Bill of the present year, and they embrace such cases as I mentioned a moment ago of villas and other houses which have round them a quantity of land necessary for their amenity or convenience. It is a point which has been generally recognised in Scottish legislation.
  "(3) Which is required for the preservation of any buildings of historic or architectural interest."
  I do not think it is necessary that I should trouble your Lordships on that point. The fourth exception is rather an important one—
  "(4) The maintenance of which in its existing condition is for the general advantage of the community."
  That speaks for itself, and I do not think it is necessary that I should enlarge upon it. Then follows a proviso which appeared in the Bill when it was originally introduced and which we accepted in Committee—
  "Provided further that where the assessor considers that any restriction, servitude, or contract"—
  the word "contract," of course, is new—
  "Created after the passing of this Act has been created in order to defeat this Act it shall be lawful for him (without prejudice to the appeal to which any person aggrieved is entitled) to disregard such restriction, servitude, or contract."
  I think I have now fully explained the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord said he would give a very fair consideration to any words which met this difficulty. We do not deny that on paper, at all events, the difficulty exists, and we have done our best to meet it. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 26, to leave out from the word 'say' to the words 'Valuation Act' on page 4, line 5, and to insert the words 'yearly land value' means such part of the yearly rent or value of any lands or heritages as is fairly attributable to the land alone; (1) divested of buildings, erections, or improvements of whatever nature on, in, or under the soil, woods, fixed or attached machinery, and work of drainage and of reclamation, making up, levelling, and the like, where the benefit thereof is unexhausted at the time of valuation; and (2) subject to all building restrictions, servitudes, and contracts imposed thereon or existing in relation thereto. Provided that in the case of land proved to be required in the public interest at the time of valuation for building or industrial purposes, and to be unreasonably withheld from use for such purposes, the yearly land value shall be estimated as if such land were in use for the purposes aforesaid. Land shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld from use; (1) which is maintained as an open space or recreation ground; or (2) which is required for the amenity or convenience of a dwelling-house; or (3) which is required for the preservation of any buildings of historic or architectural interest; or (4) the maintenance of which in its existing condition is for the general advantage of the community. Provided further that where the assessor considers that any restriction, servitude, or contract created after the passing of this Act has been created in order to defeat this Act it shall be lawful for him (without prejudice to the appeal to which any person aggrieved is entitled) to disregard such restriction, servitude, or contract."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I think it will be convenient for debate if I put the Question in the form "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," and then afterwards put the Question "that the other words be there inserted." As this is practically a Second Reading as well as a Committee stage, it might be convenient that we should debate the matter on both those Questions. I think I ought to take part at once in the discussion upon the very interesting proposal of the noble Earl. The Amendment only deals with one part of the subject of valuation, which of itself is a small part of the whole subject of rating—a subject that has been before your Lordships already.
  Let me just say, before going straight to the Amendment now before the House, that I think noble Earl has a little misapprehended what I think I have said. It is not mainly a question of the
  908
  holding up of land that requires valuation I think there ought also to be the means of putting a special rate upon any increased value by reason of public expenditure, and also, which practically is the same thing, any increased value hereafter accruing annually from the growth of a city or town in which the land is situated. I am not going to enlarge upon that subject, but I mention the point in order to guard against misapprehension. There is also, in my view, a necessity for rating appropriately and according to the value land which is not built upon at the present time or not used for industrial purposes at the present time, and that is the sole point with which the noble Earl's Amendment deals. I will, therefore, confine myself to that point in the observations I shall offer to the House.
  I must do the Amendment the justice of saying that it has been carefully considered and is skilfully drawn, and when I read it first I came to regard some portions of it with great satisfaction. The Amendment assumes that it is possible— nay, that it ought to be done—to rate the site value apart from the composite value of site and buildings together. That is, indeed, satisfactory, because that is a point upon which there was considerable controversy when the Bill in its earlier stages was before the House. At all events, the noble Earl now agrees with us that that can be done. Secondly, the noble Earl proposes to apply the provision to land other than building land—to land used for industrial purposes also. The noble Earl speaks of land—
  "divested of … work of drainage and of reclamation, making up, levelling, and the like."
  Accordingly, he contemplates the possibility of applying a site value to land which is not building land but which is reclaimed land for example. I am very glad indeed to draw that inference from the Amendment.
  In addition the Amendment proposes, and I think most justly, that restrictions on the use of land created after the passing of the Act shall be disregarded. That is a point as to which some objection has been taken, but the noble Earl, very wisely if I may be allowed to say so, admits that in the proviso at the end of his Amendment. Finally, my Lords, I

  909
  notice with great pleasure that the Amendment provides that the yearly land value is to be estimated as if the land were in use for building or industrial purposes. That is a hypothetical valuation, and I am very glad it should be recognised that that is practicable; also, I am glad that it should be recognised that the proper valuation should be, not as it is, but as it would be, if it were put to a beneficial use of that kind, subject, I know, to limitations. Now those points do, I think, constitute a step forward towards agreement, if agreement be ultimately obtained, upon this subject. Unless certain principles are admitted agreement is impossible, and the noble Earl has made a considerable advance in regard to those four points.
  But there are objections to this Bill, upon one of which I need not dwell for I did so at length on the last occasion. I refer to annual value. We fought that battle out, and the majority of your Lordships were hostile to the view of capital value. We remain of the same opinion as to capital value; but I will not go into that discussion again as the House is not likely to change its opinion. But that is, of itself, an objection which goes to the very root and foundation of the Amendment, and constitutes an insuperable difficulty in the way of His Majesty's Government agreeing to this clause. There is one other, it seems to me, fatal blot in the Amendment. The noble Earl proposes that there shall be a valuation only in the case of land—
  "Proved to be required in the public interest at the time of valuation for building or industrial purposes, and to be unreasonably withheld from use for such purposes."
  That is diametrically opposed to the view which His Majesty's Government entertain in regard to vacant land. I do not think I have ever said anything about land unreasonably withheld, nor am I quite sure how you could determine this. The point I have endeavoured to put before the House is that there ought to be fair play between ratepayers within each rating area. If one man has built a house upon his land worth so much a year and the other man has not built a house, and for that reason receives only a nominal rent for his land, as between ratepayer and ratepayer, one of them has a value of £1,000, and the other a value of £1,500; yet one pays on £50 a year
  910
  and the other on £3 a year. I ask your Lordships whether that is fair as between one ratepayer and another.
  There is no complaint made in the sense of accusing a man of any criminal or immoral conduct in not building upon his land. That is not the ground on which this Valuation Bill proceeds, nor the ground on which ultimate rating is contemplated. The point is that these two people possess property of a certain value, and one is rated in reference to the real value of his property and the other is not. The reason that happens is that the basis of rating at the present time is what a property would let for, year by year, to a tenant. Of course, property which is not built upon and is let year by year to a tenant in a town will only bring its agricultural value, and it is because the annual use governs the value that the owner is not rated as he ought to be. The basis of our proposals, the whole pith of our contention, is that people should be rated in proportion to the value of the property they possess. That is entirely disregarded in this Amendment; there is to be valuation of land as if it were in use for building, that is to say, not agricultural value, but only where it is proved to be required for building and to be unreasonably withheld. That is penalising a man for doing what he thinks right in regard to his own property. A man of business might say he would reserve his land for probably five or six years, when its value would be increased, but it would be a strange thing to say that the value for rating purposes should depend upon whether he had acted in a manner the assessors considered reasonable. I venture to think that a more dangerous principle than that of taxing a man according to his conduct, for that is what it is, could hardly be imagined; and I do not suppose for a moment that the noble Earl intends any great development to be given to the doctrine of which the germ lurks in this Amendment.
  The real point to be faced is this. Is the House prepared to treat this as a question of the value of property? The question as to what rate you are going to put on, and whether you are going to put the rate on the full rateable value does not enter into this Bill. The exemption of parks and gardens and amenities does not arise under the Bill. The question is whether the House will

  911
  enable a valuation to be so ascertained that men can be taxed according to the real value of their property. It has nothing to do with whether they have acted reasonably or unreasonably. I might offer other criticisms upon the Amendment, but they would be minor criticisms. I say, in the first place, that the Government feel an insuperable objection to the substitution of yearly land value for capital value; and, secondly, our opinion is that people ought to be rated according to their property and not according to their conduct.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in regard to the comments that we have just heard from the noble and learned Lord. I was pleased to hear even the modified approval of some parts of the Amendment to which the noble and learned Lord gave expression. In my opinion, the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment took a wise and convenient course in putting down his Amendment as a whole, instead of a great number of small Amendments changing words here and there. In its present form the Amendment shows, in a connected whole, the real intention of my noble friend. If I may say so, I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack failed to realise, or to let the House see that he realised, that a great deal of the phraseology of the Amendment is actually a quotation from the Bill. The noble and learned Lord commented, for example, upon the subsection which speaks of a site value "divested of buildings, erections, or improvements," and so on. The whole of that subsection is taken from the Bill as it stands.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I expressed my gratification at the acceptance of it. What I meant to do was to signify how pleased I was that we were agreed upon these things.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am afraid that comment is not quite right, because this subsection was not in the Bill as the Government draughtsman produced it to the other House of Parliament. The subsection was evolved about 4 o'clock in the morning in discussion in Committee between the two sides of the House, and, as a matter of
  912
  fact, I believe most of those words were suggested by the Leader of the Opposition in the other House and accepted by the Government. I hope it will be acknowledged that the particular definition of land value is not conceived by the brain of the noble Earl, but is actually taken from the Bill. I regard that point as one of extreme importance, because that subsection is very much more favourable to the owner of agricultural land than according to the form in which it was introduced; and I would point out that, although the noble Earl is altering some words in the clause, he is not proposing any alteration at all in that subsection.
  The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack then said that the particular Amendment, however good it might be for a limited purpose, dealt with only one part of the larger question, and that so far as he and the Government were concerned they wanted, not only to deal with the question of the holding up of land, but to get back public expenditure, and to go dangerously near the acceptance of the doctrine of the taxation of the unearned increment. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head, but he certainly said that he wanted to get something back from the value which was got by the landlord owing to the growth of a city or town. That is the doctrine of the unearned increment and nothing else. If you are going to take parcels of land which have improved in value on account of the growth of a town, then you must also, I think, take some account of the parcels of land which have been diminished in value by the shifting of the population; in other words, if you are going to raise the question of taking some part of the unearned increment, you will certainly in fairness involve yourselves in the difficulty of having to judge when a man has made a bad investment from want of foresight and has lost his money. My position upon the point is that it is a mischievous thing to speculate in land near a city or town. I do not believe there is anything like so much profit made out of it as is commonly represented; but, if you are going to tax the unearned increment of land, why are you not to make a special tax or rate upon the unearned increment in respect of any other kind of property? That seems to me a perfectly

  913
  inadmissible proposal, and, therefore I am not moved by the condemnation of the noble and learned Lord of this Amendment on the ground that it does not do anything to secure that object.
  I turn to the question of public expenditure. That, so far as Scotland is concerned, falls entirely to the ground. I admit that in cases where leasehold is the predominant method of building, where it is not done by feu but by leasehold, and where, during the currency of the lease, an expenditure his been met out of the rates which are levied on the leaseholder, then under those circumstances there is a sort of case for taking back by means of a special rate upon property much improved by expenditure drawn from the leaseholder when it falls into the hands of the ground landlord. That, so far as Scotland is concerned, falls absolutely to the ground, because any rate for improvement upon suburban property falls not upon the occupier but upon the owner. I have examined the accounts of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other large cities, and in the division of urban rates between owner and occupier, rates for improvements which add to the value of the land supposed to be held up are levied on the owner and not on the occupier; therefore, there is no ground for the allegation that the owner who holds up his land for a certain time and then puts it out for building does make a profit by public expenditure.
  In two portions of the noble and learned Lord's speech he shed a tear over the excision of capital value. I do not want to labour the point. I am quite certain, as the noble and learned Lord himself is, he will not convert this House to rating upon capital value; but I would remind him that last autumn the late Prime Minister did not put the same amount of stress upon the question of capital value. There was a discussion in the Press between the right hon. Gentleman and myself as to whether I had personally taken a wise and fair course in advising that the Bill should be rejected last year, and the point that he took was that I was committed in my Report to rating upon capital value. I pointed out the fact that that was not the case. There is not one word of suggestion or
  914
  support of rating on capital value in any part of the Local Taxation Commission's Report. The late Prime Minister did not stop there, for he said—
  "Even if these proposals were all that you say of them, they would still remain matters for consideration in Committee."
  And the matters to which he referred were the adoption of capital or real value instead of annual value as the basis of assessment.
  The fact of the matter is that the real difficulty in which we are placed in regard to this Bill is that very different and diverse accounts of it have been given by members of the Government when they have been speaking outside Parliament. The noble and learned Lord says that it is fair to take into account the value of one man's property and that of another; and the instance he gave was just the instance which I humbly submit to the House is the one which shows the extreme inexpediency of rating upon a value which might be got if the land was put up for the purpose but which there is no intention of getting. The noble and learned Lord gave us the instance of one man having built over his land while the other had not; in the case of the acre of land not built over, the man would be rated at about £3; whereas the other person would be rated on the annual revenue he was obtaining. But if you carry that to its logical conclusion and rate every open space in or near a town or city at a figure which it might produce if put to other purposes, you will take the very worst possible step for encouraging the policy of maintainng open spaces. You will make it so tremendously expensive to do it as to put it absolutely beyond the reach of, the average man, and instead of spreading buildings over a large area with open spaces, which is the wisest and most healthy policy, you will tend to the production of what are called "skyscrapers," to the piling of one storey on to another so as to save the rating upon the site value. That is perfectly obvious and cannot be denied.
  The grievance that is pleaded from time to time by those who support the rating of land which, as they say, is unreasonably held up, is this—that people are waiting on for a value which

  915
  at the present time it would not produce. If you carry the noble and learned Lord's policy to its logical conclusion it really means the rating of every piece of land which ten, fifty, sixty, or 100 years hence might be exposed for building purposes. I quite agree—I have said so before, and I say it now—that if there are places which are surrounded by buildings and which are being unreasonably held up, then it is quite fair to penalise the owner to the extent of rating him upon what he might get for it. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may say that that is rating on account of conduct. I see another way of achieving the object; I cannot develop it now, nor would it be germane to this Bill; but it is impossible—at least it is most unfair—in my humble opinion to rate upon what the land might be supposed to fetch.
  The noble and learned Lord said that there is nothing in this Bill as to the quantum of the rate, that it does not arise under this Bill, that nothing is said as to the means which are to be taken or the amount of the rate. That is where I complain of the position in which we are placed. Other Members of His Majesty's Government have said what they mean. They say that they are going to transfer, and that the object of this Bill is to transfer, the whole of the rates on to the land value. That has been said over and over again. I hold in my hand some twenty-four or twenty-five speeches of the Solicitor-General saying that very thing—that the object of this Bill is to transfer the whole of the rates on to the land value. Now it is not reasonable—I go so far as to say it is not fair—for one member of the Government to hold out those expectations to people in the country, and for the noble and learned Lord to say that that is not in the Bill and, therefore, we are not to consider it in dealing with this Bill. As prudent men we are obliged to consider the objects and motives and ideas which have been put before the people of this country as the policy of His Majesty's Government, and it is because of those speeches, because of that definite statement of policy, that we are as cautious as we are in accepting the principles which we think are aimed at.
  916
  The noble and learned Lord says you should rate each man according to the property he possesses. That is not the test for rating at the present time. It is the test for death duties; it is the test for anything that can be laid on the capital value of property all round; but the whole idea of the rating system from the time of Queen Elizabeth in England, and from a very few years later in Scotland, has been not the question of the value, but the question what it produces. You are rated upon what you put into your pocket from all rateable subjects. If you are going now to revert to rating on capital value on one class of property, and in the case of one owner of property alone, you are accentuating an injustice which has been a scandal for the last forty years. For when you relieved personal property, stock in trade, and so on, you did not give an adequate contribution to those who are over-burdened by the existing rates; and if you go back, in regard to this one class of property, and that class of property alone, to capital value, you are accentuating an injustice of which, I believe, all wise reformers of local taxation are desirous of getting rid.
  I will say nothing now about the small Amendment which I propose to make to this Amendment, because owing to the form in which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has put the Amendment, that matter does not arise at this point. Although the Amendment may not go the whole length which the Government desire, it is really an honest and skilful attempt to get at the one grievance which has been most paraded about the country, and I hope the House will accept, on general lines, the Amendment as moved by the noble Earl.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack commence his observations by a cordial acknowledgment that my noble friend below the gangway had made an honest attempt to deal with a problem which the noble and learned Lord himself has told us is an extremely difficult one. I can assure the House that my noble friend's Amendment

  917
  does represent a sincere effort on his part, and on the part of those whom he has consulted, to deal with this question.
  The noble and learned Lord complains of my noble friend's proposal because it deals merely with a part of the subject with which His Majesty's Government desire to deal in the Bill upon the Table of the House. We are quite alive to that fact. We have endeavoured to deal, not with the whole of the scheme of His Majesty's Government, but with one particular feature of that scheme upon which throughout our discussions noble Lords opposite have chiefly dwelt—a point on which it did seem to us that a hard case might arise for which it was desirable that some provision, at all events, should be made. I refer to the case of the site owner who, for mistaken reasons, chooses to withhold from building land clearly capable of being turned to that purpose at the moment. It was pointed out to us, again and again, that the site owner who so withheld his property committed a double injustice upon the community—in the first place, by retarding the development of the city in the neighbourhood of which the land was situated; and, in the next place, by escaping a part of the burden of local taxation which ought equitably to fall upon his shoulders.
  That is the case with which my noble friend desires to deal, and we are certainly very reluctant to go a step further. We feel very strongly, indeed, that if we do go further, if we do admit that this Bill is to be framed not upon the basis of yearly value but upon the basis of capital value, we let in at once the whole principle of taxing people upon property from which they do not yet derive any advantage, and open the door for the commission of a very flagrant injustice. My noble friend who sat down a moment ago spoke of the danger of admitting speculative values. May I mention to your Lordships a case illustrating that danger, of which I became aware very lately? It arose in the outskirts of London. A new railway was being made, and it was anticipated that property in that particular region was likely to increase greatly in value and to be rapidly built over. The owner of a large estate in that neighoburhood sold
  918
  fifty acres of this land at £1,000 an acre to a syndicate. That was, I believe, only a few years ago, and I am told that at this moment not one single acre of the fifty has yet been built over. That shows how completely the shrewdest judgments are liable to go astray in thus anticipating the course of events.
  We have never believed that this withholding of building sites was taking place to any appreciable extent. It is so much against the interests of the site owner to withhold his land. He is so likely to outstay his market that we do not believe the thing takes place very frequently. But, assuming that it may take place, that there may be such cases—and remember that during these long discussions no leading case has yet been produced—we are willing to deal with the matter to the best of our ability. Now, are the precautions taken in my noble friend's Amendment exaggerated precautions? The noble and learned Lord pointed out that the Amendment leaves the grievance of the ratepayers unredressed. I am not quite sure that that is entirely the case. But, be that as it may, can we really say that the stipulations contained in my noble friend's clause are unreasonable from the point of view of the ratepayers?
  May I endeavour to point out to the House the manner in which this clause will operate? In the first place, it will be necessary to show that the land is wanted, and that it would be contrary to the public interest that it should be withheld; and, in the next place, it will be necessary to prove that the owner is acting unreasonably or perversely in withholding it. I ask your Lordships to consider the definition given in the four subsections that follow of what constitutes unreasonableness. I think my noble friend is quite right in placing words in his clause showing, for the guidance of the Court, what is meant by unreasonableness, because I do not think it would be fair to the Court to leave it without guidance in a case of that kind. Land is not to be deemed to be unreasonably withheld from use it if is—
  "Maintained as an open space or recreation ground."
  Do noble Lords opposite suggest for a moment that the site owner is unreasonable if he withholds land in order to

  919
  provide a recreation ground or open space? I think it will be very difficult, considering the proclaimed views of His Majesty's Government, for them to maintain that the reservation of land for a purpose of that kind is unreasonable, or that the person who so reserves it deserves to be mulcted for his conduct. The next condition is that the owner shall not be mulcted if the site is—
  "Required for the amenity or convenience of a dwelling-house."
  I daresay that many of your Lordships have had an opportunity of reading the Government's Town Planning Bill. The whole essence of that Bill is that an endeavour should be made not to crowd buildings upon a site but to distribute them reasonably and in a manner consistent with the health, comfort, and well-being of the people who live upon the site. Then I need not dwell upon the reasonableness of the owner who retains land—
  "For the preservation of any buildings of historic or architectural interest."
  I think both political parties are deeply committed to the policy of doing nothing which shall diminish the beauty or prevent the public enjoyment of buildings of which it can be said that they are of historic or architectural interest. The last condition, which is a very widely-drawn one—
  "The maintenance of which in its existing condition I for the general advantage of the community—"
  speaks, I think, for itself. You have only to turn it round. Are you prepared to say that you wish to impose a special rate upon the person who desires to keep his land in its existing condition for the general advantage of the community? I take it that that is a proposition which will not be challenged. I say, then, that these seem to me to be most reasonable stipulations, and those who sit round me will certainly support my noble friend in his endeavour to obtain the addition of these words to the Bill, believing that by thus amending it we have shown that, reluctant as we are to admit the principle of rating on prospective value, we are ready to admit it in this one case and under the
  920
  very necessary precautions upon which my noble friend desires to insist.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I hope noble Lords from Scotland will forgive me when I say that the debate on this Amendment is more interesting than any Amendment could be which dealt merely with Scotland, because it is concerned with a very great principle which is applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom. The noble Marquess who has just sat down said that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had complained that the noble Earl's Amendment dealt only with half the question. My noble and learned friend did not complain, but he was bound to point out the fact, for this reason. It is obvious, of course, that we cannot oppose this Amendment, because it is an improvement, so far as it goes, on the Bill as it was left before by your Lordships; but it was necessary for my noble and learned friend, in consequence of that fact, to point out that we did not regard it as satisfying all the conditions which we desired to satisfy. It is perfectly true, as my noble and learned friend said, that this does only deal with half the question. It deals with the question to some extent as between the landowner on the one hand and the would-be occupier or land speculator, as the case may be, on the other; but it does not deal with the fair incidence of the rate as between ratepayer and ratepayer.
  It is, I think, important to notice what exactly is supposed will happen under this suggestion of the noble Lord; and I should like to say, in passing, that I also entirely recognise that this is a most careful and honest effort on my noble friend's part to deal with this side of the question. It is stated that laud which is unreasonably held up is to be rated. What exactly is "unreasonably held up"? Take the case of the two plots which have been so often mentioned—one built upon, and the other not. Somebody, I suppose, goes to the local authority and says that he would like to acquire this vacant plot for purposes of building; and, if the assessor is satisfied that he ought to have it, it is then to be rated as

  921
  though it were built upon. But the owner may say, "This gentleman is not offering enough; he is not offering my price." Are you going to fix the price of land by the act of the assessor?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No the Court.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It seems to me that the result will be that the assessor will have to decide whether the price offered is a reasonable one, in which case it will be rated at the full building value; whereas, if he thinks it unreasonable, the land escapes rating except at its agricultural value. I wonder whether that is a result which has been altogether contemplated by noble Lords opposite?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It is intended to be decided by the Court of Appeal.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Price-fixing, even by the Court of Appeal, is surely rather a novel suggestion. The logical outcome, I think, of the noble Earl's proposal would be compulsory purchase, and that, I imagine, is a result from which noble Lords opposite would surely shrink. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, returned to the charge about annual and capital value. I must say once more that, in my opinion, the difference is not between annual and capital value, but between actual value received and some hypothetical value. What is the process in this instance? The land is to be rated on the rental which it would fetch if it were covered with buildings. What is the difference between taking that imaginary rental and calling it annual value, or capitalising it and calling it capital value? I confess I cannot see what the difference is; but the noble Lord has, as my noble and leaned friend says, made a great advance by accepting the possibility of contingent or hypothetical value in certain cases, although, I admit, in only limited cases. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, said that capital value was unknown in rating, though it was applied to death duties. It is not applied to death duties in these cases. The owner of this particular kind of land escapes also in the matter of death
  922
  duties, because, unless I am greatly mistaken—I am speaking only from memory—death duty is only assessed on thirty years purchase, if that is the figure, of the actual rent received at the time.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Land forming part of an agricultural estate cannot be assessed for death duties at more than twenty-five years of the assessment to income-tax, but that does not apply to building land or to land of the class we are talking of.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: But, as a matter of practice, where land forms part of the neighbourhood of a town it is not valued at more than its annual value. At least, that is my impression. The restrictions placed by the noble Earl on the operation of his clause do not, as my noble friend said, form a very material part of this Bill; they form more properly part of a Bill dealing with actual rating, but as the noble Marquess has alluded to them I will just say this. Proposition number two is one which, taken in a certain sense, would, I imagine, meet with general agreement; but, of course, the term "amenity" is a very large one. The term might possibly be taken to mean a view over an extensive prospect of country, and a good deal of land would thus escape which I think the noble Earl would hardly think ought to escape. Then with regard to the fourth exemption—
  "The maintenance of which in its existing condition is for the general advantage of the community."
  As the noble Marquess pointed out, nobody would assent to the opposite opposition. On the other hand, I confess I do not know exactly what meaning is to be attached to the words. If the light and air argument were pressed to its utmost, it would be possible to say that it would be to the advantage of the whole of the existing community that no more land should be built upon. The terms, therefore, seem to me to be dangerously wide.
  Lord Balfour used one argument which has become familiar to us in the course of this discussion. He said that and would be forced into the market, and that it would be to the interest of

  923
  everybody to build sky-scrapers. Undoubtedly, if no restrictions were placed upon this power or upon the incidence of the rate it is perfectly true that there would be such a risk. But surely it does not pass the wit of man to discover a plan of the nature of that town-planning of which the noble Marquess spoke, by which allowance can be made in the matter of rating where land is laid out in the manner most suitable to the health of the people. I quite agree that it would be exceeding unfair if a man who placed only eight houses with gardens upon an acre was rated at the whole possible amount which the land might fetch if covered with one enormous skyscraper. But surely it does not pass the possibilities of legislation to meet cases of that kind, and to rate in such a manner as will not be in any way contrary to the public interest. As I have said, we are not going to oppose the insertion of these words in place of those already in the Bill; but my noble and learned friend has thought it necessary to draw attention to the fact that the alteration does not turn the Bill into a form in which we can regard it as a satisfactory measure.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, before the House disposes of this Amendment I wish to say one word of protest against the theory which seems to have been accepted both by Lord Balfour and by the noble find learned Lord on the Woolsack. There was an apparent competition for the copyright in the words "divested of buildings, erections, or improvements," etc. I think it is quite clear that in the Bill as it was originally introduced the Government intended this limitation to go back only twenty years, but it was made perpetual as the result of pressure in the House of Commons.
  I think it is extremely important, when we are dealing with economic matters like taxation, that we should not confuse them with ethical matters. Our business is to see what is the property which is fairly chargeable to the burden of taxation, and to put taxation fairly upon it. The community has nothing whatever to do with what was the aboriginal and ancient cause of the improved value, and I think there is something to
  924
  be said for a limited period of exemption under this head. But there can be no use in having a column giving the value of the land as distinct from the buildings as a matter of mere idle statistics; it must be intended to lead up hereafter to some differentiation of taxation which will put some special part on that which is thought to be the result of no human, effort of intelligence.
  These ancient improvements which have developed the property have nothing to do, in a great many cases, with the present proprietors. The property has doubtless passed from hand to hand at the then value, and the purchasers have never anticipated that the Legislature would subsequently search into the original cause of the fertility and productiveness of the land. You may have a seaside resort with land possessing a considerable building value, but many of the original proprietors may have had to expend considerable sums of money in erecting wells to protect it, whilst other owners had their land so well situated as not to need this protection. That land may have passed from hand to hand, and to the person now possessing an eligible site it does not matter whether the original owner had to build sea-walls or not; and to rake back into ancient history to find out the various causes which have contributed to the present value of the land is, to my mind, perfectly absurd and unreasonable. The only question you have to deal with is the actual value.
  In dealing with these complex rating questions, which will have to be taken in hand shortly, Parliament will find itself involved in immense difficulties if it attempts to trace back, possibly to the Dark Ages, the cause of the present value of land. Fancy such a thing being proposed in Holland. Who could go back to ascertain when the first dykes were made to keep out the North Sea? This proposal would act inequitably on property which has been in its present state for a long time, and which has passed from hand to hand at its then value without any reference to circumstances as to how it got that value.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," resolved in the negative.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the Amendment now before the House is "That the proposed words be there inserted," and as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack stated that these were to be regarded as two separate Amendments I will address to your Lordships one or two words with regard to what has passed. I quite admit that the words which I now propose to insert deal only with a very limited part of the Bill. They do not profess to deal with the question as a whole. The noble and learned Lord said that he regarded this as a Second Reading question, and he certainly did proceed to act upon that, because, if I may say so with all deference, a great proportion of his remarks were not addressed to my Amendment at all but to the general question as to whether annual value or capital value was the better system of rating.
  The noble and learned Lord observed that he was glad to see that I accepted certain principles of prospective valuation. I wish to put in a caveat to that. I put down these words because I was dealing with what is said to be a very great grievance. I believe it is a grievance that exists much more on paper than in any other form, and even if this Amendment were to come into force I expect your Lordships would find that there would not be half so many proceedings under it as a great many people would lead us to believe. But I wish to say, once and for all, that I object altogether to the system of rating on capital value, because it includes prospective value. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack told us in Committee that he did not propose to rate upon prospective value. He would, however, rate on the saleable value; and he cited a case of a person who would give £1,000 for a piece of land. But when that person gives £1,000 for that piece of land, does he not buy the future as well as the present? Is it conceivable that anybody could be so foolish as to give £1,000 for a thing which was fetching £2 an acre unless he had in his mind some idea that, either by laying out a great deal more money or something of that sort, he would make it worth much more hereafter. As a matter of fact, when a man buys land he buys it as a whole for all
  926
  time; and I am utterly unable to understand the noble and learned Lord when he says that he proposes to rate on capital value and yet does not propose to include prospective value. I beg to move my Amendment down to the word "community." That will leave the proviso, to which Lord Balfour proposes to move an Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the words 'yearly land value' means such part of the yearly rent or value of any lands or heritages as is fairly attributable to the land alone, (1) divested of buildings, erections, or improvements of whatever nature on, in, or under the soil, woods fixed or attached machinery, and work of drainage and of reclamation, making up, levelling, and the like, where the benefit thereof is unexhausted at the time of valuation; and (2) subject to all building restrictions, servitudes, and contracts imposed thereon or existing in relation thereto: Provided that in the case of land proved to be required in the public interest at the time of valuation for building or industrial purposes, and to be unreasonably withheld from use for such purposes, the yearly land value shall be estimated as if such land were in use for the purposes aforesaid; Land shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld from use: (1) which is maintained as an open space or recreation ground or (2) which is required for the amenity or convenience of a dwelling-house; or (3) which is required for the preservation of any buildings of historic or architectural interest: or (4) the maintenance of which in its existing condition is for the general advantage of the community.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I thought I had avoided the controversy as to prospective value, but as the noble Earl has referred to it, let me answer him. I think prospective value ought not to be taxed, but present value should be taxed. If a farm is worth £1,000 to-day and will sell in the market for that sum, that is its present value. One element may be that hereafter it will produce more, but what I mean by present value is what a man will give for it in the market.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the words 'Provided further that where the assessor considers that any restriction, servitude, or contract created after the passing of this Act has been created in order to defeat this Act it shall be lawful for him (with but prejudice to the appeal to which any person

  927
  aggrieved is entitled) to disregard such restriction, servitude, or contract.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH,who had given notice to move to amend this Amendment by leaving out the words "the assessor considers" in line 1 of the proviso and inserting the words "it appears," said: My Lords, the proviso which I propose to amend is taken verbatim from the Bill as it stands, and as the noble Earl has omitted the whole of the clause from the Bill, I am obliged to put my Amendment down as an Amendment to his Amendment. The proposal in the proviso is perfectly right and I support it, but I do not think that if there is an appeal taken, it should be upon a point of whether the assessor "considers" a thing, but on a question whether it is the fact that it exists. I suggest that if you pass the proviso as it has been moved by my noble friend, the only question for the Court of Appeal would be what the assessor considers. The assessor might take all sorts of extraordinary views; for my part, I do not care a row of pins what the assessor considers; what I want to know is what is the fact. I think my words safer, and I ask the House to accept them.
  Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the words 'the assessor considers' at the commencement of the proviso, and to insert the word? 'it appears.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have no objection at all to that Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I now ask your Lordships to agree to a consequential Amendment to substitute the words "the assessor" for the word "him" in the proviso.
  Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the word 'him,' and to insert the words 'the assessor.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended. [No. 121.]

  COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AMD FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, the small Bill which I have the honour to ask your Lordships to read a second time to-day is brought forward in consequence of a promise which I gave to Lord Kenyon as far back as 1906, that I would take action to remedy a grievance which is felt principally on the commons of Wales. It is two years ago that my noble friend introduced a most influential deputation of gentlemen interested in the breeding of Welsh ponies, and they called my attention to the evil caused by immature or blemished stallions being allowed to run free on the hills and common lands of Wales. That grievance was also brought to our notice when the noble Lord and I served on the Welsh Land Commission some years ago, and it was then requested that something might be done. The object of the Bill is to give to persons entitled to turn out animals on commons power to make regulations determining the time at and conditions under which entire animals may be turned out. I do not think there is anything in the Bill that requires further explanation, except perhaps that I might mention that in the Bill the expression "animals" means horses, asses, cattle, sheep and swine. The Bill is entirely permissive. It has been well threshed out and talked over by noble Lords and others interested in the subject. I believe there is no objection to the Bill either from landowners, commoners, or farmers, and I therefore with confidence ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2o"—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD KENYON: My Lords, I should like to express gratitude to the noble Earl for having answered the appeal which the deputation made to him some two years ago. He has rather apologised for the length of time it has taken to frame this measure, but I am sure if he answers every deputation which I may have the honour to introduce to him with a Bill in two years I shall be very satisfied. I think there is great necessity for this Bill as the breed of ponies is rapidly deteriorating in North Wales and other parts which will be principally affected. A short while ago a certain society required a pony stallion and they searched nearly the whole of Wales without being able to obtain one. Within the last few months I have seen the procedure embodied in this Bill put in practice on a large common with very good effect.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: There is one point to which I should like to call attention. The Bill empowers certain persons to make regulations for determining the times at which and conditions under which entire animals should be turned out on a common. There may be a common—I know of one myself—upon which it would not be at all desirable that any entire animals should be turned out. Would the regulations as proposed in the Bill enable the turning out of entire animals to be forbidden in such a case as that, if the persons locally concerned wished it?
  EARL CARRINGTON: I do not think there is any doubt on that subject whatever. I believe the Bill as it stands would be quite safe on that point, but I will look into it.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  THE IRISH LAND ACT.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government if they will lay on the Table the evidence taken before the Departmental Committee of the Treasury on the Finance of the Land Act (Ireland) 1903.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, this same Question was recently put in another
  930
  place and answered there by the Prime Minister, and all I can do is to give a similar reply to that which Mr. Asquith gave in the House of Commons. He stated that it would not be to the public interest to publish the evidence which was given before the Departmental Committee, and he also added that a good deal of that evidence was confidential. That being the case, it would obviously be a breach of faith on the part of the Department concerned were they to publish the evidence given before the Committee. I should only like to add that we have no wish to keep back any information we are able to give as to the manner in which the Land Purchase Act has worked. That, I think, was clear from the reply furnished by the Irish Office the other day to Lord Donoughmore, and I think noble Lords from Ireland who are interested in this matter will concede that we have given all the information which, in the circumstances, it is possible to make public, As to the particular request of the noble Earl, I hope he will not press for the publication of this evidence.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I will, with the leave of the House, merely ask one question. The noble Lord stated that a good deal of the evidence was confidential. I believe it is the case that, with regard to some of the witnesses, the evidence was taken under agreement that it was to be confidential. But might we not have published such part of the evidence as was not confidential?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I have no doubt that my noble friend will look into that matter; but, speaking generally, I should have thought it very undesirable to publish only part of the evidence given before a Departmental Committee. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press for it.

  ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order): An Amendment (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock