Sitting of 18 May 1908

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY IN- QUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—King's College, London; Transfer) Bill [Lords]; London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR AD- DITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Holderness Water Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the ease of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read second time To-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  Camborne Water Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.
  Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill [Lords]. North-East London Railway Bill.—Not amended., considered; to be read the third time.
  Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [Lords]; Great Western Railway Bill [Lords]; London County Council (Money) Bill; Swansea Valley Gas Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, and committed.
  Loch Leven Water Power Order Confirmation Bill; Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill (by Order).—Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL
  Petition from Kirkcaldy, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Bedford; a Dysart; and Messrs. J. Oakes and Company; to lie upon the Table.
  DAIRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Abingdon; Devizes; Dorchester (two); Forest of Dean; Henfield; Portland (two); and Veymouth; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions for alteration: From Belper; and Nottingham; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour; From Armadale; Burntisland; Crawley; Evesham; Glasgow; Kinghorn; Kirkcaldy (five); Leeds; Linodale; Nevin; Nottingham; Pendref; Rawdon (two); Torquay; and Windhill; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHTS ON VEHICLES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Petitions against: from Haddington; and perth; to lie upon the Table.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Kirkcaldy (two); and Stranraer; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Burntis and; Dysart; Glasgow; Kirkcaldy, (three); Larkhall; and Muirkirk; to lie upon the Table.

  METROPOLITAN SEWERS AND DRAINS BILL.
  Petition from Hammersmith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  OPEN SPACES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOT- LAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition of Henry Chaloner Smith, against, praying to be heard; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
  Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Councillors of the Borough of Hammer-smith, against, praying to be heard by counsel; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.

  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACTS (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, against; to lie upon the Table.
  TOBACCO GROWING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAWLERS' CERTIFICATES SUSPEN- SION BILL.
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) ACT (1907).
  Petition from Haddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CONGESTION IN IRELAND (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Final Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into and report upon the operation of the Acts dealing with Congestion in Ireland, with Appendices (Index to and Digest of Evidence) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Borough of Darlington, and confirmed by the Secretary of State

  1591
  for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops within the Borough [by Act]; to fie upon the Table.

  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION WORKS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 14th May; Mr. Robert Price]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 144.]
  EAST INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
  Copy presented, of Statement exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India during, the year 1906–7, Forty-third Number [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 145.]
  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Copy presented, of Statistical Tables for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (INLAND POST).
  Copy presented, of the Inland Post Amendment (No. 10) Warrant, 1908, dated 28th April, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st December, 1907, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into; Part II., Reports on Accidents [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FEE FUND (HOUSE OF LORDS).
  Account presented, of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords from 1st April, 1907 to 31st March, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Union of Benefices Act (Saint Luke, Charlton, with Saint Paul, Charlton), Copy of scheme, under The Union of Benefices Act, 1860, for effecting an
  1592
  Union of the Benefices of Saint Luke, Charlton, with Saint Paul, Charlton [by Act].

  NATIONAL DEBT.
  Copy ordered, "of Return showing for each Financial Year commencing the 1st day of April from 1875 to 1908, inclusive:—I.—The total amount of Dead Weight Debt outstanding on the 1st clay of April; the amounts which were made available in the year for reduction of Debt, distinguishing the sums expressly provided for service of the Debt, the Old Sinking Fund, and Miscellaneous Receipts; the Gross Amount of Debt redeemed; the amount of Debt created; and the Net Increase or Decrease of Debt in the Year. II.—A similar Statement in respect of other Capital Liabilities; III.—A similar Statement in respect of the Aggregate Gross Liabilities of the State. "—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 146.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES

  Age Retirement in the Post Office.
  MR. KELLEYTo ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, on 20th November, 1896, a circular was issued to postal surveyors by the direction of the Postmaster-General stating that he had come to the conclusion that, in the interests of the service, and especially in order to afford a proper flow of promotion to the officers engaged in it, it was desired to resort more generally in the future to the power of requiring any officer of the, Department, irrespective of the amount of his salary, to retire on reaching the age of sixty; will he say whether he is still carrying out the policy indicated by his predecessor and whether, in view of a number of telegraph officials at Manchester and other towns, including Glasgow and Cardiff, who are at or near the age of sixty years, he will state if retirement is to be made compulsory at these offices.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The policy indicated in the circular to

  1593
  which the hon. Member refers is still followed. The rule is that all pensionable officers, of whatever grade, whose conduct, capacity, or efficiency falls below a fair standard, are called upon to retire at sixty years of age; but retirement at sixty is not enforced in the case of officers whose conduct is good and who are certified by their superior officers to be thoroughly efficient.

  Licensing Bill—Closure by Compartments.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in the event of closure by compartment being found to be necessary in the Committee stage of the Licensing Bill, he will consent to the closure being prescribed, according to the Amendments, not according to the sections of the Bill, so that all important Amendments should be adequately discussed; and also whether he will consent to leave the detailed arrangements to be made by a Committee selected from all parties in the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) In the event supposed every care will be taken to apportion the time according to the importance of the topics.

  Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill—Date of Second Reading.
  MR. GLOVER: To ask the Prime Minister whether he can state the day on which the Second Reading of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) (No. 2) Bill will be taken.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am not at present able to fix a day.

  Railway Rates Inquiry.
  SIR F. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the conference of representatives of the Board, the railways companies, the traders, and the travelling public, as initiated by his predecessor, will continue the inquiry into and deliberations upon the question of railway rates and facilities referred to them; whether the President intends to preside over this conference; when the proceedings are expected to be completed; whether it is intended that the conference shall put their conlcusions into the form
  1594
  of a Report with recommendations; and whether this Report, together with minutes of evidence taken or inquiries conducted, will be laid before Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The reply to the first two paragraphs of my hon. friend's Question is in the affirmative, but I cannot yet tell when the proceedings may be completed nor forecast the form and scope of any Report which may be made for presentation to Parliament.

  Post Office—Payment by Time Allowance for Night Duty.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General why auxiliaries and assistant postmen in London are not being paid time allowance for night duty.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Select Committee on Post Office Servants did not recommend any particular rate of pay for auxiliaries working less than three hours a day, and consequently their case has had to be considered with those of the other smaller cases. As soon as a decision is arrived at the revision will be carried out as regards assistant and auxiliary postmen, and any increase in pay will date from 1st January, 1908. Allowance will be made for night duty.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General why schedule time of the last delivery has not been allowed in making claims for night duty in certain London offices.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Payment of the claims for the time allowance for night duty, performed between 8 and 10 p.m. since 1st January, has not yet been made in all cases. As a general rule the scheduled time of finishing the last delivery in London has been, or will be, taken as the basis of the culcalation in arriving at the amounts payable.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General why those postmen whose breaks in their night duty are less than two hours have been refused payment for the same, although the Postal Committee's Report recommended that

  1595
  periods of less than two hours night duty should not be booked off.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not aware that payment has been refused for periods which have not been booked off. Possibly the hon. Member is alluding to cases in which officers were booked off duty for less than two hours at night under arrangements in force previous to the carrying out of the Select Committee's recommendations. In such cases the Post Office had no control over the time booked off, and extra payment would not therefore have been justified.

  Conditions of Insurance of Registered Letters.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on the 12th February last the Standard Bank of South Africa posted to a lady at a hotel in Southampton the sum of £20 in Bank of England notes and £1 12s. 6d. in cash, registering and insuring the letter for £30; that the letter was never delivered, and subsequent inquiries showed that, although a postman asserted that he delivered it to the hall porter at the hotel, the Post Office had no receipt for it; whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to the lady in consequence of the non-delivery of this letter, and the fact that eight weeks expired before the Post Office admitted liability, and then only agreed to pay the money on an undertaking that if the notes were ever returned to the bank the lady would refund the money to the Post Office, he will say if this is one of the conditions of insurance according to Post Office regulations; and if he will explain why they accept money for insurance at all.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The facts as regards the loss of the registered letter are as stated by the hon. Member. There is, however, uncertainty as to whether the letter in question was lost while in the post, and the delay referred to was due to the inquiries necessitated by this uncertainty. In cases of this kind it is of course the practice to require the person to whom compensation is paid to give an undertaking to refund the amount if it eventually reaches his hands. The full value of the Bank of
  1596
  England notes and the cash enclosed in the letter (£21 12s. 6d.) was paid to the representative of the adressee on such an undertaking being given. The fee paid for registration entitles the sender to compensation in respect of the loss of a registered letter under certain conditions, one of which is that the Postmaster-General is satisfied that the loss occurred while the letter was in the custody of the Post Office.

  Transmission of Press Telegrams—Com- plaints of the Belfast Evening Tele- graph.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can say how many and of what nature were the complaints he received from the Belfast Evening Telegraph in reference to the transmission of Press telegrams within the last three months; whether he is aware that copy having reference to the Budget of last week, and handed in at London, took two hours and a half to reach Belfast, with the result that an incomplete report had to be published in the Belfast evening paper; and if he will make inquiries whether the cause is due not to any lack of zeal on the part of the officials at Belfast, but to the fact that the staff is undermanned, especially in the afternoon when pressure is the highest.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Complaints have been received from the Belfast Evening Telegraph respecting the transmission of Press telegrams. There was, unfortunately, sonic delay on the Budget night to Press telegrams to Ireland, owing not only to the great pressure of work but also to partial failure of several important wires. As regards the Belfast office itself the whole of the report appears to have been dealt with expeditiously, and I have no reason to think that the staff at that office is insufficient.

  Postal Arrangements at Castletown Berehaven.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenient postal arrangements in Castle-town Berehaven; and, in view of the importance of that town as a naval base

  1597
  and fishery station, will he take immediate steps to have a better postal service.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have recently made full inquiry into the question of improving the postal service to Castletown Berehaven, but I regret to find that the cost of an improved service, which would have to be either by steamer or motor van from Bantry, would be larger than could be justified the existing service being carried on at a considerable loss.

  Mail Car between Durrus and Kilcrohane.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the want of a mail car between Durrus and Kilcrohane, County Cork; and whether he will take steps to supply that want.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A mail car between these places does not appear to be required for postal purposes.

  Postmen's Scale of Wages.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state at how many post offices throughout the United Kingdom (counting both sub-offices and head offices) postmen are employed; at how many offices in the United Kingdom has the postmen's scale of wages been raised through the operation of the revision which came into force on 1st January, 1908; at how many offices in the United Kingdom has the postmen's scale of pay been reduced for future entrants through the Hobhouse Report recommendations; and at how many offices in the United Kingdom is the settlement of postmen's wages still in suspense.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The classification is, as yet, so incomplete that to give the figures asked for would at present serve no useful purpose. But I may add that a much larger number of offices have been raised in scale for existing officers than reduced for future entrants.

  Pay of Postmen at Newtown Mearns.
  MR. LAIDLAW: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the fact that the application of
  1598
  the Hobhouse Committee's recommendations to Newtown Mearns places the rural postmen on a lower scale of pay than formerly, notwithstanding the fact that, owing to the proximity of the Glasgow tramways and the high price of land, rents and the cost of living in that village are equally as high as in Glasgow, where the pay on the new scale is a maximum of 30s. as against a maximum of 21s. at Newtown Menus; and if he will take steps to redress the alleged grievance.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Newtown Mearns, which is a sub-office, has been placed provisionally in Class V. The circumstances referred to by the hon. Member will be taken into account in determining the final position of Newtown Mearns in the new classification.

  Street Repairs in Busy Thoroughfares.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that much loss of trade and general inconvenience is being occasioned by the traffic being blocked at St. George's Place and Knightsbridge owing to the height of the season being chosen for the laying of telephone wires or other work of the Department along one of the two main arteries leading west; for what reason was the month of May chosen, how many hours per diem are the men working, and can he arrange to expedite the completion of the same by night shifts; and whether he will arrange that in future such work be done at a time of year less likely to cause inconvenience and loss of business to tradesmen in crowded thoroughfares.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) All possible steps were taken to minimise the inconvenience to which the hon. Member calls attention. Work was carried on night and day and considerable portions of the roadway were left undisturbed, the ground being tunnelled. Every effort is made to avoid doing work of this kind in the London season, but in the present instance postponement of the work was not possible.

  Bethnal Green Casual Wards.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: To ask the President of the

  1599
  Local Government Board whether the Board are pressing the guardians of Bethnal Green to erect a casual ward; and, if so, whether, in view of the imminent Report of the Commission on the Poor Laws and of the bet that the Government have not vet decided on the action to be taken consequent upon the Departmental Report on Vagrancy, the Board will allow the matter to stand over for the present, and in the meantime resume payments to the guardians out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund in respect of the loan raised for the purchase of the land for the site of the casual ward.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Board some time since authorised the guardians to provide casual wards, but they are not at the present time pressing them to do so. On the other hand, unless the erection of the wards is proceeded with, it cannot be said that the land is being used for the provision of wards for the purposes of the Metropolitan Houseless Poor Acts, and consequently the payments in respect of the loan for the purchase of land cannot properly be charged upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.

  Widows in the United Kingdom over Seventy Years of Age.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state approximately the number of widows in the United Kingdom of seventy years of age and upwards.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I cannot state the precise number of widows of seventy years of age and upwards in the United Kingdom at the present time; but, on the inform Hon afforded by the Census Reports of 1001, it may be estimated that the number was in that year approximately 436,000.

  Excessive Speed of Motors on Highways.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a case in which, on a speed trial, a Napier motor ear was driven at speeds from 5 to 80 miles an hour on the public highways;
  1600
  and whether, in the interests of public safety, he will take steps to prevent these abuses.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My hon. friend has sent me a newspaper extract relating to this matter. I would point out that if proceedings had been taken against the driver of the car he would have been liable on conviction to considerable penalties, but it is not possible to secure that proceedings shill always be taken where offences under the Act are committed.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the rate of increase in the number of fatalities caused by cars and omnibuses in the Metropolis; and whether, since most of the accidents are caused by excessive speed, he will favourably consider the reduction of the maximum speed of all vehicles to 12 miles an hour.
  (Answered by Mr. John. Burns.) I am aware that there has been sonic increase in the number of fatal accidents caused by motor cars and motor omnibuses, but the increase does not seem considerable, regard being had to the growth of the number of these vehicles. I doubt whether it would be practicable to adopt the suggestion in the last part of the Question.

  Population of England and Wales.
  MR. GOULDING: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state what proportions of the total population of England and Wales at all ages and at ages seventy and upwards, respectively, are estimated to be living in towns with populations at the last Census of 50,000 and upwards.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) At the Census of 1901 the total population of England and Wales at all ages was 32,527,813, of whom 14,50,863, or 44·6 per cent., were living in towns with a population of 50,000 or upwards. Of the total population, 888,080 persons were aged seventy years and upwards, and of these 304,126, or 34·2 per cent. were living in the towns above referred to.

  Alien Paupers in London.
  MR. FELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that 620 alien pauper lunatics are now in the asylums of the London County Council, and that interpreters have to be provided for them, as they are mostly Russian Jews; and will he say how these aliens came to be admitted under the Aliens Act, and whether there is power to send them back to their country of origin.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have made inquiry of the Asylums Committee, and I am informed that there were on the 15th instant in London County asylums 614 alien pauper lunatics, of whom 167, or slightly over a quarter, were Russian Jews. The hon. Member's suggestion that these aliens were admitted under the Aliens Act seems to be un- founded. As regards 431 of them, the date of their admission to an asylum, not to mention that of their arrival in this country, is prior to 1st January, 1906, the date on which the Aliens Act came into operation. Of the 183 whose admission to an asylum took place since 1st January, 1906, 112 are known to have been in this country before that date, and only sixteen are known to have arrived since. As regards these latter, I have no information to show that they were insane on arrival. As regards the removal of these aliens from this country, if a certificate is obtained from the Court older Section 3(1)(b) of the Act on proceedings taken within twelve months of arrival, and is submitted to me, I have power to make an expulsion order under which the alien may be sent back to his own country. Advantage is taken of this power in all proper cases.

  Motor Traffic in London Streets.
  M R. CARR-GOMM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the number of accidents in narrow streets caused by motor omnibuses; and whether he will direct the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police to allow these motor omnibus companies to continue their services only along wide thoroughfares especially in the case of the omnibuses which are now being sent down Great
  1602
  Smith Street, Westminster, in which street during the last ten days two serious accidents have happened, in one of which a horse was badly injured.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am aware that there have been a number of accidents caused in London by motor omnibuses, and no doubt the chance of accident is increased in narrow streets unless the speed of the omnibuses is much reduced. The Commissioner of Police has no power to prescribe the routes which omnibuses are to follow and to prevent their passing through any street.
  MR. VILLIERS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accidents, due directly or indirectly to automobiles, occurred in the Metropolitan area during the month of April last; and how many occurred during the same month last year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The number of accidents caused by motor vehicles in London last month which involved personal injury was 283. The number for April, 1907 was 250.

  Cattle Trade.
  MR. BOWERMANTo ask the hon Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can give the number of cattle returned as entering during the year 1907, the markets at the places scheduled under The Markets and Fairs Act, 1891, and how they compare with the numbers in each of the years 1902 to 1906.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The number of cattle returned as entering the markets scheduled under the Markets and Fairs Act, 1891, are as follows:—

  1902

  1,290,854

  1903

  1,250,918

  1904

  1,166,575

  1905

  1,234,472

  1906

  1,203,480

  1907

  1,231,501

  Certain additional markets were scheduled in 1005 by an order under the Act, but

  1603
  the Returns from them have included in the above figures.

  Small Holdings Schemes.
  MR. BENNETT: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any schemes for carrying out the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1907 have as vet been received from any county council by the Board of Agriculture; and whether the Board will take steps to secure that all such schemes shall be submitted to it by the end of June.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Schemes have been received from the county councils of Gloucester, the Isle of Wight, Radnor, and Somerset. Several other councils will probably send in schemes very shortly; but, inasmuch as it requires considerable time to investigate the very large number of applications received and to obtain the land necessary to satisfy the demand, the Board do not think it desirable to fix any particular (late by which schemes must be sent in. The Commissioners, I may add, are in constant communication with the county councils, and they will see that there is no unavoidable delay in carrying out the provisions of the Acts.

  Scottish Industrial and Provident Societies Trading as General Dealers.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that objection has been taken in Scotland under Section 4 of The Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, to industrial and provident societies describing themselves in their rules as general dealers; that this threatens to cause inconvenience to many of these societies in Scotland, and that the use of this description is permitted under the same Act in England; if he can say whether the opinion of the Law Officers has been taken on this; and whether he will take steps to promote remedial legislation.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I am aware that objection was not long ago
  1604
  taken in Scotland to industrial and provident societies describing their objects as being merely to carry on the trade or business of general dealers, and that such a description has been considered in England as a sufficient compliance with the Act. The opinion of the Law Officers has been taken on the point, and they have advised that such description is sufficient. This opinion will be acted upon throughout the United Kingdom, and there is no cause for any remedial legislation.

  Completion of Work at the Marble Arch.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state when the work at the Marble Arch will be completed and the entrance to the park used by carriages; and whether the same can be so expedited as to enable this route to be used if necessary by His Majesty the King and the President of the French Republic on their official visit to the Franco-British Exhibition on the 26th instant.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The entrance to the Park can be opened for carriage traffic before the end of this month, but the lodge and other buildings will take longer to complete. The arrangements made for the King's visit to the Franco-British Exhibition do not provide for a route passing the Marble Arch.

  Visit of the Prime Minister of Nepaul.
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the visit of the Prime Minister of Nepaul to England and other parts of Europe is by official invitation; whether he is to be treated as a State guest; and, if so, will the expenses of his hospitality he defrayed from the British Exchequer or by Indian funds.
  (Answered by Mi. Buchanan.) The Answer to the first two Questions is in the affirmative. The cost of the entertainment of the Prime Minister of Nepaul as a State guest will be borne by the British Exchequer.

  Cause of Death of Mr. Mehta of the Indian Civil Service.
  SIR. WILLIAM BULL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if he has any official information about the death of Mr. Mehta, of the Indian Civil Service, who is reported to have met with his death about four weeks ago from a gunshot wound; whether it was the result of an accident or of a premeditated act on the part of sonic natives; and, if the latter be the case, what action has been taken by the local Government to trace the crime.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) It was reported to the Secretary of State that Mr. B. R. Mehta, of the Indian Civil Service, to whom I presume the Question is intended to refer, died of a gunshot wound on 17th March. The inquiry which was held indicated that it was a case of suicide.

  Claims of Shamarendra Chandra Deb Barman.
  MR. LAIDLAW: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India on what grounds the claims of Shamarendra Chandra Deb Barman, who was Bara Thakur of Hill Tipperah when the present Rajah ascended the Guddi, to become Jubraj according to Hindu law and custom were set aside by the Government of India.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The present Rajah of Hill Tipperah was installed in 1897, and in February, 1899, appointed his eldest son, Birendra Kishore Thakur, to be Jubraj. The Rajah's brother, named in the Question, who had been appointed Bara Thakur in 1878, appealed to the Government of Bengal, and subsequently to the Government of India, against this selection. After carefully considering the matter, the Government of Bengal came to the conclusion that the alleged existence of a custom by which the Bara Thakur (if there be one) succeeds as of right to a vacant Jubrajship, was not established by the previous history of the Hill Tipperah family. The Government of India concurred in this view, and declined to interfere with the Rajah's action in appointing his eldest son to be Jubraj, a measure which they considered to be in
  1606
  the public interests of the Hill Tipperah State.

  Increase of Pay for European Officers of the Bombay City Police.
  MR. LAIDLAW: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if the European officers of the Bombay City Police have yet received any increase of pay as recommended by the recent Coin mission of Inquiry; and, if not, will he state the reasons why no advance was given to the European officers when it was given to the native officers in May last.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) I am not aware whether European officers have vet received an increase of pay. In view of the expense involved, it is impossible for the Government of Bombay to carry out at once all the recommendations of the Police Commission, and they are understood to be carrying out first those measures which they consider most urgent. They will no doubt deal as quickly as possible with the rest.

  Commercial Subjects of the Intermediate Education Board.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Intermediate Board can, in the interests of commencial students, include handwriting, orthography, and elementary arithmetic under the general head of English, giving special marks for each sub-division; and whether they will do so in their Syllabus for 1909.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Intermediate Education Board inform me that they have directed their examiners to pay special attention to the spelling and handwriting of students, and have made provision for a deduction of marks for deficiencies in these matters. The programme for 1909 is still under the Board's consideration.

  Salaries of Medical Inspectors under the Irish Local Government Board.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to increase this year the salaries of any of the medical inspectors

  1607
  under the Local Government Board for Ireland; if so, by what amount., for what reason, and under what regulation; and the names, present salaries, and length of service of the inspectors in their present appointments.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The salary of each of the present medical inspectors is £700 a year. Their names and length of service are: T. J. Growne, nineteen years; C. J. Clibborn, seventeen years; D. Edgar Flinn, ten years; Sir J. A. MacCullagh, ten years; E. Coey Bigger, eight years; Brendan MacCarthy, six years; and Joseph Smyth, six years.

  Salary of Assistant Engineering Inspector under the Irish Local Government Board.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state who is the assistant engineering inspector under the Local Government Board for Ireland whose salary it is proposed to raise this year by £45; how long he has held his present appointment; and whether, under the regulations, he is only entitled to an increase of salary of £20.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Question refers to Mr. A. D. Price, whose salary is the same now as it was on his appointment eight years ago. He will not receive an increase of salary until the year 1910. His appointment was made permanent last year, the new scale for the permanent post being £400, rising annually by increments of £20 to £600. Mr. Price, however, received credit for his eight years unbroken temporary service, and this accounts for the apparent addition to the Estimates.

  Erection of a Fishing Pier at Garnish.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief 'Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a memorial relative to the proposed erection of a fishing pier at 'Garnish, Castletown Berehaven, has been forwarded to the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The memorial in question came before the Congested Districts Board at their meet-
  1608
  ing in March last. The cost of the suggested works would be considerable, and, having regard to the state of the Board's funds, they felt obliged to postpone indefinitely the consideration of the proposal.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants.
  MR. McHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the reinstatement of evicted tenants, in cases in which planters are willing to surrender, is hampered by reason of the fact that where planters have become judicial tenants of evicted farms the Estates Commissioners cannot compensate planters or make grants to evicted tenants; and what does he propose to do in order to render the Evicted Tenants Act operative in such cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that according to their view of the powers given by Section 12 of the Act of 1903 they can compensate occupiers of evicted holdings for their interest on surrendering the holdings, and can make grants to evicted tenants on reinstatement if the estate is being sold through them under the Act of 1903. In the Commissioners opinion these powers apply whether the occupiers are judicial or non-judicial tenants. The compensation asked for by occupiers of evicted holdings is, however, usually so high as to render this procedure impracticable, having regard to the limited amount of the reserve fund. The hon. Member is, of course, aware that in suitable cases in which reinstatement in the evicted holdings cannot be effected the Commissioners provide other holdings for the evicted tenants whenever that course is possible.

  Amendment of Irish Land Acts.
  MR. McHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he proposes to introduce the promised Land Acts (Ireland) Amendment Bill; is he aware that anxiety prevails in Ireland in consequence of the delay in introducing this Bill; and can he give an assurance that the Bill will be passed through its various stages in this House before the end of the session.

  1609
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion will require careful consideration before the proposed legislation for amending the Irish Land Acts can be formulated. The entire subject is engaging the earnest attention of the Government with the object of introducing the proposed measure at the earliest possible moment. I should hope that the necessary Bill will become law before the close of the session, but I cannot, of course, give any assurance that such will be the case.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Edmond Feehan.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application for reinstatement in his former holding on the Butler-Brien Estate, Williamstown, County Tipperary, has been made to the Estates Commissioners by an evicted tenant named Edmond Feehan; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken to restore him to his holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received from Edmond Feehan an application for a holding which was formerly occupied by a tenant named Michael Feehan, and is now in possession of another tenant. The Commissioners, upon full consideration of the case, have decided to take no action upon the application.

  Completion of Fishing Pier at Ballyconnell.
  MR. McHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, as Chairman of the Congested Districts Board, whether the Board propose to complete the fishing pier at Bally-council, county Sligo, which was commenced last year but left unfinished,; and can he say when the interrupted work will be resumed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board did not commence to make a pier at Ballyconnell, and had no intention of constructing one there. The Board, however, undertook to clear stones from the landing-place, and this work was completed at a cost of £141.

  Funds for Development of Irish Sea Fishing Industry.
  MR. McHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has observed that the funds placed at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board and of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for the development of the sea-fishing industry are insufficient; and whether he proposes to have these funds augmented.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Though considerable sums have been, and are still being, expended upon the development of sea fisheries in Ireland, I have no doubt that additional funds could be usefully devoted to that purpose if they were available. I am not, however, in a position to hold out any hopes of an immediate increase of funds.

  New Irish University Senates.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the teaching of Irish will be placed on an equal footing with that of English in the new University; and whether Irish history and language will be made compulsory subjects at the matriculation examination.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether lie can state the number of those composing the senate of the proposed University for Belfast who possess a knowledge of the Irish language; and will he say what steps, if any, are being taken to insure that the Irish language shall be taught in the University about to be established there.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) All questions concerning the studies to be pursued in the new Universities will, in the first instance, be for the consideration of the Commissioners when framing the statutes, and subsequently for the senates of the Universities. It is not intended to impose any obligation upon these bodies as to the inclusion of Irish language and history or any other particular subject. I have no information as to the number of the members of either the proposed Belfast or Dublin senate

  1611
  who may be acquainted with the Irish language.

  Destruction of Irish Woodlands.
  MR. LANE-FOX: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the destruction of woods sold under the Irish Land Act of 1903, he is prepared to consider whether any legislative action can be taken to prevent the further destruction of existing woodlands and plantations in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Irish Forestry which has been laid before Parliament. The recommendations of the Committee are at present under the consideration of my hon. friend the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, and the question of legislation will in due course receive the consideration of the Government.

  Advances for Purchase of the Goodall Estate.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed by the Estates Commissioners to make advances for the purchase on the Goodall estate, in the county Roscommon, of certain holdings to which the Land Law Acts do not apply; how many holdings of this description are on the estate and the area of the same; what is the amount of the proposed advances; whether the Commissioners are aware that a portion of these lands belonged to the adjoining tenants until a few years before the Act of 1870, when they were evicted, not for nonpayment of rent, but in pursuance of the scheme for the creation of large grass ranches; and whether advantage will be taken by the Commissioners of the opportunity given to them by the sale of the estate to limit the advances, and to use a portion of these lands for the purpose of enlarging the small holdings on the estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I refer my Answer to the hon. Member's previous Question of 10th March. The Estates
  1612
  Commissioners intend to declare the excluded holdings to be a separate estate, but before this is done the vendor proposes to place a portion of the land comprised in the holdings to which the Land Law Acts do not apply at the disposal of the Commissioners, for the enlargement of uneconomic holdings and the reinstatement of evicted tenants. In the present stage of the proceedings the Commissioners are not in a position to give the details asked for in the Question.

  Position of Existing Professors of the Cork Galway Colleges.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the uneasiness which exists among professors of the Cork and Galway Colleges as to their status under the Irish Universities Bill and the new charters, he can make any reassuring statement on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Existing professors of the Cork and Galway Colleges who may be offered, and may accept, equivalent positions in the reconstituted colleges will have the same tenure of office secured to them as that under winch they hold at present.

  Introduction of the Irish Land Bill.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he intends to introduce the Irish Land. Bill before Whitsuntide.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The proposed Government measure will be introduced as soon as possible, but I cannot say when.

  Untenanted Land on the Colthurst Estate.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any untenanted land in the neighbourhood of the home farm on the Colthurst estate, Ballyvourney, county Cork; and, if so, can he state the extent of it and whether it has been acquired for the purposes of distribution by the Estates Commissioners, or what action do they propose to take ill reference to the matter in connection with the sale of this estate

  1613
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the lands comprised in the Ballyvourney portion of the estate in question consist of tenanted lands, and of about 448 acres of land valued at £118, which latter is proposed to be sold and purchased by the vendor. The last-named land is stated to consist of plantations and some plots in the village of Ballyvourney. The vendor does not appear to own any other land in the vicinity. The Commissioners have referred the case to an inspector for report.

  Government of the Island of British New Guinea.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory state of affairs in British New Guinea; whether the British Government contributes towards the expenses of governing that island; whether the Secretary of State exercises control there; who is the present administrator of British New Guinea; and if there is a vacancy will an officer of proved ability be appointed without delay.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) I have no official information as to the condition of affairs in Papua, the administration of which rests entirely with the Commonwealth Government. No contribution is made from Imperial funds towards the expenses of its Government. I understand that the post of Administrator is vacant, and that the question of filling it is under the consideration of the Commonwealth Government, with whom the appointment lies.

  Pay of Postal Officials at Warrenpoint, County Down.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the increased cost of living at Warrenpoint, County Down, consequent on comprehensive local improvements and increased taxation, he will consider the advisability of placing the Warren-point sub-post office in Class IV., seeing that the Hobhouse Report contemplated special consideration for the postal servants in seaside resorts.
  1614
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will take into account all the circumstances before deciding upon the final position of Warrenpoint in the new classification. The Report of the Parliamentary Committee did not, however, contemplate special consideration for the postal servants in seaside resorts.

  Grievances of Men on the Tugs at Portsmouth.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the petition of the men on the tugs at Portsmouth has reached their Lordships, setting forth their grievances; if so, when did it reach them; and, if not, will he inquire the reason of it being withheld.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The petitions were received last month, and the petitioners were heard in support of their statements during the recent visit of the late Board to Portsmouth. The matter is now under consideration.

  Dimensions of the two Lighters for Sheerness.
  MR. HOLT: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the dimensions of the two lighters for Sheerness (pages 228–9, Navy Estimates.)
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The dimensions of these lighters have not yet been decided.

  Sea Police Duty in the Moray Firth.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state why the Admiralty were not asked by the Fishery Board for Scotland to detail a gunboat for sea-police duty in the Moray Firth during the time the "Ringdove" was absent for refitting.; and will he state the speed of the "Ring-dove," and for what period during the last twelve months she has been on duty in the Moray Firth.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Admiralty were asked for a substitute, but they informed the Fishery Board for Scotland that they were not in a position to comply with the request. I am informed it is not usual to advertise the

  1615
  speed of police vessels. From 1st May, 1907 to 30th April, 1908 the "Ring-dove" was on duty for about 194 days.

  Fishery Duty of "Ringdove."
  SIR ARTHUR BIGNOLD: To ask the Secretary for Scotland when the "Ringdove "is to take up fishery duty, and where is to be her headquarters.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The "Ringdove" resumed fishery duty on 11th instant, and her present headquarters are at Fortrose.

  Imports of Plated Goods.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can obtain from the Customs authorities particulars of the imports of plated goods into the United Kingdom during the fifteen months ending 31st March, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) I am afraid that I can only repeat the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 8th May that no separate record of the imports of plated goods is kept by the Customs, such articles being included on importation under the general heading "Metal unenumerated, wrought."

  Number of Daily Hours of Duty of the Warders in His Majesty's Convict Prison Service.

  Alternate Days (except Saturdays and Sundays).

  Alternate Saturdays.

  Alternate Sundays.

  Early Duty.

  Late Duty.

  1st.

  2nd.

  1st.

  2nd.

  Hrs.

  Mins

  Hrs.

  Mins

  Hrs.

  Mins

  Hrs.

  Mins

  Hrs.

  Mins

  Hrs.

  Mins

  1st January to 31st January

  9

  45

  9

  40

  9

  25

  5

  10

  8

  25

  0

  0

  1st February to 31st October

  10

  35

  10

  0

  9

  45

  5

  30

  8

  25

  0

  0

  1st November to 30th November

  10

  5

  10

  0

  9

  45

  5

  30

  8

  25

  0

  0

  16th November to 30th January

  9

  50

  10

  0

  9

  45

  5

  30

  8

  25

  0

  0

  1st December to 31st December

  9

  30

  9

  40

  9

  25

  5

  10

  8

  25

  0

  0

  Value of Exports and Imports.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the value of our exports to, and consignments from, France, the United States, Belgium, and Germany, respectively, classified as to food, drink, tobacco, raw materials, and manufactures in 1906 and 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The information asked for by the hon. Member is not yet available, but if he will move for a Return giving the particulars desired, I will have the information prepared.

  Hours of Warders in Convict Prisons.
  MR. WARDLE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant a Return showing the hours worked per day for a period of one month by the warders in His Majesty's convict prison service.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The hours worked vary somewhat with the time of year. Perhaps it will be simplest to give the information for the whole year in the form of the following table—

  Customs Clerks Promotion.
  MR. SNOWDEN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain the circumstances under which a second-class clerk, upper section (Customs), was recently promoted to the first class (Secretary's Office) over the heads of sixty-seven of his class, and a second-class clerk, upper section (Customs), was promoted to the first class (Accountant and Controller-General's Office) over the heads of thirty-six of his own class; and will he say whether the men passed over were considered unworthy of promotion.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The Board of Customs inform me that these and similar vacancies in the upper ranks of the two departments referred to are necessarily filled by selection on account of the special duties to be performed, and the two clerks in question were selected as the most suitable for the work. Their appointment in no way prejudices the claims of the clerks not selected for advancement in their ordinary line of promotion.

  The Appointment of Mr. L. J. Hewby.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the date of appointment to the public service of Mr. L. J. Hewby, lately Treasury first-class clerk, who was recently appointed as Treasury Remembrancer in Ireland, his annual emoluments as Treasury first-class clerk and his annual emoluments as Treasury Remembrancer, the nature of his special qualifications for the latter positon; whether Sir George Murray was responsible for his selection; and whether the Irish Chief Secretary or Under-Secretary, or both, were consulted in reference to the filling of this post in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) Mr. Hewby was appointed to the public service on 4th March, 1895. His emoluments as a first-class clerk in the Treasury were £825 per annum. His emoluments as Treasury Remembrancer in Ireland are £1,200 per annum. His qualifications for that post arise from his experience and training in the Treasury. He was selected by the First Lord of the Trea-
  1618
  sury, and the Irish Government were not consulted on the subject.

  The Vaccination Acts and the Statutory Declaration.
  MR. LEHMANN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Mr. W. Muskerry Tilson, a Commissioner for Oaths, of 26, Southampton Street, Strand, W.C., refused on 2nd April, 1908, to take a statutory declaration under the Vaccination Acts when applied to by Mr. G. H. T. Coleman, Homelea, Furzeham Road, West Drayton, for that purpose; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent such occurrences in future.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Commissioner for Oaths informs me that he has had a case in which he questioned a person who attended before him to make a statutory declaration under The Vaccination Act, 1907. He states that his object was to ascertain the bona fides of such person, and that the answers given did not satisfy him that he would be justified in taking the declaration. This is probably the case referred to in the Question. I think the Commissioner acted under a misapprehension of his duties in the matter, and I will communicate with him on the subject.

  Income-tax Relief.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases in each of the financial years 1904–5, 1905–6, and 1906–7 relief has been granted from income-tax under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890, Section 23.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) As no record is kept of the cases in which relief is granted under the section referred to, I am afraid that I cannot give the information asked for by my hon. friend.

  Average Attendance in Church and other Schools.
  MR. ADKINS: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state the recognised accommodation and the number of

  1619
  children in average attendance in Church schools, Roman Catholic schools, Council schools, and others, respectively, in the years 1897 and 1907, respectively, show-

  1897.

  1907.

  Increase (+) or Decrease (-)

  (a) Recognised Accommodation.

  Church Schools

  2,759,670

  2,681,442

  -78,228

  Roman Catholic Schools

  380,849

  406,137

  +25,288

  Council and other Schools

  3,074,680

  3,956,628

  +881,948

  (b) Average Attendance.

  Church Schools

  1,871,773

  1,899,965

  +28,192

  Roman Catholic Schools

  240,784

  286,188

  +45,404

  Council and other Schools

  2,375,986

  3,105,131

  +729,145

  Income-Tax Assessments on Averages.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of businesses which have been assessed to income-tax on the average profits of the three years preceding the year of assessment, there are any special cases in which the liability is affected by the actual profit in the year of assessment falling short of that average; and, if so, what are those cases; whether they include the cases enumerated in the 134th section of the Act of 1842, viz., cessation from business, death, bankruptcy, and any other specific cause; whether they include any other cases than those set Out in that section; and, if so, what other cases; and what other specific causes than cessation from business, death, and bankruptcy are treated by the Inland Revenue as entitling to an abatement.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Section 134 of the Income-tax Act of 1842 provides that, where a person shall from cessation of business, death, bankruptcy, or "any other specific cause be deprived of or lose the profits or gains on which the computation of duty was charged," the District Commissioners of Taxes, on
  ing the increase or decrease, as the case may he, in the decennial period.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.)
  application being made to them within three calendar months, may amend the assessment as the case may require and give such relief as shall be just. No general statement can ye made of what constitutes a "specific cause" within the meaning of this section, this being a matter for the District Commissioners to determine by reference to the particular circumstances of each case as it arises.

  War Taxation paid by Tea and Sugar.
  MR. REES: To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what is the total amount of war taxation that has been paid by tea and sugar since the imposition of the respective duties in the Finance Acts of 1900 and 1901.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The estimated yield of the additional duty imposed on tea during the war and the yield of the sugar duty to 31st March, 1908, are as follows—

  £

  Tea

  14,816,000

  Sugar

  41,847,000

  56,663,000

  Delay in Erection of Labourers' Cottages in Celbridge, No. 2, Rural District.
  MR. CLANCY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, so far back as 1st February, 1907, representations from or on behalf of labourers in the Celbridge, No. 2, Rural District for cottages and plots, under The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, were forwarded to the local authority, and the Local Government Board has never since appointed an inspector to inquire into the subject of those requisitions; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay on the part of the Local Government Board; and when does that body propose to hold the inquiry.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have not yet received

  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Summary of Schools in Single School Parishes in Rural Areas [Cd. 3990]. The figures in the annexed table are a summary of those contained in the List [Cd. 3990] of Public Elementary Schools in Single School Parishes, as defined in section 3(6) of The Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill, 1908. The table distinguishes between voluntary schools and council schools, and shows in each case the number of schools, their accommodation, and the average attendance for the year ended the 31st July, 1907.

  Church of England expressed or implied.

  Church of England by usage.

  Total Church of England.

  Schools or Departments.

  Schools or Departments.

  Accommodation.

  Average Attendance.

  Schools or Departments.

  Accommodation.

  Average Attendance.

  Schools or Departments.

  Accommodation.

  Average Attendance.

  I. Voluntary Schools as classified in H. C. Return 178, 1906:

  Placed wholly in Class A

  3,221

  438,200

  282,286

  279

  34,346

  21,672

  3,500

  472,546

  303,958

  Placed wholly in Class B 1

  110

  14,637

  8,824

  13

  1,505

  932

  123

  16,142

  9,756

  Placed wholly in Class B 2

  30

  3,938

  2,421

  6

  644

  449

  36

  4,582

  2,870

  Placed wholly in Class C

  58

  7,260

  4,783

  14

  1,747

  930

  72

  9,007

  5,713

  Placed wholly in Class D 1

  —

  —

  —

  29

  2,969

  1,842

  29

  2,969

  1,842

  Placed wholly in Class D 2

  —

  —

  —

  236

  24,697

  15,128

  236

  24,697

  15,128

  Placed wholly in Class E

  1,413

  149,855

  83,383

  129

  14,403

  7,776

  1,542

  164,258

  91,159

  II. Schools or departments which from various reasons are assignable to more than one of the five Classes A to E.

  78

  12,522

  8,266

  19

  2,248

  1,239

  97

  14,770

  9,505

  Totals of I. and II.

  4,910

  626,412

  389,963

  725

  82,559

  49,968

  5,635

  708,971

  439,931

  III. Voluntary schools not included in the 1906 Return.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  IV. Council Schools

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grand Totals

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  from the rural district council an improvement scheme in pursuance of the representations referred to in the Question. The delay in the matter therefore rests entirely with the Council and not with the Local Government Board.

  Public Elementary Schools in Single School Parishes.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will issue a continuation of Cd. 3990 (Public Elementary Schools in Single School Parishes), showing the total number of such schools with the total attendance, and grouping them under the denominational and undenominational subdivisions adopted in this particular Return.

  The voluntary schools are arranged in the following summary in two aspects, viz., in respects of tenure and trusts under each of the five classes to which they were assigned in compiling the Return [H.C. 178, 1906]; and in respect of religious denomination by reference to the religious instruction which it appears that the trust deed (if any) intended, whether by implication or by express provision, should be given in the school; or, failing this, by reference to the religious instruction which, so far as the Board of Education are aware, is actually given in the school.

  Roman Catholic.

  Wesleyan.

  Other Voluntary Schools.

  Total.

  Schools or Departments.

  Schools or Departments.

  Accommodation.

  Average Attendance.

  Schools or Departments.

  Accommodation.

  Average Attendance.

  Schools or Departments.

  Accommodation.

  Average Attendance.

  Schools or Departments.

  Accommodation.

  Average Attendance.

  I. Voluntary schools as classified in H. C. Return 178, 1906:

  Placed wholly in Class A

  3

  533

  307

  5

  895

  449

  106

  15,895

  9,120

  3,614

  489,869

  313,834

  Placed wholly in Class B1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  345

  187

  4

  435

  241

  130

  16,922

  10,184

  Placed wholly in Class B2

  1

  212

  63

  —

  —

  —

  2

  256

  119

  39

  5,050

  3,052

  Placed wholly in Class C

  9

  940

  425

  4

  434

  262

  9

  1,114

  458

  94

  11,495

  6,858

  Placed wholly in Class D1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  327

  196

  33

  3,296

  2,038

  Placed wholly in Class D2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  1,033

  597

  249

  25,730

  15,725

  Placed wholly in Class E

  15

  1,911

  956

  —

  —

  —

  79

  10,734

  6,325

  1,636

  176,903

  98,440

  II. Schools or departments which from various reasons are assignable to more than one of the five Classes A to E.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  1,125

  631

  102

  15,895

  10,136

  Totals of I. and II.

  28

  3,596

  1,751

  12

  1,674

  898

  222

  30,919

  17,687

  5,897

  745,160

  460,267

  III. Voluntary schools not included in the 1906 Return.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  603

  331

  IV. Council School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,724

  283,258

  195,852

  Grand totals

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,627

  1,029,021

  656,450

  Irish Land Commission and Recovery of Monies Due.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the Land Commission issue writs for recovery of half-years' annuity, or interest in lieu of rent, from £20 upwards, and do not avail of the powers of the County Courts, which have ample jurisdiction in all cases where the half-year does not exceed £50; whether he is aware that issuing writs against small farmers causes hardship owing to the heavy costs incurred, seeing that the costs of issuing a writ are £2 10s. whereas the costs of a civil bill are only 14s. 6d., that the costs of judgment on a writ are £5 16s., while the costs of a civil bill decree in cases up to £40 are only £1 19s., and above £40 and under
  1624
  £50 are only £2 19s.; whether the sheriffs' fees attendant on the execution of a fi. fa., are much higher than for executing a civil bill decree; whether the judgment on a writ appears in Stubbs' Gazette, which is ruinous to the credit of defendant, even though he pays without delay, wheras a decree is not so published; whether the powers of the sheriff are as effective under a decree as on a fi. fa., as a freehold interest in neither case can be seized by the sheriff; whether on a return of nulla bona on both a decree and fi. fa. the Land Commission advertise the holding for sale and sell under their statutory power; whether having regard to the number of cases in which proceedings are instituted, very few judgments or decrees are entered up, as nearly all defaulters pay on being

  1625
  served with either civil bill or writ; whether he is aware that there are four civil bill sessions in each county in the year, and all cases not exceeding £50 can be speedily dealt with in the County Courts; that no witness has to be procured to prove the amount due, as a certificate under the seal of the Land. Commission is made evidence, and that the Land Commission sue in County Courts at present at the Easter and Michaelmas sessions; whether the solicitor to the Land Commission, being paid a fixed salary, gets no costs of these writs; and how are the costs so recovered disposed of.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Land Commission proceed in the superior Courts for the recovery of annuities from £20 upwards because the proceedings are more expeditious and effectual than proceedings in the County Court for the purpose of recovering arrears, in order to meet the dividends and sinking fund payments due in respect of the stock issued for the advances made, and to prevent charges against the Guarantee Fund and the rates of the counties. It is to be remembered that £20 for a half-year's annuity represents an advance of over £1,200, and the holding therefore is of considerable value; and it is the experience of the Land Commission that in such cases the money is more promptly recovered when the defaulters are sued in the Superior Courts. The Land Commission, as trustees of public moneys, which they are bound to collect punctually, feel obliged to use the most effective methods available for compelling payers of annuities and of interest in lieu of rent to pay without unreasonable delay. Writs are never issued until two demands for payment have first been made, and notice given that legal proceedings would be taken if debt should not be paid within a stated period. The full costs of issuing and serving a writ are £2 10s.; of marking judgment £4 18s. 6d. The Land Commission do not register their judgments which therefore do not appear in Stubbs' Gazette. The sheriffs' fees are almost identical in writ cases and in civil bill decrees. The lodgment fee is 1s. less in civil bill decrees than in Superior Court judgments; otherwise the fees are the same. Upon a return of "No Goods," in the case of either a judgment or decree,
  1626
  the Land Commission advertise the defaulters' holding for sale under their statutory powers. During the last completed year, 360 writs were issued by the Commissioners' solicitor for debts over £20 and not exceeding £50, and in these cases sixty-nine judgments were marked. Judgment is marked or a decree is made in about one case in every five in which proceedings are taken. It is the case that there are four civil bill sessions in each county in the year, and that cases not exceeding £50 can be dealt with in the County Court; also, that no witness has to be produced to prove the Land Commission claim, as the certificate of debt under seal of the Irish Land Commission is accepted as evidence. The Land Commission only sue at the two sessions mentioned in the Question because the annuities and interest are payable half-yearly and not quarterly, and the interest and sinking fund on the stock issued for advances are also payable half-yearly. The costs recovered from defaulters by the Commissioners' solicitor are appropriated in aid of the Land Commission Vote.

  New Irish University Senates.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the omission of the name of any person directly connected with primary education in Ireland from the proposed nominated senates and governing bodies of the new Universities and their constituent colleges; and whether he will remedy this omission.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer my hon. friend to the Answer which I gave to the Question on this subject put to me by the hon. Member for East Kerry on 13th May.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Michael Hickey.
  MR. POWER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to reinstate on the lands of Cullinagh, Kilmeaden, County Waterford, an evicted tenant named Hickey who has made application for reinstatement; are the lands from which Hickey was evicted on the hands of the landlord, Mr. Kelly;

  1627
  and, if so, can the compulsory powers of the Evicted Tenants Act be applied in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have made an offer to the landlord for the purchase of the holding which was formerly occupied by Michael Hickey and is now in the landlord's possession. The landlord has refused the offer, and the Commissioners have directed further inquiry to be made in the case, with a view to considering the question of exercising the powers conferred by the Evicted Tenants Act.

  Unlawful Assembly at Mount Bellew.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on or about 2nd November, 1907, eight or nine persons were arrested at Mount Bellew on a charge of unlawful assembly and conveyed to Ballinasloe, a distance of about 19 miles, and there bound to the peace and to be of good behaviour before a resident magistrate; whether there are several local magistrates in the neighbourhood of Mount Bellew, and, if so, why the persons referred to were not brought before those magistrates; and what was the cost of conveying them to Ballinasloe.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that the facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. Several justices of the peace are resident in the locality of Mount Bellew, but, in pursuance of the usual practice in such cases, the application to bind the offenders to keep the peace was made to the resident magistrate. The cost of conveying them to Ballinasloe was £10.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of John Harte.
  MR. F. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from John Harte, of Carrigans, an evicted tenant on the Lane-Fox estate, Dromahair, County Leitrim, which estate has been purchased by the Land Commission; and whether the Commissioners would take action to have Harte or his son, Thady Harte, reinstated
  1628
  of provided with a suitable farm elsewhere.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received an application from Thady Harte for a holding on the Lane-Fox estate from which his grandmother appears to have been evicted in 1879. This holding is now in the occupation of a tenant-purchaser, and the Commissioners have no power to put the applicant in possession of it. The applicant is already in possession of a small holding which has been purchased under the Land Acts, but if untenanted land should become available in the locality the Commissioners will consider the question of allotting him a parcel for the enlargement of his present holding.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of G L. Young.
  MR. F. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an evicted tenant named James McMeekin, on the estate of G. L. Young, County Derry, who was evicted in 1907, has applied to the Estates Commissioners to be reinstated; and whether the Estates Commissioners, having regard to the fact that he is a poor man and has a wife and a large family depending on him for their support., and that the farm is offered for sale by the landlord, would take immediate action to have him reinstated.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received the application in question, but, having regard to the date of the eviction, they cannot undertake to intervene in the matter.

  Royal Irish Constabulary—Members eligible for Retirement on Pension.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what is the number of head constables, sergeants, and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are eligible for retirement on pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is presumed that the Question is intended to refer to men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have served for twenty-five years or upwards and are therefore

  1629
  eligible to retire on pension upon their own application. The Inspector-General informs me that in order to give the required information it would be necessary to call for local returns from the entire country. It does not seem desirable to impose so much trouble upon the force, but if the hon. Member has any substantial reason for requiring the information I will ask the Inspector-General to procure it.

  Prosecutions under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act in Belfast.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he could state the number of prosecutions under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, that have taken place in Belfast during the first quarter of the present year, and in how many of the cases convictions have been secured; and whether he could state the number of inspectors under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts employed in Belfast.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that twenty-five prosecutions under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act took place in Belfast during the first quarter of the present year, and convictions resulted in all cases. There are two inspectors under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act in Belfast.

  Sale of Estate of H. G. M. Stuart.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what progress has been made by the Estates Commissioners towards the sale of the estate of the trustees of Horatio Granville Murray Stewart; and whether the Commissioners will advance any money to Patrick Keeney, an evicted tenant on this estate, to crop, stock, and rebuild his house on the farm to which he was reinstated according to agreement made the 18th February last.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The agreements for the sale of the several estates of the Stewart trustees were lodged with the Estates Commissioners in August 1905, April, 1906, and May, 1907, but none of the cases has yet reached its turn to be dealt with. The Commis-
  1630
  sioners made an offer to the owners for the purchase of Patrick Keeney's holding, and the offer wax accepted. No purchase agreement, however, has yet been lodged in the case, but as soon as this is done, and Keeney is in possession, the Commissioners will make a free grant of £30.

  Acquisition of Turbary on the Orkney Estate, County Tipperary.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the turbary on the Orkney estate, County Tipperary, has been vested in the Estates Commissioners for distribution amongst the tenants and the labourers on or in the neighbourhood of the estate; if not, will the Commissioners take steps to acquire this turbary in the interests of the whole people; have tenancies been created in any portion of the turbary since the sale was set on foot; and can he state what has become of the gamekeeper's residence on the estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The vendor in this case has offered 464 acres of bog land for sale to the Estates Commissioners, who have directed an inspection to be made with a view to considering the offer. The Commissioners have no information upon the last two parts of the Question, but these matters will be inquired into by the inspector in due course.

  Distribution of Turbary on the Montalt Estate, County Tipperary.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in connection with the distribution of the untenanted land on the Montalt estate, County Tipperary, the Estates Commissioners took any steps whatever under Section 7 of The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906; did they make ally inquiry pursuant to Section 96 of The Irish Land Act, 1903; did they transmit to the council of the Cashel Rural District any report of their opinion; and what steps are the Estates Commissioners now going to take to provide, in conjunction with the Cashel Council, sufficient accommodation under the Labourers Act for the labourers of the district.

  1631
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners made inquiries as to the accommodation needed for labourers on the Montalt estate, and their scheme for its re-sale provides for three-acres plots for some twenty purchasers of the labouring class. The Commissioners have also informed the Cashel Rural District Council that they are prepared to sell to the council, pursuant to the 7th Section of The Labourers Act, 1906, a further portion of land if the council should require it for the purposes of the Labourers Act. The Commissioners have reserved a portion of the land pending the reply of the council.

  Complaints of J. J. O'Mahony of Inniscarra.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners, through any of their inspectors, have investigated the complaints of fraudulent treatment made by John J. O'Mahony, a purchasing tenant on the estate of J. D. Cramer Roberts, Inniscarra, county Cork; whether this tenant has been processed for a year's interest which he claims to be excessive and unwarranted; are any concessions to be made to him as a result of the investigations of the Commissioners; and whether he will consider the advisability of putting a stay to legal proceedings in the meantime.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have fully investigated the complaints made by O'Mahony, and have decided that they are without foundation. The purchase money has accordingly been advanced, and the holding vested in O'Mahony. The Commissioners have instituted legal proceedings against O'Mahony for the recovery of interest in lieu of rent for the year ending 1st November last. These proceedings cannot be stayed.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Cost of Naval Gunners.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg, to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty in reference to his official statement that the annual effective cost to the country
  1632
  of a fully-trained gunner in the Royal Marine Artillery and of a naval seaman gunner (able seaman) is estimated to he, approximately, £53 in each case, whether he can state the data on which the estimate was made; and whether it allows for the large wastage of about 10 per cent. among seamen.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The items comprised in the total sum given as representing the annual effective cost to the country of a fully-trained gunner in the Royal Marine Artillery and of a naval seaman gunner (able seaman), were pay and allowances, clothing and victualling. The expense for maintaining one man for one year having been taken on the above basis, such consideration as the wastage among seamen did not enter into the calculations.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it not the fact that the cost of a marine gunner to the country is a great deal less than that of a seaman gunner?
  [No Answer was audible.]
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to an Answer given by the Secretary to the Admiralty on 4th April, 1906, in which the cost of a gunner in the Royal Marines is given as £55 10s. and the cost of a seaman up to the date of being rated A.B., or before he attains a seaman gunner's rate, as £155 in pay and victualling only; and whether, in view of a recent official statement, he desires to modify this Answer, as the new Estimate shows a decrease in the cost of the seaman of at least £100.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Answer to the first portion of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second portion, as the figures given by my hon. friend on 4th April, 1906, represented the cost of a marine for a period of eighteen months, namely, from enlistment to date of becoming efficient, and of a bluejacket for a period of four years, namely, from entry as a boy to date of being rated able seaman, it is not necessary to modify them with reference to the recent official statement respecting the annual effective cost of a marine

  1633
  gunner and seaman gunner when fully trained.

  Casualties of Naval Manœuvres.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will grant the Return of Naval Casualties during Manœuvres or tactics now standing on the Order Paper of the House.
  MR. McKENNA: We have no detailed records in the office which would enable us to give the information asked for the years prior to 1901, but I shall be glad to have a Return prepared on the lines of the hon. Member's Motion as far as all Manœuvres and tactical exercises ordered by the Admiralty are concerned, from 1901 to the end of 1907.

  Lieutenants for Nucleus Crews.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, in reference to the official statement that an additional lieutenant has been allowed in the "Charybdis" class of cruisers for the nucleus crews, making three lieutenants in all, whether he can state on what date the additional lieutenant joined H.M.S. "Charybdis."
  MR. MCKENNA: An additional lieutenant was ordered on 14th May to join the ship.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Did not the right hon. Gentleman receive notice of my Question on 6th May—eight days before—the Question relating to additional lieutenant?
  MR. McKENNA: The Order Paper will show the date.

  Regulations for Night Manœuvring.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the facts that officers commanding His Majesty's ships are bound by Article 1035 of the King's Regulations to observe the regulations made by Order in Council for preventing collisions at sea, and that those regulations enjoin the carriage of certain specified navigation lights from sunset to sunrise by every steam vessel under way, any instructions have been issued to such officers relieving them from the obligations of Article 1035
  1634
  during night manœuvres; and, if so, whether he will lay those instructions upon the Table or state their purport to the House.
  MR. McKENNA: Instructions have not been issued to officers in the sense suggested in the Question, but commanders in-chief have discretion to carry out Manœuvres under conditions that are designed to reproduce as nearly as possible those which must be met in time of war.
  MR. BOWLES: Was that discretion given by order of the Admiralty in writing?
  MR. McKENNA: It has been exercised for a good many years past and no alterations has taken place in the practice.

  Flour for the Navy.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the flour mills in the Deptford Victualling Yard are lying idle, all the flour required being supplied by contractors; whether he can see his way to having the Government plant utilised for the purpose for which it was erected; whether he is aware that the contractors supply the flour in bags instead of casks, and that a waste of flour is involved through the bags not being water-tight; whether he will take steps to remedy this; whether he is aware that the bags of flour which are sent direct on board are not inspected, the only inspection being that a sample is submitted at the victualling yard; and whether he will institute a more thorough system.
  MR. McKENNA: As stated in the reply to a former similar Question put by the hon. Member on 4th December, 1906, it is not proposed to revert to the old, system of direct Government manufacture of flour. The flour supplied by contractors is delivered in the ordinary trade sacks, which are quite suitable for the purposes required. There is no waste of flour involved. The present system of testing a percentage of the flour supplied has proved to be sufficiently thorough, and is moreover the only practical one, having regard to the enormous quantities dealt with. It is not proposed to extend it.
  MR. CROOKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to sell the plant at the Deptford Victualling Yard?
  MR. McKENNA: Not at the present time.
  MR. CROOKS: I hope, then, you are going to use it some day.
  *MR. REES: Does it signify whether the flour mills are idle or not if the expenditure on the Navy is unproductive?
  MR. McKENNA: I do not admit that it is unproductive.
  *MR. REES: I am glad to hear that.
  MR. CROOKS: It is a form of insurance.

  Deptford Victualling Yard—Coopers' Apprentices.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention at the Deptford Victualling Yard to discharge coopers' apprentices after their term of apprenticeship has expired, although there is an assurance in their articles of apprenticeship of regular employment if they prove themselves efficient.
  MR. McKENNA: The articles of apprenticeship do not give a promise of employment, and the yard regulations are quite clear upon this point. Employment is dependent upon vacancies in the authorised staff; and no vacancies exist at the present time, nor are likely to occur in the near future.

  "Cobra" Court-Martial.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any instructions of any kind whatsoever, other than the ordinary orders for the assembly of a court-martial, were issued in connection with the "Cobra" court-martial in 1901; and whether the Court exceeded its powers in bringing in a verdict that the loss was due to structural weakness, and that the Court also found that the "Cobra" was weaker than other destroyers, and, in view of that fact, it was to be regretted that she was purchased into His Majesty's service.
  MR. McKENNA: The "Cobra" court-martial appears to have been convened under Sections 91 and 92 of the Naval Discipline Act to inquire into the cause of the loss of the "Cobra," and to try the survivors for their conduct on the occasion. The Court did not exceed its powers in "finding" (there being no charge, there was no "verdict" properly so called) that the loss was due to structural weakness. It did exceed its powers in finding that the "Cobra" was weaker than other destroyers, and that, in view of that fact, it was to be regretted that she was purchased into His Majesty's service. After the minutes of the court martial had been considered by the Admiralty, the President, the Members of the Court, and the Deputy Judge Advocate, were informed that the Court was not justified in this expression of opinion.

  Naval Accidents.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many ships and other craft of war have been in accidents since the 1st January, 1901; how many of these vessels were totally lost, and what was their original cost; how many were repaired in Government dockyards and how many outside; what was the number of lives lost as a result of accidents during the years referred to; and can he state the amount paid in pensions, etc., to the dependents of those who lost their lives.
  MR. McKENNA: The information asked for will be supplied in a Return, if the hon. Member will be good enough to move for it.

  Territorial Scheme Finance.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how much of the money paid under the Territorial Army Grant goes to officers non-commissioned officers, and men of the regular Army; what is the number of regular soldiers in receipt of this pay under heads of their respective rank; and whether there is a regular scale of pay for the Generals holding commands in the Territorial Army.
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The amount provided in the Vote for

  1637
  the Territorial Force for officers, noncommissioned officers and men of the Regular Army is £285,000. The approximate numbers and ranks are shown on page 49 of the Estimates. The pay of General Officers Commanding Divisions of the Territorial Force is fixed at £1,500 a year.

  The Special Reserve.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why a man over thirty years of ago is considered to be too old to join the Special Reserve of the Army, seeing that men between thirty and forty are better fitted to take the field than boys under eighteen who may be enlisted.
  MR. HALDANE: It is not considered that men over thirty-six years of age are suitable for active service abroad, and the maximum age was therefore purposely fixed at thirty, so that men could put in a term of six years before reaching the age of thirty-six. I may add that experience has shown that for active service reservists over the age of thirty-six are of less value than younger men.
  MR. ASHLEY: But the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question why men over thirty cannot be put on the Special Reserve?
  MR. HALDANE: Because we want men in that with six years training.
  MR. ASHLEY: Would you allow a man who has completed twelve years service with the colours to go straight from the Regular Army into the Reserve?
  MR. HALDANE'Sreply was inaudible.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERpointed out that there were in the Army some 20,000 men over the age, and it would therefore be impossible to take them into the Reserve under this decision.

  Apprentices and the Territorial Force.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why a special Army Order has been issued prohibiting the enlistment of an apprentice into the Territorial Force, even if the master
  1638
  raises no objection, ill view of the fact that apprentices were permitted to join the Volunteers.
  MR. HALDANE: If the hon. Member will refer to Army Order 110 of this month he will find that the prohibition has been cancelled.

  Camp Allowances.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the authorised camp allowance which is to be paid to the Territorial soldier when out for annual training does not enable him to provide a substitute to perform his civilian duties, he will increase this allowance to a sum which will enable the soldier to attend this training and make himself efficient in accordance with the spirit of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907.
  MR. HALDANE: No, Sir. This question has been long since discussed and disposed of.

  Imperial Yeomanry Training.
  MAJOR RENTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the Imperial Yeomanry during their annual training are expected to practise marching past, or any ceremonial and parade movements, to the exclusion of more practical exercises.
  MR. HALDANE: It is intended that the training carried out in camp should be of a progressive nature and more advanced than that carried out during drills, as much time as possible being devoted to squadron training and field operations. The training should be confined wholly to such elements as are essential to success in war.

  The Militia and the Special Reserve.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many of the 1,406 men who have joined the Special Reserve of the Artillery and of the 10,830 men who have joined the Special Reserve of the Infantry are men who have transfered from the Militia in consideration of the receipt of a bounty; and how many are new enlistments.
  MR. HALDANE: In the case of the Artillery 380 were transferred from the

  1639
  Militia, 1,010 were recruits, and 15 reenlisted men. In the case of the Infantry 4,875 were transferred from the Militia, 5,844 were recruits, and 111 re-enlisted men.

  Transfers from the Regular Army to the Special Reserve.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what proportion of the men who have enlisted in, or been transferred to, the Special Reserve are expected to pass to the Regular Army on or before the completion of their period of training in the Special Reserve.
  MR. HALDANE: The new system has not been long enough in practice to furnish any data from which the proportion could be calculated. It is however, expected that the number will be about the same as that which used to join the Regular Army from the Militia.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: But when the right hon. Gentleman tells us 10,000 men have joined the Special Reserve, does he mean that they have joined the Special Reserve or the Regular Army?
  MR. HALDANE: The Special Reserve.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it not the fact that a very large proportion—90 per cent.—of the men are passing on to the Regular Army.
  MR. HALDANE: They have joined the Special Reserve and they are there now.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it not perfectly well known at all the depots that 80 or 90 per cent. of the men have joined the Special Reserve with the object of taking the £2 bounty and passing into the line at the end of three months?
  MR. HALDANE'Sreply was inaudible.

  Appointment of Officers.
  MR. ARNOLD FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the Gazette of the 12th May thirteen officers of Militia and fifty-nine officers of Volunteers are named as having resigned their commissions, and only two
  1640
  officers of Militia and four officers of Volunteers as having received first commissions; and whether these resignations involve a net reduction of the officers of Militia by eleven and of the officers of Volunteers by fifty-five, or whether the apparent loss has been made good in whole or in part by the issue of commissions to officers joining the Special Reserve and Territorial Force.
  MR. HALDANE: As regards the Special Reserve of officers no first appointments are to be made until the last Militia unit has completed its training for the current year. As regards the Territorial Force the Gazetting and issue of Commissions has not yet begun except in the case of a few Royal Army Medical Corps Officers. It is not therefore practicable to calculate any balance of the nature suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: At this time do not these figures represent a net loss of Militia and Volunteer officers?
  MR. HALDANE: Why call it a loss when the officers are ready, and will come forward in due course?

  Age of Army Recruits.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether any men have yet been allowed to enter the Regular Army from the depots at the age of 17½; and, if so, what is the number of such men.
  MR. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman is presumably referring to the Special Reserve recruits who are allowed to enlist in the Regular Army if under the age of 18 provided that they have completed the six months drill on enlistment. Recruiting for the Special Reserve only commenced on January 16th, and no such recruits could therefore have enlisted into the Regular Army as none would be qualified before the 15th July.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to permit the enlistment of these men at 17½?
  MR. HALDANE: We have said that when they have undergone six months training in the Special Reserve we shall enlist them into the Regular Army.

  Inspections of the Territorial Force.
  MAJOR RENTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he will cause instructions to be issued that no unit of the Territorial Forces is to be inspected on more than one day during their annual training unless under exceptional circumstances.
  MR. HALDANE: It is not considered desirable to issue definite regulations on this point. It is held that economy of time and thoroughness of inspection are more likely to be obtained by leaving the matter in the hands of the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief, to whose interest it is that no more time shall be lost to training than can be possibly avoided.

  Small Arms Factory, Enfield.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the rule under which young men are discharged on reaching the age of twenty-one was first applied at the Small Arms Factory, Enfield; how many men have been discharged under it; and whether it is to be a permanent rule of the department.
  MR. HALDANE: The rule is that boys reaching the age of twenty-one may be retained as men and paid as men if there are vacancies; if there are no vacancies they cannot be retained. Discharges under this rule had to be put in force on the 22nd February, 1908, and have affected nine persons.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: Is this a new rule?
  MR. HALDANEreplied in the negative.

  Government Factory Danger-Houses— Rates of Pay.
  MR. CURRAN,: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to raise the minimum rate of pay for the men working in the danger-houses in the Government factories, which is at present 23s. 6d. per week, in view of the fact that the police who patrol outside the danger-houses are allowed 1s. a day extra.
  MR. HALDANE: The rates of pay for men working in the danger-buildings are fixed with special regard to all the conditions of their employment. The
  1642
  terms of service of the Metropolitan Police are not in any way comparable with those of Ordnance Factory employees.

  Volunteer Camps.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many Volunteers went into camp in the years 1904 and 1905, for eight days and fifteen days respectively; and how many Volunteers or members of the Territorial Force are expected to attend camp for the corresponding period during the current year.
  MR. HALDANE: The Volunteer figures for all ranks, including permanent staff, were as follows:—

  1904.

  1905.

  8 days

  155,437

  148,925

  15 days

  23,038

  24,882

  I may observe that only Heavy Batteries, Royal Army Medical Corps Units, Submarine Miners, and the twenty-seven Field Army Battalions were allowed to camp for more than eight days. As regards the future it will not be practicable to attempt to give any forecast until after the 30th June.

  War Office Contracts—Rates of Wages.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many firms who contract for the manufacture of paint brushes for the War Department are not paying the standard rate of wages in their particular district; and whether he will assist in the prevention of sweating by giving the names of those firms in receipt of Government contracts.
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member is no doubt aware that considerable facilities are given to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress for the detection of cases of alleged breach of the Fair Wages Resolution, and I am always willing to investigate those cases, and, if necessary, to remove the firm from the list of those to whom tenders are issued. I am not sure that the publication of names would materially add to the efficiency of our machinery for

  1643
  the prevention of sweating, but if the hon. Member will give me the name of the firms not paying the recognised district rate, early investigation shall be made.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is very difficult for trade unions to find out who the contractors are?
  MR. HALDANE: But they do find out.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: After the contract is completed.

  Territorial Forces Clothing Contracts.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for war whether he has requested the County Associations when placing contracts for the clothing for the Territorial Forces with private firms to observe the Fair Wages Resolution of this House; and, if not, will he take the necessary steps to inform them of the existence of such a Resolution.
  MR. HALDANE: We will draw the attention of Associations to the inclusion of the Fair Wages Clause in Government contracts, and I hope that this course will lead to its inclusion in tenders for clothing issued by them.

  Territorial Outfit Grants.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state bow much his department allows for the service outfit for each recruit of the Territorial Force, and if such sum is calculated annually; and whether he will state what that outfit consists of.
  MR. HALDANE: An initial grant for recruits is made for clothing at the rate of £4 8s. for mounted recruits, and £3 15s. for dismounted; and personal equipment at rates ranging from 9s. to ½1 An annual grant of 23s. per efficient is made for the upkeep and replacement of the outfit. The outfit consists of two suits, one of which must be the regulation service dress, including great coats, and the usual personal equipment.

  Royal Field Artillery.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether,
  1644
  having regard to the fact that the effective strength of the Royal Field Artillery has been reduced during the past four months by 1,076, and is now 570 below the number provided for in the Estimates, he will say what steps he proposes to take beyond the training of 934 Special Reservists with the training brigades to carry out the pledge he gave on 4th March in this House, that the strength of the Royal Field Artillery should not be reduced till for every man so reduced four or five trained Militiamen were ready to take his place.
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member has committed the error of comparing strength with establishment.
  MR. ASHLEY: No, no.
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, yes! Moreover he has probably been misled by the fact that there has been, as there generally and normally is in the beginning of every year, a large outflow to the Reserve. The vacancies caused in the strength with the colours will be filled up again by the ordinary process of recruiting.
  MR. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the strength of the Field Artillery on 1st May was 570 below the establishment, whereas it was 400 and something above the establishment on 1st January?
  MR. HALDANE: The strength always oscillates. You cannot take it at a particular moment and say that that is the strength compared with the establishment. A month later it may be far different.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it not a plain matter of fact that, according o the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, the Field Artillery has been reduced?
  MR. HALDANE: For the moment it may be, but at other moments it is above. The point of these questions is to make out that we have reduced the Field Artillery. It is absolutely untrue that we have done anything of the kind. The Field Artillery is higher in numbers than at the time the right hon. Gentleman was in office.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman says my hon. friend is mistaken. My object is to point out that my hon. friend is not mistaken. I should like to know in what respect my hon. friend was mistaken when he stated a plain matter of fact.
  MR. HALDANE: That means there are two people mistaken now.
  MR. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the Field Artillery are 1,076 men less in strength than on 1st January last?
  MR. HALDANE: At particular moments of the year the strength is below, and at other times of the year above the establishment. It is a misleading Question, and depends on a confusion of thought between strength and establishment.

  Scarlet Fever on War Office Property.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a serious outbreak of scarlet fever has occurred in the villages of Nether Avon and Fittleton, in houses belonging to the War Office, Salisbury Plain estate; whether, beyond paying a few visits, the military medical officers have taken any steps to check the spread of the disease by isolating the cases or otherwise; and what immediate steps he proposes to take in this matter.
  MR. HALDANE: I am aware of the outbreak of scarlet fever in question. The military medical and civil authorities have been working closely together throughout the epidemic, but the cases have all been treated by the civil practitioners residing in the neighbourhood. Stringent rules are in force to prevent communication between the affected villages and the troops. The Pewsey Council have been recently approached with a view of providing the necessary isolation accommodation.
  MR. ASHLEY: Could the right hon. Gentleman see his way to accommodate some of these cases at the isolation hospital at Bulford where there are beds not in use?
  MR. HALDANE: I will ask about that.

  Repatriation of Chinese Coolies from the Transvaal.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Chinese coolies serving in the Transvaal mines have to give reasons in support of their request to be repatriated under the terms of the repatriation notices posted in the mines; and, if so, how many have demanded to be repatriated on the specific grounds that they considered the conditions of indentured labour under which they worked to be tantamount to slavery, for the period since the posting of the notices to present date.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): If the hon. Member will refer to page 190 of Cd. 3025 he will learn the conditions which a labourer was required to satisfy before his application for repatriation at the expense of the Home Government could be granted. The Secretary of State left it to the Transvaal Government to decide whether these conditions were fulfilled or not. Up to 31st December last the applications of 829 coolies had been acceded to by the Transvaal Government, but the Secretary of State has no information as to the terms in which those applications were couched. They were never sent home to this country; and they are understood to have been in Chinese. The transmission and translalation of such a large number of petitions would involve so much labour to the Transvaal authorities and so much expense to this country that my noble friend does not feel justified in asking for the information desired by the hon and gallant Member.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I take it that this Answer can be boiled down into a negative?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Commonwealth Coat of Arms.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why, if England, Scotland, and Ireland are to be represented in the arms of the Commonwealth, Wales, from which the Mother Colony of Australia takes its name, is to be omitted.
  COLONEL SEELY: The arms were granted by His Majesty by Royal Warrant at the request of the Commonwealth Government; and I fear I cannot add anything to the Answer which I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Govan last Tuesday.
  *MR. REES: What is the reason for having overlooked this important point? Have the records of the Colonial Office disclosed anything to the discredit of St. David?
  MR. DUNCANasked what was the emblem of Wales.
  COLONEL SEELY: I am afraid I must have notice of that Question.
  *MR. REES: Is not the red dragon of Wales known at the Colonial Office?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  British East Africa.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the value of taxes paid by the white community of British East Africa, together with rents, licences, registration fees, and fees for land sales and cattle sales; and what proportion does the amount bear to such taxes, fees, and other State charges paid by the rest of the taxpayers.
  COLONEL SEELY: It is not possible to give exact figures, but the latest estimate, which refers to the year 1905–6, gives the figures of taxation as £2,550 paid by white colonists and £49,439 by the rest of the taxpayers, or a proportion of about 1 to 20. If the receipts from rents estimated at £5,365 were all credited to the white colonists the proportion would be about 1 to 6.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Can the hon. Gentleman say in regard to the white population how many are salaried officers of the Crown and how many paid officers of the Syndicate?
  COLONEL SEELY: I can inquire.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: The hon. Gentleman has not answered that portion
  1648
  of my Question as to licences, registration fees, etc.
  COLONEL SEELY: I am sorry if it has been overlooked. Possibly we have not the information in our possession. If the hon. Gentleman will put another Question we will try and give him the information.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I will repeat my Question.

  Singapore Bishopric.
  MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how much the Government of the Straits Settlements have contributed towards the establishment of the new Bishopric of Singapore; if the Federated Malay States have contributed to this object, will he state how much has been contributed by each of the respective States; and how much the Government of the Straits Settlements have undertaken to pay towards the support of the new bishop.
  COLONEL SEELY: Since 1906 the Straits Settlements Government have contributed £150 per annum to the Singapore Bishopric Endowment Fund. As regards the Federated Malay States, Perak and Selangor each contributed $7,500 to the fund in 1906, and Negri Sembilan $5,000. The Government of the Straits Settlements pays £100 per annum towards the salary of the bishop, and also, I understand, his travelling expenses within the Colony.

  The Governor of Natal.
  MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the Commission under which the Governor of Natal holds his appointment.
  COLONEL SEELY: I shall be happy to show the hon. Member a copy of the Commission, but as it is a purely formal document, I do not think that it is of sufficient general interest to justify my laying it upon the Table.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked if the Governor was also Commander-in-Chief of the Forces.
  COLONEL SEELYsaid the Commission was in the ordinary form and differed in no important respect from the Commissions to other Governors.

  Examination of Dinizulu.
  MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the fact that His Majesty's Government have not yet been able to obtain from the Government of Natal it definite answer to the question whether, according to the law of Natal, a prisoner charged with treason or murder can be kept in gaol indefinitely without a definite charge being preferred against him specifying the overt acts of treason and the name of the person alleged to have been murdered, and having regard to the fact that the law of Natal is alleged by the Government of Natal to be the same in this respect as the law of Cape Colony, His Majesty's Government will at once obtain the opinion of the Attorney-General of Cape Colony upon the point.
  COLONEL SEELY: I cannot add anything to the information already given; the Natal Attorney-General states that the preliminary examination is being conducted without avoidable delay. I am sure the House will appreciate that the Secretary of State could not undertake to consult the Attorney-General of one responsibly governed Colony with regard to the proceedings of the authorities in another.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the case that by means of this, a so-called preliminary investigation has lasted eleven months without a charge being formulated?
  COLONEL SEELY: I have said there has been a regrettable delay.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was not this particular prisoner arrested under a general warrant?
  COLONEL SEELY: A general warrant in a technical sense, but not really so.

  Emigration to Canada.
  EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the growing dissatisfac-
  1650
  tion on the part of the Parliament and people of the Dominion of Canada with the system adopted by certain charitable agencies in this country of paying the cost of the migration of persons of known bad character and proved unfitness for work to the Dominion; and whether the Secretary of State will consider the advisability of issuing a Memorandum to all such agencies urging them in future to encourage all undesirables who wish to emigrate to go, not to the Dominion or to any portion of the British Empire, but to some other undeveloped country.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Canadian Government have already taken steps to supervise the action of charitable agencies in this country in sending emigrants to Canada by prescribing that after the 15th of April last all emigrants sent to Canada by such agencies must obtain certificates from the Canadian emigration authorities that they are suitable settlers for Canada. A warning to this effect is printed in the quarterly circular issued by the Emigrants' Information Office.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of "emigration authorities" does he mean those here or in Canada?
  COLONEL SEELY: Those here.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDYasked if the Canadian Government were not paying a bounty of £1 per head for all emigrants front Ireland. Would copies of the warning be sent to the Irish emigration agents?
  COLONEL SEELY: It is circulated to all emigration offices. I will see that it is sent to those in Ireland.
  MR. LUPTON: Is it the intention of the Government to secure for the Colonies the pick of the people of our own country and to leave us with the remnants?
  COLONEL SEELY: No; the hon. Member must not assume anything of the kind.

  Canada and Asiatic Immigration.
  EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table of

  1651
  the House a copy of the Report made by the Hon. Mackenzie King, Canadian Minister of Labour, on the subject of his conference with His Majesty's Government with regard to a solution of the Asiatic immigration problem in the Dominion.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Report has not yet been received.

  The Arrest of Mr. Luxenburg.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have yet been taken towards putting forward Mr. Nicholas Luxenberg's claim against the Russian Government for his arrest and imprisonment at Odessa in March last, or what further information is required before a claim is put forward by the Government on Mr. Luxenburg's behalf.
  MR. J. A. PEASE (for Sir EDWARD GREY): My right hon. friend expects to receive soon from St. Petersburg a Memorandum as to the reason for Mr. Luxenburg's arrest in the first instance. When that is received he will have it, together with Mr. Luxenburg's statement, considered here to determine whether there is any ground on which a claim for compensation can be founded. My right hon. friend cannot make any statement till he has the facts before him.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: How soon may we expect a statement?
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I understand the preparation of the case will not take very many days.

  Asiatics at Mozambique.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the regulations recently published by the authorities of the Portuguese province of Mozambique, and especially to the differential treatment under which our Asiatic fellow subjects will labour compared with that of Asiatics who are subjects of the Portuguese Government; and will he say if he proposes to take
  1652
  any, and, if any, what, action in the matter.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: The regulations referred to have not been brought to the notice of my right hon. friend, but he will make inquiries on the subject.

  Gun-running in the Persian Gulf.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding the "Proscripine's" encounter with certain gun-running dhows in the Persian Gulf.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: On 20th April while the boats from His Majesty's ship "Proserpine" were searching two dhows suspected of carrying arms, which were at anchor close to the shore near Banji, north of Jask, heavy rifle fire was opened upon them by armed gun-runners. The boats returned safely to the ship, but one seaman was killed and one so severely wounded that he subsequently succumbed to his subject should be addressed to the Admiralty.

  Imports of Hops.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the amount of hops imported into this country up to 1st May this year, and the average amount imported during a similar period for the last five years; and whether there has been an increase in the importation of hops since the agitation to put a duty upon hops commenced some time ago.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The quantity of hops imported into this country during the first four months of this year was 150,758 cwts. The average quantity imported during the corresponding period of the five previous years was 63,609 cwts. In view of the large fluctuations in the imports of hops, I propose to give the monthly figures for the last five years in the Votes. These figures will afford the information asked for in the last part of the Question.
  Appended is the Table above referred to:—

  1653

  The following table shows the quantity of Hops imported into the United Kingdom in each month of each of the years from 1903 to 1907 inclusive, and in each of the first four months of 1908.

  YEARS.

  MONTHS.

  1903.

  1904.

  1905.

  1906.

  1907.

  1908.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  January

  21,372

  46,922

  11,091

  30,578

  28,827

  34,980

  February

  8,613

  31,720

  7,833

  27,810

  24,346

  24,978

  March

  5,256

  6,949

  3,372

  11,609

  13,811

  33,279

  April

  3,095

  4,270

  5,215

  14,129

  11,476

  57,521

  May

  2,455

  3,434

  3,204

  4,399

  5,789

  —

  June

  6,632

  2,481

  1,521

  10,271

  6,232

  —

  July

  5,493

  3,014

  522

  14,249

  16,247

  —

  August

  5,684

  5,483

  1,529

  5,756

  13,013

  —

  September

  10,953

  28,117

  4,606

  9,032

  9,603

  —

  October

  6,278

  65,530

  14,165

  23,092

  24,290

  —

  November

  14,075

  67,505

  22,593

  50,847

  29,065

  —

  December

  24,092

  48,242

  33,252

  30,847

  19,625

  —

  TOTAL FOR THE YEAR

  113,998

  313,667

  108,953*

  232,619

  202,324

  —

  * Revised figure. The total of the separate monthly amounts is 108,903 cwts.

  MR. STANLEY WILSON: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman intends to do anything to save this important industry?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, what were the average importations of hops for the five-year periods 1876–80, 1881–85, 1886–90, 1891–95, 1896–1900, 1901–1906, and also for the year 1907, respectively; what were the average exports of hops for the same period; what is the estimated value of hops imported and exported for the periods named, respectively; what was the amount
  1654
  of hops used in the brewing industry in the year 1907 and the value thereof; and what was the value of the hop substitutes employed in the brewing industry during the year 1907.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I will have a statement with regard to the imports and exports of hops in the years mentioned printed in the Votes. In the year ended September 30th, 1907, 624,432 cwts. of hops and 263 cwts. Of hop substitutes were used for brewing in the United Kingdom, but I am unable to give any information as to their value.
  Appended is the Statement referred to:—

  1655

  The following statement shows the quantity and value of hops imported into and exported from the United Kingdom in the years and periods referred to in the Question:—

  Year, &c.

  Quantities.

  Values.

  Imports into the United Kingdom.

  Exports of British Hops.

  Foreign and Colonial Hops re-exported.

  Imports into the United Kingdom.

  Exports of British Hops.

  Foreign and Colonial Hops re-exported.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  £

  £

  £

  1876

  167,366

  20,305

  17,307

  763,440

  144,736

  94,104

  1877

  250,039

  13,508

  5,624

  1,170,621

  88,635

  28,175

  1878

  168,834

  12,520

  4,804

  631,567

  57,220

  15,751

  1879

  262,765

  7,153

  2,355

  1,217,938

  43,771

  12,222

  1880

  195,987

  9,018

  11,874

  900,891

  52,647

  33,392

  Annual Average, 1876–1880

  208,998

  12,501

  8,393

  936,891

  77,402

  36,729

  1881

  147,559

  13,727

  9,463

  695,297

  81,078

  29,605

  1882

  319,620

  8,186

  5,908

  2,962,631

  81,534

  47,087

  1883

  129,900

  8,787

  14,025

  1,089,246

  90,462

  197,686

  1884

  256,777

  8,913

  9,343

  1,615,309

  55,234

  43,833

  1885

  266,952

  7,094

  7,364

  1,001,728

  40,410

  21,361

  Annual Average, 1881–1885

  224,162

  9,341

  9,221

  1,472,842

  69,744

  67,914

  1886

  153,759

  19,142

  50,181

  447,253

  70,752

  153,654

  1887

  145,122

  12,515

  15,245

  427,753

  49,994

  32,096

  1888

  216,606

  8,289

  6,522

  799,391

  48,382

  20,479

  1889

  199,384

  10,293

  7,748

  713,094

  51,012

  32,248

  1890

  188,028

  6,164

  6,330

  877,704

  49,509

  25,994

  Annual Average, 1886–1890

  180,580

  11,281

  17,205

  653,039

  53,930

  52,894

  1891

  195,266

  5,763

  3,977

  980,050

  45,909

  23,886

  1892

  187,507

  5,798

  4,875

  960,280

  41,955

  27,453

  1893

  204,392

  11,584

  7,092

  1,141,294

  79,884

  33,694

  1894

  189,155

  13,317

  7,522

  774,378

  65,388

  25,519

  1895

  217,161

  10,145

  2,929

  644,505

  37,160

  10,745

  Annual Average, 1891–1895

  198,696

  9,321

  5,279

  900,101

  54,059

  24,259

  1896

  207,041

  10,505

  2,798

  591,582

  34,548

  8,011

  1897

  164,154

  10,779

  4,715

  524,297

  43,841

  8,661

  1898

  244,136

  12,955

  7,434

  1,030,140

  71,321

  26,983

  1899

  180,233

  11,310

  3,297

  809,842

  65,325

  16,715

  1900

  198,494

  14,999

  3,586

  795,479

  63,526

  10,005

  Annual Average, 1896–1900

  198,812

  12,110

  4,366

  750,268

  55,712

  14,075

  1901

  116,042

  18,192

  4,906

  461,355

  79,575

  18,305

  1902

  191,324

  15,785

  7,450

  798,586

  68,830

  21,401

  1903

  113,998

  22,317

  7,962

  578,739

  125,826

  44,773

  1904

  313,667

  13,878

  6,191

  1,839,854

  104,846

  32,497

  1905

  108,953

  16,254

  9,421

  456,280

  80,986

  51,561

  Annual Average, 1901–1905

  168,797

  17,285

  7,186

  826,963

  92,013

  33,707

  1906

  232,619

  11,608

  3,128

  852,476

  57,053

  11,611

  1907

  202,324

  10,435

  6,770

  764,881

  48,731

  24,684

  Extension of Empire.
  MR. VERNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the prospective financial liabilities incurred by the acquisition of fresh territory and the political issues involved, the Government will give the House of Commons an opportunity of discussing any proposed enlargement of British territory before an arrangement involving such enlargement is finally concluded.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: My right hon. friend cannot promise any except the usual opportunities for discussion on the Foreign Office Vote, and the other occasions which occur normally in the course of the session. He can give no special engagement which would not be in accordance with precedent.

  Great Britain and Siam.
  MR. VERNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state the terms of any proposed agreement with the Siamese Government in regard to the modification of existing treaties which deals with extra-territorial jurisdiction.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: The Answer is in the negative.

  Irish Land Act Finance.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether lie expects to be in a position to announce before Whitsuntide the plan of the Government for removing the financial difficulties which hinder the operation of the Irish Land Act of 1903.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I fear that at present I cannot make any statement with regard to the date at which the decision of the Government can be announced.
  MR. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister told a deputation recently "I am quite certain that by the time Parliament meets we shall be in a position to tell the House of Commons what our plans are for removing the financial block in the working of the Act." What has been the cause of the delay?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I will answer that. Almost the moment after Parliament met we had the Report of a Departmental Committee on the subject, and our anxiety has been to get the views thereon of the various Irish interests concerned. Hence the delay.

  London Meat Trade.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that Messrs. Armour and Company, meat packers of Chicago, are calling up £1,000,000 new capital for the purpose of opening in London and the provinces retail shops for the direct supply of their meat to the consumer, avoiding Smithfield market and the tolls and charges there levied; and will he say whether he proposes to take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent a scheme which will destroy the business of English butchers and meat salesmen, who cannot compete with American packers permitted to trade on such terms.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I understand from Messrs. Armour that the Company have not called up any new capital, and that they have no intention of opening retail shops in London or the provinces.
  MR. BOWERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many butchers' and meat salesmen's businesses in Smithfield and elsewhere have already been acquired or financed with the object of obtaining such control as to compel them to sell imported American beef alone?
  MR. CHURCHILL: That is a very important Question, and I could do more justice to it if the hon. Gentleman would give me notice.
  MR. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation to permit the free importation of Canadian cattle?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.
  SIR F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he intends to protect the trade of English butchers?
  MR. CHURCHILL: That is a Question of which I must have notice.

  German and British Trade Statistics.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the trade of Germany for the first quarter of 1908 shows an increase or a decrease over the trade of that country for the same period of 1907, and to what extent; and whether the trade of Great Britain for the first quarter of 1908 shows an increase or a decrease over her trade for the same period of 1907, and to what extent.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The system under which the quarterly statistics of German trade are compiled renders it impossible to make an exact comparison of the nature indicated by the noble Lord. Our own statistics of imports and exports are based on the values ruling at the time as declared by importers and exporters, whereas the only statistics available of the foreign trade of Germany during the first quarter of the year 1908 are based for the most part on the official average values of the various commodities ruling in 1907. Thus the German imports for home consumption in the quarter compiled on the basis above indicated showed an increase of about £1,600,000, and the German exports of domestic produce an increase of £900,000, while our own imports for home consumption showed a decrease of £4,100,000 and our exports of domestic produce a decrease of £2,600,000. If, however, the factor of the fall in prices which has occurred in respect of many important commodities could be allowed for in the German Returns it is believed that they, like our own, would show decreases for both imports and exports.

  Hop Imports.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITEI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, what were the amounts of hops imported into the United Kingdom during the year 1907, from British Possessions and from foreign countries, respectively.
  MR. CHURCHILL: During 1907, 199,222 cwts. of hops were imported into the United Kingdom from foreign countries, and 3,102 cwts. from British Possessions.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: In the proposals that have been made to the right hon. Gentleman for taxing imported hops, is it proposed to tax Colonial hops as well as foreign hops?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No proposals have been made to me to tax imported hops.

  Hops for Scottish Brewers.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the amount of hops and the value thereof used in brewing in Scotland during the year 1907; and what amount, if any, of these were grown in Scotland.
  MR. CHURCHILL: During the year ended September 30th, 1907, the quantity of hops used for brewing in Scotland was 30,499 cwts. but I am unable to give any information as to their value. So far as I am aware no hops are grown in Scotland.

  Unemployment Benefits.
  MR. GOULDING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he can give any information as to unemployment among members of trade unions which do not give any unemployed benefit. I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information which would enable him to estimate the extent of unemployment among unorganised and non-trade unionist workers.
  MR. CHURCHILL: There is no information available as to the number of members who are unemployed belonging to trade unions who do not give unemployed benefit; nor is there any source so far as I am aware which would enable me to frame a statistical estimate of the numbers unemployed among unorganised and non-union workers. Such information as is received by the Board of Trade from employers and workpeople and their organisations, and from other sources on the state of employment is regularly utilised for the purposes of the articles on the state of employment in the principal industries given in the monthly Board of Trade Labour Gazette.
  MR. GOULDING: As it is of great importance to have accurate figures in regard to unemployment in the case of

  1661
  non-trade union workers, will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain what steps can be taken to secure them for the House mid the country?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I admit it is a very important matter and I have every desire to give all possible information, but I am not sure it is possible to make very great advance in our present methods of acquiring information.
  MR. GOULDING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of appointing a Sub-Committee to advise on the matter?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am bound to consider the matter if the hon. Member brings it before the House.
  EARL WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of forming a branch of the Board of Trade on the same lines as the German Imperial Statistical Bureau?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Not on the spur of the moment.

  Canadian Wheat Exports.
  MR. GOULDING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the United States Treasury returns indicate the amount of Canadian wheat exported from the United States as flour mixed or not mixed with United States flour; and, if so, will he state what the quantity was in recent years, and the amount of rebate paid on the same by the United States Treasury.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The quantity of imported wheat milled in the United States and exported with benefit of drawback was 85,905 Imperial quarters in the year ended 30th June, 1905, and 55,795 Imperial quarters in the following year, the latest for which the information was available. The net drawback paid was £36,543 in the former and £23,369 in the latter year. The figures do not distinguish wheat of Canadian origin, but no doubt most of the wheat referred to was Canadian.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Canadian wheat imported
  1662
  into the United States for milling purposes enters duty free?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I should like notice of that Question.

  Merionethshire School Dispute.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the salaries of teachers in Church of England schools in Merionethshire are now being paid by the local education authority or by the Board of Education under the Local Authority Default Act, 1904.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): The Board understood that the salaries which became due at the last quarter day would be paid by the local education authority. In any case no payments in respect of any of the March salaries have been made by the Board of Education under the Local Authority Default Act, 1904, and the Board have no reason to believe that any salaries remain unpaid.

  Port of London Customs Watchers.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a Report recently issued by a committee of the Board of Customs recommending that the watchers of the port of London should be quartered in different huts from those occupied by their superior officers, on the ground, amongst others, that they belong to a lower social class; whether he has seen a protest, signed by 500 watchers, in which it is pointed out that they comprise men who have held responsible positions in the Navy, Army, and police, and hold certificates for good conduct and life pensions, and that their duties bring them into hourly contact with their superior officers, and demanding an apology for what they regard as an insult to their body; and whether it is proposed to act upon the committee's recommendation, or what other steps, if any, are to be taken in regard to it.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): The Board of Customs inform me that the statement referred to is an

  1663
  expression of opinion contained in an exhaustive and valuable Report from a Departmental Committee appointed by them to advise as to the necessity for improvements in the office accommodation in the port of London. As copies of the Committee's Report were distributed to supervising officers only, and it has not been made public, I am at a loss to understand how access to it has been obtained by the watchers. I have received through the hon. Member privately a copy of the protest referred to, but I understand that it has not been submitted by the men to the Board. In these circumstances I cannot undertake to consider it. I may point out, however, that the desirability of providing separate accommodation for persons in responsible and subordinate positions is generally recognised by private employers as well as in public departments, and that I do not see any reason for interfering with the discretion of the Board in a matter of this kind.
  MR. CROOKSasked if the presentation of the memorial would be prejudicial to the men.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I do not think so.

  Belfast Graving Docks Contract.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the agreement made between the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and Messrs. Middleton, Scott, and Company, contractors for the new graving dock at Belfast, power is given to the contractors to sub-let the brickwork part of the contract; whether the practice of subletting public contracts has been condemned by resolution of the House of Commons, and is not allowed by the Irish Local Government Board, and, if so, why no similar control is exercised over the harbour trusts; and whether, if the facts are as stated, he will exercise his powers to prevent the practice in the case of these trusts.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have no legal power to interfere with regard to contracts made by Harbour Boards. I am, however, informed by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners that the contract entered into by them with Messrs. Middleton, Scott, and Company, contains
  1664
  a clause providing that sub-contracts for supply of "materials or certain manufactured works" may be made with the approval of the Commissioners' engineer, but that any such sub-contract shall not relieve the contractors from any duties and liabilities under their contract, any acts or defaults on the part of the subcontractor being treated as the acts or defaults of the contractors. The late Engineer to the Harbour Board gave the necessary approval to the sub-letting of the brick work part of the contract in October, 1904, and the arrangement is still in force. It is the case that on the 13th February, 1891, the House of Commons passed a Resolution that in their opinion it was "the duty of the Government in all Government contracts to make provision against the evils recently disclosed before the Sweating Committee, to insert such conditions as may prevent the abuse arising from subletting, and to make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen," but this Resolution did not of course apply to bodies other than Government Departments. The Irish Local Government Board inform me that they have no specific regulation on the subject of sub-letting, each case being dealt with on its merits, and that they are not prepared to say that sub-letting is objectionable in every instance.

  Castleblayney, Keady, and Armagh Railway.
  MR. McKEAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say what was the time specified for completion in the original Act of the Castleblayney, Keady, and Armagh Railway; and what extensions of time have since been granted to the company; whether he is aware that the works between Keady and Castleblayney have been idle and derelict, with the exception of a few odd days, for over twelve months, that there is no sign of the re-starting of the works, and that the work of arbitration is still incomplete; and whether, seeing that the farmers through whose lands the works pass suffer by trespass, loss of cattle, and want of privacy and protection by reason of the unfinished state of affairs; and that many of the roads on which overhead and underground bridges are proposed, and proposed accommodation roads, are

  1665
  in such a state as seriously to interfere with traffic, and also prevent farmers from the use of threshing mills, and such similar conveniences in their farming pursuits, he will say what steps will be taken by the Board of Trade to have the Act carried to immediate completion.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The time originally specified for the completion of this railway was five years from the 8th August, 1900, and it was subsequently extended by Parliament to the 29th November, 1909. I am informed by the Company that the contractor for the railway commenced work about the beginning of the year 1904, and proceeded therewith until the middle of December, 1907, when he stopped working. He resumed in January last, but the company's engineer having recently advised the directors that inadequate progress was being made, they are now in a position to take steps to obtain possession of the works and complete them themselves, and this they propose to do as soon as possible.
  MR. McKEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the facts disclosed in the Question constitute the practice of the companies who obtain powers to construct lines which would be for the public good, but do not intend to use them because they would not prove profitable to the company? Will he take steps to compel the companies to carry out these powers?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think the steps I have indicated as to be taken in this case will be effective.
  MR. McKEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to compel railway companies generally to carry out these powers?
  MR. CHURCHILL: That is a Question of too wide a scope for me to answer offhand.

  Whaling Station on the Mayo Coast.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a Norwegian company is about to establish a whaling station on the island of Iniskea, on the coast of Mayo; and whether, seeing that whaling stations are detrimental to the
  1666
  fishing industry, and that the inhabitants who are about to be affected by the particular station in question have strongly protested against its establishment, he will decline to give permission to the company to erect it.
  MR. CHURCHILL: An application has been made to the Board of Trade for their consent so far as foreshore and navigation are concerned to the erection of a wharf slipway and landing stage in connection with a whaling station at Rusheen Island, adjacent to Iniskea. The Board have caused the application to be advertised and have received a number of objections, which will receive due consideration on their merits and upon grounds of general policy. I observe, however, that these objections appear to relate not so much to the provision of landing facilities on the foreshore as to the establishment of a whaling station, which is a question to be dealt with by the Department of Agriculture under the Fishery Acts rather than by the Board of Trade, who have no jurisdiction to prevent or regulate the use of the buildings which have been erected above high water mark for whaling or other purposes. The Board are in correspondence with the Department of Agriculture on the subject.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Norwegians have absolutely driven whaling stations from their coasts on account of the damage done to the herring fishery? Is he also aware that their establishment on the west coast of Shetland was followed by a great diminution in the catch of her-rings there?
  MR. CHURCHILL: That is an aspect of the case primarily for the Board of Agriculture to consider. I am in communication with that body, and if they report there is a likelihood of injurious results they may rely on the effective cooperation of the Board of Trade.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware the whaling factories have simply followed the whales and for no other reason?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  The Licensing Bill.
  SIR F. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in the event of it becoming necessary to move to fix a time limit to the discussion of the Licensing Bill in Committee, he will favourably consider the procedure suggested in a Motion on to-day's Paper for a new Standing Order to secure priority, in such cases, for Amendments raising the more important issues.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): My hon. friend's suggestion shall be carefully considered.

  Irish Administration.
  MR. MULDOON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, having regard to the fact that the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is primarily responsible for the government of Ireland, whether his attention has been directed to numerous cases in which the heads of other Departments of State, the jurisdiction of which extends to that country, have discharged duties there involving questions of the highest importance in reference to policy and administration without consultation with him; and whether, as Prime Minister, he will take any steps to insure that as regards Ireland the action of every Department shall be subject to the control and authority of the Chief Secretary.
  MR. ASQUITH: While it is true in a sense that the Chief Secretary is primarily responsible for the government of Ireland, there are other Departments of State which exercise jurisdiction over the United Kingdom generally, and it would require elaborate and far-reaching legislation in order to bring the action of these Departments in regard to Ireland under the control of the Chief Secretary. Such Departments are, e.g., the Home Office, Board of Trade, Post Office, Inland Revenue, and primarily the Board of Works, which is under the control of the Treasury; but as to this last-named Department it is to be remembered that the Irish Council Bill of last year brought it under the control of the proposed Irish Council, but the Bill was rejected.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that appointments have recently been made in Ireland of which the Chief Secretary knows as much or as little as the man in the moon?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Whitsuntide Holidays.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information regarding the date and duration of the Whitsuntide holidays.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is proposed that the House shall rise after its sitting on Thursday, June 4th, and resume on the following Wednesday, June 10th.

  Irish Supply.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consult the wishes of the Irish Unionist Members in regard to the Votes to be considered upon one of the three allotted days allocated to Irish Supply.
  MR. ASQUITH: I should like before giving a definite Answer to this Question to have a full opportunity of considering the precedents.
  MR. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware it has been the invariable practice since the Supply Rule was established to acknowledge some priority of claim on the part of the Opposition to select the Vote to be discussed?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am aware of that I am considering the matter, if the hon. Member will only give me time.

  East Wolverhampton Election.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that on the day of the poll in the recent by-election in East Wolverhampton a body of workmen employed at the Patent Axle Box Works, Wednesfield, were marched in procession to the polling booth with the Tariff Reform candidate at their head, and that it is stated that many of those in the procession were pressed to do so; whether he will cause inquiry to be made into this allegation of intimidation; and whether he will

  1669
  recommend at an early date some amendment of the present law to prevent the recurrence of such practices.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not acquainted with the facts. If the hon. Member thinks there is ground for the suggestion that the law was violated the facts should be laid before the Public Prosecutor. I cannot, in the circumstances, say whether a case is made out for the amendment of the existing law.
  EARL WINTERTON: If the right hon. Gentleman makes any inquiry will he enlarge its scope to take into consideration the alleged intimidation by trade unions in compelling their members to pay for the support of certain political candidates?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Supply Discussions.
  SIR F. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether arrangements can be made in future to put down for each allotted day in Supply a sufficient number of important Votes for discussion to insure that the whole of each allotted day shall be occupied, and a larger number of Votes in Supply passed in the ordinary way after discussion instead of under the Closure rule at the end of the session.
  MR. ASQUITH: A sufficient number of Votes are put on the Order Paper for each allotted day in Supply to occupy the time of the House, in the ordinary course, until eleven o'clock, though it sometimes happens by arrangement that certain of those Votes which are down for a particular day are postponed.

  Malicious Injuries (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. MULDOON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the adjournment of Parliament on the 6th April last, consequent upon the resignation of the late Prime Minister, prevented the House of Commons discussing and reading a second time the Malicious Injuries (Ireland) Bill, which was the First Order on the 10th April; and whether, having regard to the circumstances under which the adjournment took place and its results, and to the importance attached
  1670
  in Ireland to an amendment of the law upon this subject, he can see his way to granting an early clay for the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: Having regard to the state of public business I regret that I am unable to give special facilities for the Bill in question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will you permit me, Mr. Speaker, to ask Question 103, which has not been reached, but which is of urgent importance in view of the approaching discussions on the Budget Resolutions?
The question was as follows—
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to charge the same duty on Irish-grown tobacco as on foreign imported tobacco; and whether, in view of the fact that the Irish tobacco industry was stamped out by Act of Parliament, some remission of taxation on Irish-grown tobacco can now be given to help a reviving industry, with a view to giving much sorely needed employment in Ireland.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will get an Answer to-morrow morning.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: But may I put it now? I desire to ask a supplementary Question.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot ask a question supplemental to one which has not been put.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: But as the Budget Resolutions will very shortly be discussed it would be impossible for me to put down this Question in time to get an Answer before that discussion takes place.
*MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will put the supplementary Question down to-day he will get an answer on Wednesday.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Yes, but a supplementary Question loses all its virtue when not put across the floor of the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he understood that a very large number of Members desired to take part in the debate on the Education Bill. If the Prime Minister found that that was the general view of the House, he hoped he would be in a position to allow the debate to go on till Wednesday.
MR. ASQUITH, after warmly congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his return to the House, said that, having taken such opportunities as he had of ascertaining the state of opinion in all quarters of the House, he had come to the conclusion that, on the whole, it would be right to allow the debate to go on till Wednesday. The division would be taken before the dinner-hour on that day.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What about the Budget Resolutions?
MR. ASQUITHsaid the income-tax Resolution would be taken on Monday.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked when there would be an opportunity of discussing the tobacco duty Resolution.
MR. ASQUITHsaid there would be a number of opportunities—on the Report of the Resolution, on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and again in Committee on the Bill.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: When will the Report stage be taken?
MR. ASQUITH: I cannot say yet.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDgave notice that, on the Report of the Resolution, he would call attention to the fact that the duty on tobacco grown in Ireland was as large as that on foreign-grown tobacco, and move that, in the interests of a local industry which gave employment to a large number of people, a smaller duty be placed on Irish-grown tobacco.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill will be taken?
MR. ASQUITH: I must have notice of that.

STANDING ORDERS.
Ordered, That so much of Standing Order 91 as fixes Five as the quorum of the Select Committee be read and suspended.
Ordered, That, for the remainder of the session, Three be the quorum of the Committee.—(Mr. Ellis.)

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Belville Stanier, Esq., for the county of Salop (Northern or Newport Division).

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the Closing of Shops and the prohibition of Street Trading on Sunday. "[Sunday Closing (Shops) Bill [Lords.]
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to Small Holdings and Allotments in Scotland." [Small Holdings and Allotments (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

MONUMENT TO SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT, Oldham, in the Chair.]
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): Three weeks ago this House paid to the memory of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman the special tribute of affection and reverence which was due from us to one who was not only the head of His Majesty's Government, but the Leader and father of the House of Commons. To-day I am confident that, by adopting with unanimity the Resolution which has just been read from the Chair, the House, on behalf of the whole nation, will express its desire that the eminent services to the State of our late Prime Minister should be commemorated by a monument to be set up at the public expense in Westminster Abbey. This form of recognition, which, I need not say, goes a long way back in our history, though for a time it fell into abeyance, has now been followed for

1673
many years past in the case of men who have held the highest office under the Crown. It was adopted in regard to Sir Robert Peel, Lord Palmerston, Lord Beaconsfield, Mr. Gladstone, and Lord Salisbury. We propose to-day, with, I believe, the heartfelt concurrence of the whole people, to add the name of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman to that illustrious roll. The mere mention of the names I have just enumerated, calling up, as each of them does, to our minds the personality and the achievements of the great man by whom it was borne, can hardly fail to cause us to reflect from what an amplitude of resources and with what an infinite diversity of gifts this country of ours is served. We are under no temptation upon occasions like this to enter into comparisons or contrasts between this man and that. We do not attempt, we ought not to attempt, to anticipate the judgment of posterity, and to weigh, in any nicely-adjusted balance, the relative quota of their several contributions to the common stock of counsel and policy. We forget for the moment even the controversies in which they took part, the strife and the tumult in which so much of their days and nights were spent, the ebb and flow of their party and political fortunes. We remember only, in gratitude and with honour, that each of them in his turn gave all that ho had to the public service, and did what in him lay, in his day and generation, to leave his country greater and happier than he found it. That is their title, the best and the only title, to perpetual commemoration within the walls of the Abbey which is consecrated to our immortal dead, and it is a title which was worthily won for himself by the leader whom we have lost.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty will give directions that a monument be erected in the collegiate church of St. Peter, Westminster, to the memory of the late Right Hon. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, with an inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by this House of the eminent services rendered by him to the country in Parliament and in great offices of State, and to assure His Majesty that this House will make good
1674
the expenses attending the same."—(Mr. Asquith.)
MR. BALFOUR: It is impossible for me to add anything to, the substance of what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and still more impossible for me to improve upon the form in which the substance of his remarks was couched. The Resolution which has been put from the Chair is, I take it, the natural, fitting, and appropriate corollary of what passed in this House when I, unhappily, was absent only a few weeks ago; and as every Member of this House and every party in this House was unanimous in expressing its high appreciation of the character and public services of the late Prime Minister, so, I am convinced, there will not be less unanimity in voting public money for a permanent memorial of his fame. The right hon. Gentleman has proposed, in the first place, that Parliament should provide money for a public memorial, and, in the second place, that that public memorial should be placed in Westminster Abbey. To both propositions I give my hearty assent, and, I may say, that of my friends. As regards the second proposition, I should hope, while we are all unanimous and anxious to see the statue of the late Prime Minister added to the illustrious band of statesmen, that this may be the last occasion on which the House will vote public money for a monument in Westminster Abbey. But that is a topic, as we are all agreed that a memorial of the late Prime Minister should be placed there, on which I only make a personal observation—though I feel very strongly about it—parenthetically and in passing. The practice to which the right hon. Gentleman referred has indeed not been a universal practice. It has had exceptions even in the period to which he more particularly referred, for I think I am right in saving that no public money was voted for the statue of Lord John Russell. Before the time of Lord Palmerston's death, some of the most illustrious of our Prime Ministers had no statue, or no statue contributed at the public cost in that great Abbey. But I think it is well that the late Prime Minister should have among his predecessors an honoured place. We all

1675
feel that in him we have lost a man of high character and great attainments. We may say of him, that for forty years he was an honoured Member of this House, he led the Opposition, he led the House of Commons, and he died practically in office. I believe that these four statements cannot be made of any single one of his predecessors in the long roll of British Prime Ministers. For these reasons, if for no other, I cordially second the proposal made by the Prime Minister, and I rejoice to think that a permanent memorial of the late honoured statesman would be there in that great city, reminding us all how transitory are the controversies which divide politicians, and how permanent is the gratitude which the country owes to those who have done it service.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I feel profoundly that not a single word is necessary by way of addition to the eloquent panegyrics pronounced by both right hon. Gentlemen on the honourable career and the great and lovable qualities of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. Yet I daresay the House will recognise that it is fitting that the voice of Ireland should be heard upon this occasion, associating her directly with this project to do honour to his memory. My words will be few and they will be very simple. In the past, as a rule, the Irish Nationalist Party has held aloof from all ceremonial proceedings in which this House as a whole took part. That was due to the fact that we are not willingly here, that though we are in this House we are not really of it, hat we have not come here to merge ourselves in this Assembly or to acquiesce in its proceedings, but, rather, that we have come here to protest against a system of which it is the symbol and the instrument. We have felt, therefore, that on the whole, upon these occasions, it was more proper for us to abstain from associating either ourselves or our country with proceedings of this kind, in which the British Parliament was engaged in honouring British statesmen. But we made an exception on the death of Mr. Gladstone, and we make an exception to-day in the case of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. The name of the late Prime Minister will not go down in history as
1676
associated with any very great achievement for Ireland. But it was not his fault. He did his best for Ireland, and everyone of us believes that in him Ireland had an honest and true friend, a friend of her material advancement and a friend of her national freedom. This statue which is about to be voted will be erected at the expense of the people of all these countries, the rich and the poor alike, the people of England, of Scotland, of Ireland and of Wales. Of these countries Ireland is the poorest; of their peoples, the Irish are the most sorely oppressed by the, weight of taxation, but there is no Irishman so poor as to begrudge his mite towards honouring, the memory of this kindly, brave, and consistent friend of our country. This British Parliament does well in honouring the memory of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. For my part I may be allowed to say that I will always look back with intense pleasure to the fact that it has been my lot on this occasion, on behalf of all of my colleagues, and in the name of my country, to lay this little wreath of shamrocks upon his grave.
SIR ALFRED THOMASsaid: It is most fitting that a monument be erected to the memory of one whose name is enrolled among the great and good of our nation. It will serve to point to what sublime height can be reached through the power and inspiration of character. The sculptor who will be entrusted with this work is to be envied, for he will find ready fashioned a model of his subject enshrined in the heart of every man who knew him. May it ever be the good fortune of our country to be served by men so disinterested, so unselfish, and of whom posterity may say, as can be so truly said of him: "All his ends were his country's, his God's, and truth's."
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): I rise to move the Second

1677
Reading of this Bill. When introducing it last February, I endeavoured to give a full explanation of its provisions, and though it might be expected that the subject would be received with varying degrees of warmth, I cannot complain that its terms were misunderstood, nor, in the circumstances, did I think that it would have been necessary for me to trouble the House with a second speech, at any rate, at this stage of the debate. But it so happens that there has been a change which gives occasion for some preliminary statement, and by the wish of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education, the duty of making that statement falls to me. I am not referring to the change that has taken place in the office of the Presidency of the Board of Education. That is a matter of merely personal interest, and indicates no change whatever in the policy of the Government. But what I have in mind is what I think the House would like to have introduced into the debate in its earliest stage, and that is the consideration of the introduction in another place of the much discussed Bill of the Bishop of St. Asaph. The Bill introduced by the Bishop of St. Asaph cannot be treated as an ordinary Bill introuduced by an unofficial Member. If I were to criticize it on the ground of its incompleteness, of its technical defects, or of the impossibility of its application in its present form, I should be misunderstanding its purpose, and I should be failing to appreciate its importance in the present discussion. The Bishop of St. Asaph had a proposal to make, and he adopted the form of Parliamentary Bill in which to put it forward. His proposal related particularly to the schools connected with the Church of England. He introduced it in another place in a very clear and comprehensive speech—in a very remarkable, weighty, and if I may say so, most courageous speech. The Arch-bishop of Canterbury lent his countenance to the Bishop's Bill. That such a proposal was made and supported must be taken into the gravest consideration by the Government, and its relation to their own proposal fairly estimated. The essential matters in which the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill follows that of the Government have to be taken into account. Their di-
1678
vergencies have to be examined and their importance weighed. It will be found, I think, that, in essentials, the Bishop's Bill follows very closely the lines of the Government measure, and, in consequence the very fact of the introduction of this Bill gives great encouragement to those who support the Government in their earnest desire to obtain a lasting settlement of this controversy.
The Bill of which I now move the Second Reading embodies the Government plan in carrying out two cardinal principles in our educational system—the first that the public elementary schools of the country are to be placed under public control, and the second that there is to be no religious test on the appointment of the teachers. These are principles on which the Government insist, and they can admit of no modification of the Bill which would destroy those principles or which, by whittling them away, would turn fundamental principles into mere false pretences. The method adopted by the Government for establishing those principles is a simple one. It is proposed that only one type of public elementary school shall be recognized in the future. Such a school will receive both State aid and rate aid. It will be placed entirely under the control and management of the local representative authority. The teachers in these schools will be appointed without religious tests, and no child not otherwise being educated will be compelled to attend any school except a public elementary school of the kind I have described. The religious instruction given in such schools will be of the kind to which we have been accustomed in this country ever since Mr. Forster's Act was passed in 1870. Such are the fundamental provisions of the Government Bill, and so far the Bill of the Bishop of St. Asaph has been textually copied from the Government measure. It is obvious, therefore, that, if the Bishop's Bill can receive the same amount of support on that side of the House as the Government measure has received upon this, there is every ground for hopping that a satisfactory settlement may be attained on lines agreeable to all sections of the House. I have stated the first and cardinal

1679
provisions of the Government Bill. I pass to the later clauses, in which an endeavour is made to provide for those classes of the community to whom a short and simple settlement of the kind I have indicated would prove unsatisfactory. I hope the House will pardon me taking a somewhat unusual course. I am not attempting at the moment to defend the details of the Government Bill. There will be a further opportunity of doing so should it be considered necessary in the course of this debate. What I am endeavouring to do is to state in the shortest and simplest form the actual provisions of the Bill, and in particular to show the relation between these provisions and the provisions of the Bill introduced by a bishop of the Church of England; and I ask the House to go with me so far as to say that if either of these two Bills is acceptable, and if I show that the differences between them are so slight or at any rate are of such a kind as ought not to be incapable of adjustment, then the House may be fairly asked to give a Second Reading to the Government measure with the hope and anticipation that such an adjustment may be found before the Committee Stage is reached. Now it is in dealing with the existing denominational schools that the Bill of the Bishop of St. Asaph diverges from that of the Government, though here again the divergence is less serious than may appear at first sight. The Government have proposed to deal with denominational schools in three different ways. In the first place, in single-school areas it is proposed that the managers of existing denominational schools may make it a condition of transfer of their buildings to the local authority that Cowper-Temple instruction of a certain definite kind shall always be given in their schools and that facilities for giving denominational instruction shall be allowed. The second method adopted for dealing with denominational schools is to provide that Parliamentary grants, though not rate aid, may be given to schools not in single-school areas which conform to all the requirements of the Board of Education as regards educational efficiency, but the managers of which do not desire to bring their schools under the conditions governing public elementary schools. The third
1680
provision is applicable to schools in other than single-school areas, according to which the managers of denominational schools may make it a condition of the transfer of their schools that Cowper-Temple instruction of a definite kind shall continue to be given in the school. Under the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill no distinction is made between single-school areas and other areas. Facilities for giving denominational instruction on a more extended scale are proposed for all schools, and there is no provision for allowing any school to receive the Parliamentary grant but without rate aid. The only schools recognised in the Bishop's Bill are the public elementary schools, thus cutting out from public assistance of every kind those schools in which the maintenance of a religious atmosphere is regarded as essential to their existence. I understand, however, that in introducing his Bill the Bishop of St. Asaph admitted its incompleteness in this respect, and was prepared to make provision for schools of a homogeneous religious type, such as those connected with the Roman Catholic faith and the Jewish faith. It may, therefore, be said, using the current jargon on this subject, that in the Government measure and in the Bill of the Bishop of St. Asaph it is proposed alike to use facilities and contracting-out as the means for dealing with the existing denominational schools. In the Government Bill facilities are confined to the single-school areas, and contracting-out is allowed in all areas other than single-school areas. Under the Bishop's Bill, not as introduced but as explained by him, facilities are to be made universal, and some provision is offered for the contracting-out. Thus it will be seen that the only point of difference between the two measures is this—How much facilities are to be allowed in the public elementary schools and how much contracting-out is to be allowed, the extent and the kind of facilities, the conditions and the grant on contracting-out? Thus in fundamentals, in essentials—that is to say, in the constitution of one type of public elementary school—the two Bills are identical. They differ only on the question of the degree in which facilities and contracting-out will hereafter be allowed.

1681
Now, I cannot help thinking that, the conditions being such as I have stated, if the spirit of partisan controversy can be allayed and a single eye be kept on the efficiency of education in this country, it ought not to be impossible for this House to come to an agreement to procure a lasting settlement. The chief criticism directed against she Government Bill has turned upon contracting-out. I may say at once that on educational grounds the Government have no partiality for that expedient. It was included in the Bill as a concession to denominationalist feeling, and I am bound to say that I see no other practicable method of dealing with those schools in which it is proposed to submit the teachers to a religious test upon their appointment. It is not open to the Government, however, in putting forward their proposals, to deal with the various denominations in this country otherwise than upon a footing of exact equality; but when a proposal is made by a distinguished member of the Church of England of episcopal rank, and that proposal receives encouragement and support from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the way is made easier for the Government, at any rate in dealing with schools connected with the Church of England, and they feel themselves more at liberty to consider proposals under which schools of a distinct homogeneous religious type of the kind to which I have already referred are proposed to be dealt with on a footing distinct from the conditions applicable to the denominational schools through the country as a whole. On educational grounds, as I have said, the method of facilities adopted by the Government in single-school areas is undeniably preferable to the method of contracting-out, and the Government would rather deal with the denominational claims by way of facilities, as proposed by the Bishop of St. Asaph, than by way of contracting-out, provided—and this is very material—that such procedure is acceptable to the denominations, that the facilities are of a kind which are administratively practicable, and, further, that they could not be so used as to constitute a religious test on the appointment of the teacher. It is notorious that a settlement on the basis of religious facilities
1682
is repugnant to certain religious communities in our midst, for whom alone under the suggested arrangement the alternative method of contracting-out would have to be maintained. Rate aid, which is a principle of the Government Bill and of the Bill of the Bishop of St. Asaph alike, cannot be given except under conditions of public control; but in the schools connected with the religious bodies to which I have referred public control is impossible so long as the appointment of the teachers is to be limited to those persons who are connected with the religious faith of the trustees or founders of the schools. It has been claimed on behalf of the parents of the children attending the strictly denominational schools that they are alike taxpayers and ratepayers, and that they are, therefore, entitled to a full share of the expenditure of their schools out of taxes as well as rates. Without touching upon the religious side of the argument, a moment's consideration of the question will show the unfairness of this claim. It would amount to this—that teachers who professed themselves to be of a particular faith were to be entitled to exclusive appointment in schools connected with that faith, while they were to have equal liberty with all other teachers as regards appointments in all the public schools of the country. It is obvious that to grant such a claim would be giving a very unfair advantage to those persons who profess themselves as of a particular faith. It would, moreover, be educationally harmful, inasmuch as the teachers in the schools would be appointed, not necessarily on the ground of their efficiency in teaching, but because of their religious professions. I am unable to see how equal justice can be done to the teachers and to the public unless we follow the plan adopted in 1870, and continued by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in his Act of 1902, so far as the provision of the building is concerned, whereby the supporters of denominational schools are bound to contribute some special part of the cost of the maintenance of those schools, while the Parliamentary grant is confined to meeting so much of the cost of maintenance as may be directly

1683
due to the giving of the secular instruction in the schools. In the Bill of the Bishop of St. Asaph the difficult is got over by ignoring it. The Government can see no way out of the difficulty except by following the plan of the Act of 1870, though with a very heavily increased grant, which would at once secure greater efficiency in the contracting-out schools and be a guarantee that no undue burden was thrown upon their supporters. For those who desire a settlement I believe all the elements of a possible arrangement are to be found in the present Bill. I am convinced that the great body of the public, and the large majority of the Members of this House, are anxious for peace, and that if a spirit of practicability and common sense is allowed to have its way, a satisfactory settlement can be obtained. I cannot hope for agreement with those, if there be any, who choose to regard the education question merely as a factor in some fine-spun scheme of political strategy, who wish to keep the question alive in order to promote party interests or the interests of a particular section of their party. If there be any such views held by any responsible persons in either House, I can only say that with them agreement is impossible. The Government do not propose to proceed in any such way. Every suggestion will be fairly considered on its merits, and such proposals as are generally acceptable will be grafted on the framework of the Government Bill, if evidence is forth-coming that the acceptance of such suggestions will lead to lasting peace. I recognise that those who have a paper plan of their own, or others who may desire to exercise their dialectial skill in finding objections to every definite proposal which does not conform to some plausible but wholly impracticable theory, will have no difficulty in keeping the controversy alive. I observe on the Order Paper a number of Amendments proposing to reject this Bill because, as is alleged, not sufficient recognition is given to the rights of parents. The argument in support of parent's rights has a beautiful and seductive simplicity. It is said that if the State takes upon itself to give religious instruction to children, it should only give such instruction as may be acceptable to the parents.
1684
But how in practice can that theory have practical effect given to it? I submit to the judgment of this House that that theory has been best adapted and put into the only possible practical use by the method adopted by Mr. Forster in 1870. It is not within the practical possibilities of school life that every parent can have such religious instruction as he likes given to his own child. If that is once granted, it is obvious that the only method of procedure must be to find, if you can, some form of religious instruction which, though not giving all that everyone might choose, is nevertheless of a kind which is generally acceptable to the great bulk of the people of this country. After thirty-eight years of experience we have found that Cowper-Temple instruction is of that kind; and though I readily admit that a great many parents would wish to have more religious instruction given, and that there is a minority of parents who would wish this instruction not to be given at all, it is a fact that this particular kind of instruction does satisfy or is acceptable to the great majority of the parents. Then the only other liberty you can give to the parent is that of withdrawing his child from such instruction if he does not wish him to receive it. I think that the great bulk of the parents wish to see their children receive religious instruction based upon the reading of the Scriptures and the moral instruction which can be derived from their exposition. But I certainly fear that if the people of this country found themselves unable to get peace in the schools upon the basis of the religious instruction which I have described, they would rather remove religious instruction altogether from State responsibility. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] If peace can be obtained, I believe that religious instruction in our schools will be secured. Failing such peace, I fear that this House will be driving our nation directly on to the end of purely secular instruction in public elementary schools. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] I have avoided as far as possible any reference to Nonconformist grievances or denominational claims I have not sought to go over old ground, though I recognise that the old ground will have to be discussed in the course of this debate. I have only sought to

1685
make some few preliminary observations, summarising as far as I could the situation which has been created by the introduction of a Bill in another place almost immediately upon the top of the Bill introduced by the Government. My sole endeavour has been to use only such language and to refer only to such matters as might tend to the promotion of peace. Those who wish to find fault with me—and I have no doubt there will be a great many—will complain that I have not made a full and elaborate defence of the precise terms of the Government Bill; they will say also that I have not made any clear and definite statement as to the Government policy. With regard to the first objection, I can only say that it is not always necessary, particularly when a Bill has been fully explained on its first introduction, to give a second elaborate explanation on introducing the Second Reading. I go further and say that such an explanation would have been out of place at this moment, when it is my obvious duty to say nothing which would obscure the statement of the Government's general desire for a settlement. But with regard to the second point which I know will be alleged against me, that I have not given any clear and precise outline of the Government policy, I can at once say that the Government propose to ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill. If, after the Second Reading, an agreement can be come to satisfactory to the House in general, and that agreement can be incorporated in Amendments to the Government Bill, these Amendments will be most carefully considered, and, as far as possible, they will be grafted upon the framework of the Government measure. Surely there are grounds for hoping that an agreement or adjustment of our difficulties is not impossible; but failing such an agreement the Government propose to proceed with their existing Bill as it stands. That I trust is a sufficiently clear and definite statement of our policy. I hope the House will be able to come to such an arrangement as will make the future stages of this matter a matter of agreement and not of controversy. It is, I repeat, the most earnest desire of the Government that a settlement should be arranged. It is the one condition on which the educational
1686
policy of the country can go forward with the hope of securing educational efficiency. It is not, I hope, too sanguine to believe that since the First Reading of this Bill the atmosphere has grown favourable to peace. Authoritative voices have been heard in both camps expressing an earnest desire that an end should be made of this quarrel. There are other counsellors, I know, who say that Parliaments are fleeting things, that the time can be tided over, that they have only to present a stubborn front to keep all that they have in perpetuity, but that is a political speculation which, even if well-founded, entirely underrates the objections taken to the present law. It matters not what Government is in power: great interests at stake in this country, religious as well as political, must steadily lose if by resisting a settlement we prolong strife. It cannot be a gain to the Church of England that she should successfully assert a privilege which inflicts a rankling sense of injustice on those who are not of her communion. On this line she stakes not only her own interest but the whole cause of religious education and resists the forces and tendencies which must more and more prevail as time goes on. If I may give the House a text for discussion on this subject, it would be in the words of Burke: "I will not" said he "enter into the question how much truth is preferable to peace. Perhaps truth may be far better, but, as we can scarcely have the same certainty in the one as we have in the other, I would, unless the truth be evident indeed, hold fast to peace which has in her company charity—the highest of the virtues."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. McKenna.)
LORD BALCARRESmoved that the Bill be read upon this day six months. He said the right hon. Gentleman had not attempted to defend the Bill before the House. They had been told that there was no change whatever in the policy of the Government, and the main portion of the right, hon. Gentleman's speech had been devoted to a series of nebulous discussions about Amendments which might or might not

1687
be moved, and which might or might not be accepted in the Bill introduced in another place—a Bill which had not received a Second Reading there. They ought to limit themselves at this stage, at any rate, to the general discussion of the Bill before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had assured the House that the policy and principles of the Bill remained unchanged. He was glad of that, because, he presumed, it involved the withdrawal on the part of the right hon. Gentleman of a rather daring phrase he used a few months ago about a sword. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he had absolutely ignored front beginning to end the fact that this Bill, quite apart from any religious difficulties, had raised a storm of indignation from the purely educational point of view. They were told by the Prime Minister that this Bill was to be brief, simple, and drastic. Drastic was a word well chosen, but brevity was not inherent in a Bill which was going to arouse and exacerbate religious strife, and simplicity would certainly not be found in the Bill which was going to strike a blow at the very heart of educational efficiency. He would ask the House to allow him to deal with the Bi.1 before the House. He had not a copy of the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill. The truth was that they could not discuss the two Bills concurrently, because they were far more divergent than the right hon. Gentleman would wish them to suppose. The Bill before the House was the only thing which on this occasion they had a right to discuss. The Bill was dual in its aspect. In the first place there was its effect upon secular education, which could not be other than widespread. It introduced, for no special reason which he could detect, a wholly new financial system foreign to the structure of the Bill, which must require and receive elaborate discussion by itself. Of course, the animating motive of the measure was no doubt the religious difficulty so-called. He was ready to admit that this difficulty existed in single-school areas whether that area was in a country village or in the town, but when all was said and done, every practical man knew that this difficulty existed more on the platform than in the school itself. It was prac-
1688
tically unknown in the vast majority of the schools. He admitted, however, that to measure the grievance was not easy. He thought that the history of the grant of £100,000 made last year gave a rough and ready system upon which they could test the prevalence of the difficulty. The House would remember that in February last year the £100,000 grant was announced. By the end of March—that was the end of the past financial year—in England, only thirteen counties out of forty-one made application to receive a grant of this money to solve the single-school area difficulty, and not 2 per cent. of the parishes in England and Wales had proved their appreciation of this difficulty by asking the Exchequer for a free grant of money to set it right. In England up to 31st March last, all the applications had been refused except nine, while in Wales more than half of the applications made had already been refused. Devonshire with 300 single school areas, Lincolnshire with 380 single-school areas, and Norfolk with 460 tingle-school areas, up to 31st March had made no application for a share of the fund. Of course, he knew that applications would come in. In these parishes new schools were being erected next door to them out of Government money, and it might be readily understood that they would desire to share in the bounty of the Exchequer. He had himself thought that £100,000 was insufficient, but the result had shown that the Board of Education made a good forecast and had analysed the difficulty successfully, and to that extent he was wrong. This Bill was not going to solve the single-school area difficulty, especially when it was concurrent with a tax upon the training colleges and the harsh administrative measures of the Board. If they wanted to solve the single-school parish difficulty they would have to analyse, or rather revise the analysis of the agreements. He would take an illustration in connection with the £100,000. It was meant purely for the single-school area and was limited to them. In the county of Norfolk, the number of single school parishes was almost identical with the number in the whole of Wales. Wales had sent in over sixty applications, while

1689
Norfolk had sent in none. Historical and political causes accounted largely for the disparity, but there was another cause which they were all too apt to overlook. That was the cause involved in the parish itself. The Non-conformists living in a single-school area where there was a church school had no grievance whatever if an alternative school for the child of the Nonconformist existed within a reasonable distance. Mileage was the test, and that had nothing to do with the area. The single-school child was the difficulty, and not, as indicated in this Bill, the single-school parish. While people for one cause or another magnified the single-school parish aspect of the difficulty, they overlooked the fact that the multiplication of the schools in the proximity of any residence was in itself solving thousands of those individual cases. As it had been unified, nationalised, they had got a wider outlook on education. Its efficiency had been increased enormously, and the whole tendency had been to minimise these small parochial responsibilities, and to make an educational rather than a parochial area. The parochial area was not the boundary of the parish, which was determined by old dynastic, historical, geographical, and geological considerations or by a watershed. It was an area which was irrelevant to the question of education altogether, and, as such, ought to be abandoned. What did the Bill do? Its first weak point, from an educational point of view, was that it was based upon the parish as such; on a small and irrelevant unit. The parish became the unit again under conditions of special hardship and cruelty. He would refer to the transfer of the school in the single school parish. The average rural school was to be transferred bodily to the local education authority. If that was compared with Clause 3 of the Bill of 1906, it was obvious that the stringency and severity of the present Bill far exceeded anything proposed two years ago. If that clause were insisted upon the Board of Education would make a grant of property which did not belong to it. It made itself judge, jury, and beneficiary as well. Property worth millions of money would be confiscated. The Board of Education would determine
1690
the nature of a trust without the possibility of appeal. The Board of Education in the last eighteen months had no longer been quite impartial in the interpretation either of its administrative or of its judicial duties. The facilities offered were wholly illusory. After school hours the teacher was not allowed to give the scholars religious instruction. In fact religious instruction was treated like an extra and pushed outside like music or calisthenics or any other extra. Finally the managers were excluded from the schools during the week day evenings. They had no right to go into them, although everybody knew that clubs, concerts, lectures, and all kinds of classes went on in those schools night after night throughout the year. In future the managers were not to have the right to use the schools on the first five days of the week; but not only that, the local education authority would be entitled to charge rent for confirmation classes on Monday and Tuesday evenings. That was absurd; it was needlessly harsh; so much so that he assumed that this had been merely thrown into the Bill at the last moment in order to provide an opportunity of making a graceful concession later on. Of course, it was said that on Saturdays and Sundays the managers might have, as a favour, the use of the buildings when the local education authority did not want them. Well, that was a fictitious consideration for the immense benefits which the Board of Education and the local education authority were going to secure. Grave injustice would be done under this system of transfer. There was a school in Surrey just built at a cost of £2,500—a Church school. He believed there was scarcely a Nonconformist child of school age in the parish. That Church school was going to be handed over on the appointed day to the local education authority. There was a similar case in his own constituency. It was difficult to justify such a course as that. Even if the religious difficulty were settled, it was impossible to justify such a course of procedure. They knew perfectly well not only that they were not going to settle the religious difficulty, but that they would produce all other kinds of difficulties as well. Then as to the financial aspect of the

1691
question, there were hardships and great anomalies under this Bill. A wholly new system was being devised. As he had said before, it was alien to the Primary object of the Bill, and ought to be separately discussed. If the House would allow him he would quote a phrase from the speech from the First Lord of the Admiralty on the new system of the distribution of the grant. The right hon. Gentleman said that—
"After prolonged examination he had come to the conclusion that the only certain factor which he could find at the present time for the new grant was the expenditure for buildings."
Now, that factor, as he called it, was absolutely honeycombed by anomalies. Let the House consider the disparities that already existed. In Hornsey the annual charge per child for maintenance, sinking fund, and interest on buildings was 30s. a year. In Durham it was 1s. 3d. That showed that the building grant was not a certain factor; and if the new system of grants was based on so uncertain a factor as that, it was inevitable that inequality of payments would be produced. The new statement just issued reflected that unequal incidence; and he had no doubt that many local authorities, certainly many in the North, would receive it with dismay, because it showed how badly they would be used under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. West Ham, which he thought was the kind of place that ought to have a grant under any revised system, would receive only one-third of a penny in the £. Tottenham would get only one-tenth of a penny in the £. But Ebbvale, an urban district in Wales, instead of receiving one-tenth of a penny, would receive eighty times as much, or 8½d. in the £. The right hon. Gentleman said that the scheme was temporary, but with absurdities of that kind it could be nothing else. But a far more serious question was that of contracting out. It was a tax on efficiency, co-ordination, inspection, and organisation, of which the First Lord of the Admiralty seemed to be utterly unconscious. It was perfectly fatal to all the good work which had been built up since 1902. Again, public control, the right hon. Gentleman had told them, was one of the principles of the Government to which
1692
they wanted to adhere. Did the House realize that the more successful contracting out was under this Bill the greater would be the reduction of public control under the Act of 1902? Everybody remembered the justification given for it by the Chief Secretary for Ireland and that all the objections to it were fudge, fustian, and so forth. The Secretary to the Local Government Board was equally emphatic. But now, hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the public control established under the Act of 1902 was only inadequate in amount. He would not argue that now. But what had it done in the past five years? It had formed public opinion: it had enlisted and trained all over the country a great number of zealous, hard-working people in the cause of education; it had created enthusiasm where apathy had existed before. In short, it had raised the standard of elementary education. So far as the contracted-out schools were concerned they would sweep all that away and destroy it entirely. The second principle to which the right hon. Gentleman proclaimed his adherence was that there must be no tests for teachers. In the first place, as regarded the actual teaching and the facilities to be given in the transferred schools, he did not understand why the teacher was not allowed to teach on the ordinary week-day while he was allowed to volunteer to teach on Saturday. Why not allow him to volunteer on Monday and Tuesday as well? As regarded the status of the teacher as an official, the Government saw the danger which threatened them. They had, therefore, inserted Clause 4, subsection (1) which took over the teacher on the transfer of the school. That was right. But subsection (2) said that if a man lost his place he was to be entitled to contribute for twelve months to the Annuity Fund. That, again was like the clause about the user of the schools in the evening: it was harsh, absurd, and in equitable. That clause must go or be modified later on. But what about the teacher in the contracted-out school? On that point the National Union of Teachers objected very strongly from the point of view of the teacher. An hon. Member of the House, now a Member of

1693
the Government, speaking two years ago said—
"The proposal now brought forward by a Liberal Government was to push them (that was the State-aided schools) outside, and the parson was once more to become the one-man manager, and the teacher was to be appointed under religious tests. He was elected to see that religious tests were abolished in the case of teachers; and he was going to get them abolished."
Another hon. Member opposite, also a Member of the Government, speaking on this Bill said—
"Unless we can have clearly placed before us in the provisions of the Bill a definite assertion that these provided schools should spend a similar amount per child and pay their teachers at a similar rate to the provided schools, I shall oppose this contracting out."
Since those speeches both these hon. Gentlemen had become Members of the Government. The teachers could not be assured that they would receive the same salaries, unless, of course, the charge of 47s. per child was included. Under the Bill as it stood, and the way the grant was determined, no guarantee could be given to the teacher that if he lost his place he would get an alternative place, nothing could prevent managers reducing his salary, his expenses, varying his duties or terminating his engagement. He was sorry for the teachers. He regarded them as the most efficient instrument of education, and thought they deserved better things. The whole difficulty was caused by this madcap scheme of universal contracting out. In 1902 there were three schemes of contracting-out, which were all limited, all wholly exceptional. The hon. Member for the Glasgow University proposed the first of these, and its object was good. It was educational diversity, elasticity of system, variety of schools. It was not an alternative to Clauses 3 and 4, but concurrent with them. It was exceptional. His hon. friend denied that he wanted a general dispensation, and they all knew cases where special local circumstances would make such a scheme useful. One hon. Member who put it very happily, although he opposed the Amendment, said—
"That which might be a positive tonic and a necessity in a small degree or on rare occasions might become something like an educational poison if it were used in all parts of the country.
1694
Then there was the proposal of the hon. Member for Preston, who suggested that if the managers found they were rich enough to do without State aid, they should be able to contract-out. That scheme was also exceptional, and also largely limited, but it was condemned as absurd and preposterous by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, the present Secretary to the Admiralty. The present Chief Secretary also made some rather illuminating remarks on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"He could not regard without dismay anything approaching a general adoption in this country, as an alternative to our State and rate-aided schools, a kind of school which must be inferior, and his hon. friend would not, he suspected, be much surprised that he could not accept the Amendment."
But the right hon. Gentleman himself made a contracting-out proposal. That proposal was also very limited and compulsory on Clause 4. It first gave certain circumstances to justly it, and no case was to be permitted without the sanction of his Department. The Government was not enamoured of its scheme, and the right hon. Gentleman called it a melancholy necessity. But the objections to his own scheme were fairly obvious to the right hon. Gentleman. Again, the hon. Member for Camberwell was amazed that the Government should bring forward such a proposal, whilst the right hon. Gentleman himself said—
"He quite understood the objection on principle, which every educationist must entertain to schools standing out of the national system, but this was an exception grafted on an exception."
The new proposal was not exceptional. It was a proposal that where people in single school areas desired to maintain religious instruction, they were to be able to do so. It was inextricably mixed up with every kind of question of use, of teachers, public control, and so on. This was a portion of the scheme which had not found a single defender either in the House or outside; a scheme which at least they expected the Board of Education was going to explain and defend. The National Union of Teachers expressed fifty things against this scheme before expressing a favourable opinion on the other features of the Education

1695
Bill. Contracting-out was the mainspring of the measure. It was put into satisfy a certain class of the community. It dodged the difficulty, and was a reactionary proposal. Nobody had a right to contract out under the repealed clause. The Board of Education reserved to itself the right to impose any kind of condition before the school was allowed to contract-out. One difficulty of contracting-out was the paucity of the money to be allowed. What was the average cost now per child in the non-provided schools? One Member of the Treasury Bench, on the introduction of the Bill, said 50s., but that figure was much too low. The Secretary to the Admiralty in 1906 had taken out the figures very carefully. The hon. Gentleman then said—
"He would give figures to show how absurd the proposal was. The proposal had evidently been made in the interests of Catholic schools, therefore he would take the figures of the Catholic schools in three districts. In Manchester the children at such schools cost £4 4s. each, and of that only £1 19s. 7½d. came from the Government grant. Was it conceivable that the poor Roman Catholics of Manchester could raise voluntarily the sum of £2 4s. 4½d. per child, which with the Government grant would be the sum necessary to maintain these schools at their present level of efficiency. Similarly in Southampton each child cost £4 6s. 11d., and only £1 19s. 9d. was contributed by the Government; and in Bristol each child cost £3 12s. 1d., of which only £2 0s.6½d. came from the grant. The House would thus see how much the supporters of these schools would have to raise from voluntary contributions. It would be absolutely impossible for people interested to maintain their schools efficiently with the present Government grants. The proposal was perfectly preposterous, and its solo effect would be the shutting of the schools."
That was to say, in 1906 the hon. Gentleman estimated the cost of efficiency of each child in the Roman Catholic schools to the Roman Catholics as 44s.; in Southampton, 46s.; and in Bristol, 32s. a year. The figures of the London County Council, as issued in their Paper on 28th March last, were these—
"The average cost of non-provided schools is £3 16s. 8d. per child, or 29s. 8d. above the 47s., the possible grant under the Bill. The figure £3 16s. 8d. per child is for London only, and is the gross expenditure other than administrative and general charges to the Council. This figure, however, does not include manager's charges, and it has no regard to the fact that teachers' salaries are on a rising scale."
1696
In London 30s. was the average. In Lancashire it was rather less, but the average cost throughout the country was 61s. a year. There was a Church school in South London, called St. John's, in the parish of Camberwell. To maintain that school in its present state of efficiency the managers would have to make an addition to the grant of 40s. per child of no less than £1,350 a year, which would amount to probably 37s. per child. He also found, from a calculation made for Lancashire by the Manchester Guardian, that it was estimated that the Roman Catholics would have to raise £10,000; the Roman Catholics of Liverpool would have to raise rather more, and those of Southwark £50,000 a year. What was there to meet that? There was 47s. per child. But that 47s. was the maximum. No minimum was fixed in the Bill. There was no guarantee that every school will get 47s. The President of the Board of Education might make it 40s. or 30s., or he would be entitled to refuse it altogether. But fees up to 9d. a week might be charged, whilst concurrently rates would have to be paid, of which the man who paid fees ex hypothesi disapproved. That was the actual cost, but what about the prospective cost? Mr. Forster said a three penny rate would be enough. The cost had increased largely. The strain in and about the year 1902 was not more than 10s. or 12s. a child, but since then it had increased enormously, and it was going further to increase at once. The tendency of the Board of Education to enlarge accommodation from 8 to 10 feet per child would raise the cost enormously. Then the endowments and so on which might have met this cost were already very largely pledged. The county council said that many of these voluntary schools had already drawn upon their endowments in order to bring their buildings up to the standard required by the council. These schools had raised mortgages upon their buildings, incurring an annual charge, not only for sinking fund, but for interest for the same purpose, the enlarged buildings of course involving increased cost. Then the House must not forget that before the appointed day under this Bill hundreds and probably thousands of voluntary schools would have to surrender to the

1697
local education authority all the plant, furniture, and equipment which had been raised since 1902 at a cost of thousands of pounds, and the managers would be left with empty schools. Salaries were higher. They were still rising. Classes, for a very good reason, were being reduced in size; consequently, a bigger staff was required. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends were asking them to go back to the 'nineties when education was starved and inefficient. He would quote a member of the Government on that very point—
"Where is the money to come from? It means in quite small schools £400 or £500 a year. It goes back to the system we have heard denounced again and again in the House, of supporting national education by the old-fashioned system of bazaars and jumble sales, the unclean combination of jugglery and charity."
He implored the House to remember that this was not merely a question of finance. The unity of our system, the homogeneity of our schools, inspection, organisation, everything which could be brought within the purview of the word "inefficiency" was involved in this system of contracting-out. Let the House take the inspection of schools. Was there a single Member familiar with educational questions, personally and practically, who could say that the inspection of the contracted-out school would be the same as the inspection of a county school? Of course not. It was impossible, and was put in a very terse way by the President of the National Union of Teachers when he said the other day that the hope that the inspection would remain at its present standard was illusory. The experience of the past was that this was not likely to be the case. "You cannot attain equal educational efficiency without equal funds." What was the effect going to be upon organisation? There were two kinds of coordination between various grades of schools and between various schools on the same grade. He did not mean to refer to the former, but Lord Stanley of Alderley had written an article recently in the Fortnightly Review, in which he said that under the Bill hopeless,
1698
inextricable confusion would be caused in the present system of dealing with scholarships, with pupil teachers, with examinations, with reports, with inspection, and with teachers salaries. The Government was spoiling the ladder which had been laboriously erected since 1902. The individual school was too small for all the purposes of education. The people who were working education in the country—the educationists he meant, and not the politicians—had long ago realised that the single school was too small an entity, and therefore they had co-ordination between these individual schools. The whole system of that co-ordination was at stake. What about the supply teacher under the contracted-out school system? What about the peripatetic teacher, the man who taught a special subject—physical drill, cookery, hygiene—what was to happen to him? And the correlative, the centre, the collective institutes, for grouped or joint teaching—what was to happen to them? These buildings could not be multiplied. Costly and very special plant for carpentry, swimming, gymnasia and play centres—all this was threatened under the Bill. All these advantages were to be denied to the children in contracted-out schools, and moreover, he begged the House to remember that the movement was only five years old. It was in its infancy. It was treated with grave suspicion at first. The cost was grudged. But people understood it now, and because they understood it they appreciated it. This was not merely threatened. It would be absolutely stopped under the scheme of the Government. Contracted-out schools could not afford these luxuries. Children in contracted-out schools could not use the play centres or the gymnasium or the peripatetic teacher belonging to the local authority, because that would involve assistance from the sacrosanct rates. That was what they stood to lose. The whole thing was pitched upon the Table of the House in a light-hearted, almost in a wanton manner. They had got a unified and a national system. They were offered a dualised system. The present system might have shortcomings The new system was going to have undeniable

1699
and unquestionable shortcomings. The London County Council Report said—
"The whole tendency in the future will be to gravitate towards the minimum standard of efficiency. We are abandoning our efforts."
The hon. Member for West Ham wished him to quote him. He said—
"It is foredoomed to failure. I can only hope that if it is withdrawn it will be withdrawn upon our own initiative, and that other people will not get the credit of destroying such a thing as that."
He did not mind who got the credit of destroying this scheme. If the Prime Minister would withdraw it he would promise not to make too close inquiries into a much more pertinent, point viz., who was responsible for its conception. The Bill ought to be withdrawn, as the colleague of the Prime Minister had stated, and it ought to be frankly withdrawn. It could not be amended. It had been drawn so as to preclude the possibility of amendment. It was a repealing Act. It was negative in its scope. Every operative clause in the Bill began with the word "unless." Payment covered everything, and everything, vice versa, was governed by payment. The title of the Bill was to regulate the conditions upon which public money could be applied. It was purely a conditional Bill. It was impossible to graft a constructive educational scheme upon a purely conditional measure. Moreover, they could not omit the contracting-out clauses. If they did there was nothing left but the supplementary provisions and the repeal of the Defaulting Authorities Act which, under the right hon. Gentleman, was in operation to-day. Contracting-out was the essence of the Bill, and he hoped the Government would withdraw it as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board had suggested. He found it difficult to believe that the scheme was seriously put before the House. It could not solve the religious difficulty where it now existed, and it was bound to create religious difficulty where none existed to-day. The solution was never going to be found in making the Cowper-Temple system of teaching the sole permanent element, rate-aided, State-aided, preponderant, established, and endowed. Neither would they find the solution of this difficulty in any Bill which had running through every line the fault that it denied equal opportunities for
1700
secular instruction. Such a Bill as that could not pass. It had no driving power. It excited no enthusiasm. There were not fifty men on that side of the House who were convinced supporters of the scheme. He was sure of that, and he was perfectly certain that outside the House there were not twenty. They all knew that the worst enemies of the Bill sat upon the Treasury Bench. The Government seemed to him to be living in a world of unrealities. They had to justify their position. They had to explain the Bill if they seriously meant the House of Commons to give a Second Reading to it. In order to raise a clear and concrete issue upon a point of this vital importance he begged to move that the Bill he read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now' and at the end of the question to add the words this day six months.'"—(Lord Balcarres).
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Quetion.'"
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I do not know whether the Members of the Government will regard the tone of the speech of the hon. Member as indicating any approach towards that concordat of which we have heard so much.
LORD BALCARRES: May I explain? I do not understand what the concordat is; it was not indicated by anything that came from Government Benches. I limited myself purely to the discussion of the Bill before the House.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The conclusion at which I will arrive will, I am afraid, be practically the same as that of the noble Lord, but I hope I may be able to address myself to the matter in a somewhat more conciliatory tone. My colleagues upon these benches and I have been looking forward with the greatest possible interest to this debate. We have all along been anxious for conciliation and for settlement. I may say there were none of us who did not deeply regret the final disappearance of the Bill of 1906. And although in that Bill all those interests we represent did not obtain everything they were entitled to

1701
still, on the ground of compromise, of what was likely to bring about a national settlement and keep our schools in the national system, we came to an agreement as to the Bill, and we deeply regretted that the settlement broke down. And to-day, we are as anxious as any men in or out of the House, whatever may be their party or creed, that a settlement should be arrived at which would give us some certainty for the future, and keep our schools inside the national system. That position is perfectly natural in our part, because the interests we represent in this matter are the interests of the smallest, the poorest, and the most defenceless section of all the population of this country, and we practically stand alone. We know it, and we deeply regret it. We know that our view upon the question of religious instruction in our schools is quite abhorrent to the views of a large number of hon. Members opposite, and we know also that there is an impassable gulf between our position and the position of the Church of England upon this matter. That is the view we take so far as the Church of England is concerned. We say there is an impassable gulf between us and them, because what is to them a matter of degree is to us a matter of principle. With that section of the Church of England which objects to Cowper-Templeism it is a question of degree. Over and over again it has been said in this House by representatives of the Church that Cowper-Templeism is in their opinion better than nothing, but that it is totally inadequate. Our position is entirely different from that. We consider it, rightly or wrongly, inimical to our religion. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong—because it teaches a different religion from ours. Therefore we stand alone and we are the smallest, poorest, and most defenceless of all sections of the population, and consequently we have most to gain by arriving at some settlement which we can regard as a permanent settlement. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman on the Government Bench that we will take up no attitude of irreconcilability so long as some settlement is proposed which has the one saving condition—that it will preserve our schools from destruction. A great deal has been said and written
1702
lately upon this idea of compromise—compromise between the Church of England forces and the forces of the Nonconformists. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, made it plain that he was under no misapprehension whatever as to our attitude towards this suggested concordat. He knows perfectly well that so far as we are concerned all these questions of right of entry and so forth are of no use whatever. As I have pointed out, we object to the Cowper-Temple foundation, and it does not help us in the least for the Government or for anybody else to come along and say that they are willing to super-impose upon the foundation of Cowper-Templeism the teaching of our own particular religion now and again. A concordat upon these lines has nothing whatever to offer to us, and therefore, speaking for the particular interests we represent, I did not hear one word from the right hon. Gentleman that conveyed any hope whatever that we were to gain anything out of this proposed concordat which he thinks is coming up. Now, we have looked forward to this debate with the greatest possible anxiety. I hoped myself that we would get some further information from the Government, and that we would have been told something more about their proposals for the future. But we learned nothing, and for my part I find it utterly impossible—I here approximate to the position of the noble Lord—to discuss anything else except this Bill. So far as our position towards this Bill as it stands is concerned, I can very briefly explain it. We, as I have said, represent in this House—I will not say the Catholic body in England, because there is a certain section of the Catholic party in England for which we have no right to speak at all; we do not attempt to speak for them, and I am not sure that we desire to speak for them—but we can speak for the overwhelming majority of the Catholics of this country who are either Irish people born, or the children of Irish parents, and whose interests in these schools are at stake, and whom we feel we represent upon this question. Speaking for them we object to this Bill, and our objection is two-fold. In the first instance we object to the principle of contracting-out.

1703
Disguise it as you may the system of contracting-out means the creation of two different classes of schools—one inferior to the other. Our claim has always been a claim for equality. That is the position we have always maintained. We say it is a monstrous injustice that the Catholics, who have to pay the school rates the same as everybody else, should not be entitled to their share of those rates. The answer given is that we are not entitled to a share of those school rates unless there is to be public control. I make this rejoinder; who objects to public control? Public control in what? No man on these benches would object to whatever control is necessary to prove that you are getting value for your money and that the teaching in our schools is efficient. That public control we have never objected to, and we say we are entitled to our share of the rates which we pay. We go further and have authority for the statement I made in 1906, which was regarded with some suspicion at the time, but which has been confirmed by further investigation and figures—I made the claim that the school rates paid by the Catholics of Great Britain if pooled together would be sufficient to pay for all the Catholic schools in the country, and that therefore, under the present system, no Protestant is asked to pay one farthing towards the Catholic schools, because the amount of rates paid to those schools are contributed by the Catholics themselves; and we say it is unjust that the rates of the Catholics of Great Britain, so contributed, should be diverted altogether from the Catholic schools and given over to the sole use of the schools of other denominations, while Catholic schools are obliged for the future to rely entirely upon voluntary aid for the increasing and growing expenditure which is not covered by the proposed Imperial grant. We believe that the establishment of this system of contracting-out must inevitably lower the status of the schools and the standard of the teaching. It means, undoubtedly, going back to cheaper teachers and reducing the number of teachers. I listened with interest to the quotations of the noble Lord from members of the Government and others. Of course, if he had liked he could have
1704
multiplied these upon this question of contracting-out. I will only make one citation from the Chief Secretary. When discussing this question in 1906, he met the argument that contracting-out would not mean deterioration of the schools and of the teaching in the schools, because the inspectors would go there from the Government Board, and that no school would continue to get any grant unless efficiency was maintained, by saying—
"It is all very well to say inspectors will keep up the schools. It is impossible. The inspectors of the Board of Education undoubtedly have two standards, although I do not suppose anyone authorised them, but we know, as a matter of fact, that the inspectors do not press so heavily on voluntary schools as they do on board schools, because they know that the latter, if pressure were put upon them, could effect the necessary alterations, whereas the former would have to close their doors."
That is our point. If these schools are put into an inferior class and there is not sufficient means to maintain them at the present standard, then no amount of Government inspection will keep them efficient. You will have brought into existence and stereotyped two classes of schools—one of them professional, well-taught, well-managed, and a credit to the country, and the other starved and inefficient. Therefore, on these broad grounds we enter our protest against this system of contracting-out; and we say that our demand is a demand for equality of treatment. If we are driven, not by argument, because I do not think we can be driven by argument; not by justice, because I do not think that justice would drive us in that direction—if we are driven by force, as being a small minority in this country, and having to bear that suffering which we were told in 1906 was the fate of all minorities, to consider the possibility of this system of contracting-out, then what I have to say is this: that this Bill (and, of course, I am only dealing with this Bill; there is nothing else before us) does not provide an adequate Imperial grant to enable these schools to continue in existence. The grant of 47s. per child in Catholic schools will mean their starvation and, finally, their destruction. There are one or two preliminary considerations, it may be said, that ought to be borne in mind. It is hopeless to expect any large increase of

1705
voluntary help for the Catholic schools. It is not necessary for me to emphasise the poverty of the Catholics of this country. They have out of their poverty contributed in proportion far more to education than, I think I may safely say, any other section of the community of Great Britain. They have contributed vast sums in the past and it is impossible for them to-day to provide the money that will be required if the standard of 47s. is stereotyped in this Bill. Our schools, further, are mostly in large towns, where, of course, the cost of education is far more than in the country parts. In places like London, Liverpool, Manchester, and so forth, the cost falls necessarily upon us, because that is where our children are congregated, and it ought to be remembered that out of the voluntary contributions of the Catholics within the last few years enormous sums had to be spent. Will not the House he astonished and to some extent edified when I say that since 1902 out of the voluntary contributions of the Catholic people of London about £130,000 has been spent in the improvement of the schools, and bringing them up to the standing of the County Council without weakening the efficiency of the teaching? More than half of that was raised on loan, and the interest is a permanent charge on the schools. I point out this to show that it is useless to say that the difference between the 47s. and the cost can be met by the voluntary contributions of the Catholics. There is a provision that fees may be charged. I do not know how that will work with the Church schools. [OPPOSITION cries of "It will not work."] I do not know whether it is a valuable provision or not. I take it from hon. Members that it is not, but so far as our schools are concerned, it is an absolute delusion to think that that stun of money could be raised by imposing fees. The cost of education has increased very much since 1902, and must go on increasing. How is the increase to be met? In the council schools by increasing the school rate. But in the voluntary schools the Imperial grant is stereotyped. They are cut off from the school rate; they cannot rely upon voluntary contributions. The only hope that they have of meeting this
1706
increase would be by effecting some sort of economies in the internal working of their schools. What does that mean? It means inevitably a worse body of teachers and fewer of them. The classes which since 1902 have been broken up, so as to afford them more efficient teaching requiring more teachers, will have again to be amalgamated. It is only in the teachers that economies can be made. The increase in the cost of upkeep, light and fuel, cleaning, equipment, books, etc., since 1902 has not been large, and in any case economies cannot be made in that direction. The only possible economies are in the number and salaries of the teachers, and I think it is a monstrous injustice, where Catholics are called upon to pay the full school-rate for the council schools where a system of religion is being taught which they rightly or wrongly regard as being abhorrent to their faith, that their schools should be condemned to starvation and inefficiency. If the 47s. per child is not sufficient to enable them to carry on their work efficiently this Bill would mean starvation and destruction. Let me consider whether the 47s. per child is sufficient or not. I received to-day from a well-known educationist in London a short memorandum from which I will read a paragraph. After considering how the cost of education has risen since 1902, and explaining that it was due to better salaries, smaller classes, more teachers, and better equipment, he says—
"But all this has meant expenditure, and while the Government grants have not increased much the income derived from rates in the voluntary schools has risen steadily since 1902. This increased cost has been almost entirely due to improvement in the teaching staff. There are more teachers to each school than before and they are more highly qualified and better paid. Obviously this is the quarter in which the money has been spent for the most part."
He gives the figures of one school as an example, and says—
"The following figures taken from the official returns of St. Anne's Catholic School, Vauxhall, London, are very striking, and show at a glance how great the expenditure in salaries has been. Cost per head for salaries 1896, £1 11s. 4d.; 1901, £1 14s.; 1903. £1 17s. 2d.; 1908, £3 6s. 3d; average salary for all teachers, including pupil teachers for 1903, £42 7s. 2d.; average salary for all teachers, including pupil teachers for 1908, £82 13s. The above figures

1707
show that the effect of the Act of 1897 which gave the aid grant was to increase the salaries steadily until they reached the figure of 1903, the year before the school passed under the control of the London County Council. Since then it will be seen that the average salary per teacher has been more than doubled, having risen by £42 6s. 2d."
Then he goes on to say—
"It will be readily seen that the effect of limiting the income of the school to 47s. must at once be felt by the teaching staff, and a school could only be carried on at that figure of income by reducing the number of teachers, increasing the size of the classes, and lowering the salaries of such teachers as were retained upon the staff."
Now, there is a concrete case and does any educationist (let us put aside the question of religion and look at it from the educational point of view) is there any educationist in this House who will advocate a system whereby a school like that will go back to the position before 1902, with a small number of badly paid teachers and the expenses diminished by half? That is only an isolated case. I have here some figures not official in the sense of being Government figures, but they are compiled by the authorities of the Catholic Church in this country with great pains and trouble, and as I am in a position to use them on their authority I think I may almost be permitted to use the word official in relation to them. Here are the figures from the various dioceses and the working out of the 47s. per child—
"The immediate loss of income to Catholic schools which would be caused by Mr. McKenna's 47s. limit of grant would be as follows:—In the dioceses of Westminster and Southwark (which include London and six home counties) the loss of income would be, £52,392; in Liverpool, £28,872; Salford, £29,735; Leeds, £10,550; Hexham, £9,432; Portsmouth, £3,062; Northampton, £2,508; Nottingham, £1,784; Middlesborough, £4,714; Clifton, £1,668; and Birmingham, £9,507."
That made a total loss of income immediately consequent upon the adoption of this 47s. limit in all these various dioceses of £154,244. If these figures are correct then this Bill means undoubtedly starvation and destruction to a large number of those schools. Even if these figures are exaggerated—and no hon. Member will be quick to say that figures of this kind would be deliberately magnified—even if it is necessary to make an allowance, even if you diminish them by one-half, what a monstrous injustice this
1708
Bill would inflict upon the whole Catholic body, and how impossible it would make the situation from the point of view of maintaining the efficiency of the Catholic schools and teachers. I object to this Bill on the two grounds of principle: I object to contracting-out, because it means putting Catholic schools into an inferior class, and it means the degradation and deterioration of the education given in those schools. But if I were driven by the force of circumstances to consider contracting-out at all, then I say that 47s. per child is a ridiculously in-adequate limit, and it would be necessary very largely to increase it before there was any possibility of the schools, even under contracting-out, being able to continue in existence at all. Those being our views we must, of course, vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not know why the Government have brought on this Bill at this stage, but I gather that they are engaged in a great effort to provide a compromise. I wish them God-speed with it, and I will say nothing that will put any difficulty in the way of effecting a compromise so long as our schools can live under it, We shall, however, fight the suggested compromise as bitterly as we shall fight this Bill if we see in it the destruction of our schools. I do not know why, when this great effort at compromise was on foot, it was thought advisable to go forward with this Bill. That, however, is a matter for which the Government are responsible, and of which they are the best judges, but our position no man can misunderstand or complain of. We cannot discuss this possible compromise now, but as far as we know it is one to leave us out altogether, and leave us on the broad of our backs. Even if there was a hint that we were to come in under this compromise we could not discuss it; the only thing we can discuss is the Bill before the House. If the Government brought forward this Bill to elicit views and explain how far they were willing to go no one would complain, but I am face to face with a division on the Second Reading of a particular Bill, and I cannot vote for that Bill anxious as I am for a settlement and a compromise. I must vote against the Second Reading, and when the division is called I shall walk into the lobby in support of the noble Lord's Amendment.
MR. PERKSsaid the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had said that Catholic schools would lose £150,000 a year if this Bill were passed on the 47s. basis, and he had also stated that in the country at large the Catholic schools were almost entirely in the urban districts. So that practically the portion of the Bill dealing with contracting-out—which was the principle to which he especially objected—in no way whatever affected the single school areas, which was the system in the villages of the country. The Roman Catholic Church was a very rich church in many parts of the country. In the rural districts especially some of the little Catholic schools were supported very generously, even lavishly by the landed proprietors. But he was sorry to say that they had very little sympathy with Nonconformists on that side of the House. He was sorry indeed that the Roman Catholic Church in this country did not see its way to come into line with its fellow countrymen in adopting a system of national education, because he felt sure that there was no local education authority, municipal or otherwise, that would ever dream of appointing a Protestant teacher to a Catholic school.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: How is the local authority to know that the teacher is a Protestant?
MR. PERKSsaid he had not overlooked that point; he was coming to it. He was against any inquiries of that nature himself, but, as they were well aware, there were methods of ascertaining. Unfortunately, in the rural districts they had only too great reason to know that there were methods of ascertaining, apart from any statutory enactment to the contrary, what the religious persuasion of the teacher was, if he were a member of the Church of England. Knowing the enormous power of their training institutions, and how they turned out from those institutions an overwhelming proportion of the teachers in the elementary schools, he would be the last to fear any inequality to the Established Church in the schools of this country because there was no permission to inquire into the religious opinions of
1710
the teachers. He had listened with the greatest possible disappointment to the speech of the nobleLord who had moved the rejection of the Bill. They had had, it was true, no explicit statement at the moment as to how the Government might deal with the various suggestions which would be put forward with the view of harmonising their difficulties on this particular issue, but surely when they had had recently not merely an important Bill, but a much more important speech in the House of Lords from the head of the Anglican Church in this country, and when more recently still clearly defined propositions had been put forward by the leaders of that Church supported by a large proportion of the bishops—personally he was no very strong believer in bishops, but the right hon. Gentleman could not be iii that position, for did they not know how in 1902 the Leader of the Opposition almost took his marching orders, or was reported to have taken them, from the Episcopal Bench—he certainly hoped that the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill would have explicitly stated what were the distinct proposals of the Opposition with the view of adjusting this Bill and possibly securing sonic lasting settlement of this controversy. He had never been a very strong believer in the principle of contracting-out. He took the opportunity, like his friend on the Treasury Bench, to put in, possibly in milder language and in less carefully chosen phraseology, a small protest against contracting-out when this Bill was originally introduced, and he had never varied the view which he then held. The noble Lord had admitted that there was a grievance to be dealt with in the rural districts. He had expected the noble Lord to tell the House how he meant to deal with that difficulty, but he passed the matter airily by and made no suggestions in any form whatever. In all public gatherings—municipalities, teachers' meetings, governing bodies of the many religious denominations in this country, Convocation the other day, and the Representative Church Council, which spoke, he supposed, with some authority—there were two general propositions apparently admitted by everybody. First of all they said: "Popular control is what we are yearning for; give us a unified system

1711
throughout the country; it is what we wants" Furthermore, the majority of the speakers seemed to admit, although lie knew that the noble Lord, the Member for Marylebone, did not take this view—
LORD R. CECIL: I am not a member of the Representative Church Council.
MR. PERKS: I am speaking of Convocation.
LORD R. CECIL: Neither am I a member of Convocation.
MR. PERKSbegged pardon; he was speaking of the noble Lord's accomplished brother. The majority seemed to admit that there should be no test imposed on the teacher. He wished to limit his remarks to the single school districts and to the question of the right of entry. Might he say in passing that the Methodist Church, to which he personally belonged, which was a far more powerful Church than the Catholic Church in this country, had never asked for preferential treatment; they were perfectly willing to come into a general national system. Their policy of late years, a policy which he hoped would go on, had been to abandon their sectarian schools and put them under the control of the public authority. That policy had conduced to the educational efficiency of those schools, and it had also tended to relieve the financial burdens imposed on many of the members of their Church. With all respect he commended that policy to the Anglican Church if they wished their schools to grow in efficiency, to be more popular, better managed, and to have a higher type of teacher. If they also wished to relieve their own pecuniary burdens, let them turn over their schools to the public authorities, freely and frankly come into line with their fellow citizens, and not claim exclusive privileges either in town or village. It appeared to him that there were two distinct portions of this Bill. There was the portion which dealt with the single school areas, and the portion which dealt with those districts, chiefly urban, where there was a choice of schools, and where there would be a contracting-out policy or principle applicable. The single school area must be
1712
regarded as a separate question. There were over 6,000 elementary schools in villages where there was only one school. In Lincolnshire there were about 380 schools in villages where there was no choice of school.
SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: And in which there is no grievance.
MR. PERKSsaid his hon. friend must have forgotten his old Liberal days. He would give the hon. Member a grievance from his own district, near the hall in which he lived. In the village school of Binbrooke in the wilds of Lincolnshire there were 166 children on the register, and of these 46 were children of Church of England parents, and 120 were children of Nonconformists. In that school the Church of England catechism was taught, and the clergyman went in twice a week to give special religious instruction. There was not a single teacher in the school who was a Nonconformist.
SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: I was there only a few weeks ago, and I could find no person who found fault with the present system.
MR. PERKSsaid he could give another instance, namely, the village school of North Summerscolt. There were 144 children on the register, and of these 120 were children of Nonconformists. Seventeen were children of Church of England parents. The Church of England catechism was taught in that school also. In that school there was only one pupil teacher who was a Nonconformist. It was perfectly idle for his hon. friend to say that Nonconformists had no grievance because they did not pour their troubles into his ear. The problem of single-school areas was different from that of urban areas. The contracting-out question did not arise. It did not affect Roman Catholics or Jews. In these villages there also appeared to be a greater disposition among the laity to take a rational view of this question than in some of the towns. He thought objections to portions of the scheme of contracting-out might be met if the Bill were limited in the first instance

1713
to the single-school areas. He came now to another very important question, and he might mention that it was coupled with a very material point, namely, the creation of smaller governing bodies for schools in the rural districts. He did not know whether the machinery of the Bill provided scope for such a reform. Certainly the schools in the great counties of the country could not be efficiently administered from a distant county town, and the co-operation, the length of experience, and the deep interest which ought to be enlisted in the cause of education would be wanting if small governing bodies in the districts were not appointed for the control of education in the single areas. As to the right of entry, he observed that most of the speakers in the various gatherings held recently in the Church of England claimed the right of entry in school hours for their clergy to give distinctive and dogmatic instruction. It seemed to him impossible to reconcile that claim with the theory that no test should be imposed on the teacher, because it must be assumed that the teacher was capable of giving in the school board schools the ordinary Biblical instruction outlined in the curriculum of the London School Board. That did not necessarily or primarily require, in his judgment, any religious test.
LORD BALCARRES: Why not?
MR. PERKSsaid he was only speaking of what had been the practical experience of the last thirty-eight years during which no religious test was required from the teacher. But if the teacher was to be entrusted or authorised to give special sectarian instruction in the dogmas of the Anglican Church or any other religious community, it would almost necessarily entail an inquiry into the religious opinions of that teacher; and consequently he thought the Government had been remarkably well advised in providing not merely that there should be no religious test for the teachers, but that the teachers should be absolutely prohibited from giving anything beyond the ordinary Bible instruction which could be imparted without any such test. With regard to the question of reconciling in a conference conflicting opinions upon
1714
this long-fought out struggle, he had little doubt that when the time came for the Methodist Churches to consider these questions in a few weeks' time in their Church assemblies, they would do their very best to arrive at some conciliatory basis of arrangement with the dignitaries of the Church of England who had held out the olive branch, and that they would endeavour to remember that a permanent peace would have to be secured to some considerable extent by compromise and concession which, in the first instance, perhaps they, the Nonconformists, would not have proposed.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid he wished to congratulate the hon. Member for Louth on the speech he had just delivered; but he happened to have an extract from a speech made by the hon. Gentleman within the last six weeks in which he said—
"That there are a multitude of Nonconformists in England to-day who feel not only that the Bill of 1906 but that of this year are not what we might reasonably have expected. They feel that they have been sold."
What had happened in the meantime to enable the hon. Member, notwithstanding the fact that he had been sold, to support the Second Reaching of this Bill?
MR. PERKSsaid he had not said a single word in favour of the Bill as a whole. In fact, he was opposed to some of the proposals in the Bill.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid that he assumed then that they would have the hon. Member's support in the lobby against the Second Reading of the Bill. He had ventured to intervene in the debate because the education question played a very prominent part in the recent election in North-West Manchester. He little thought that in his first speech in the House of Commons he would find himself in accord with the hon. Member for Waterford. That hon. Member opposed his election, but he had entirely expressed the views which the Church of England in Lancashire took with regard to the monstrous injustice of this Bill. Speaking for

1715
Lancashire, he declared that they would have nothing whatever to do with this Bill. They declined to accept contracting-out as a substitute for the rights they now had. They considered that they paid their rates exactly in the same manner as the Nonconformists, and they demanded, therefore, a share of the rates they themselves had to pay. It was not so long ago since the Government, through the Chief Secretary for Ireland, was not indisposed to grant them such a right in regard to the religious teaching of their children. The Chief Secretary said at Lowestoft in January, 1906—
"He hoped it would be possible to have in the public elementary schools of the country simple religious teaching for those who were content with it, and also to give facilities that those people who wanted more definite dogmatic instructions should have it so that their children might enjoy the benefits of it. Therefore as far as possible he would give free scope to parental wishes and desires."
Why had the Government never tried that policy? They had now been responsible for three Education Bills, all different from one another, but in none of these Bills had they given "free scope to parental wishes and desires."
AN HON. MEMBER: Clause 4.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid that, if he remembered rightly, Clause 4 of the Bill of 1906 gave the four-fifths majority, and that was put into the Bill with the express purpose of meeting the views of a certain section of the House below the gangway; but it gave very little free scope to the Church of England schools. The more one thought of it, the more was one astonished at the confusion of hon. Members as to what really was the mandate they had in 1906. Was it the Bill of 1906, the Bill of 1907, or the Bill of 1908—three totally different Bills, setting up three totally distinct methods of education and educational organisation? At all events, the present Prime Minister had no doubt whatever as to what "the will of the people" was in 1906. On the Second Reading of that Bill the Prime Minister said—
"As regards the education question, I venture to say there is no one that followed the course of the election who will dispute that
1716
the remedy for the grievances was to be found, in the opinion of the majority of the electors, in the adoption of the two principles which are called popular control and the abolition of tests."
The Prime Minister went further by saying—
"If there is to be popular control in an effective sense that clearly involves the management and direction of every elementary school which depends on the State for its support, from a private to a public authority."
Now they were entitled to ask why that definition of popular control had been abandoned in the present Bill. He would be willing, as a representative of Lancashire, to stand under complete popular control if they might have it, but the popular control proposed by the party opposite was popular control in the direction of their own educational ideas, but no popular control in the direction of the ideas held by the Opposition.
"Complete popular control,"
said the Secretary for Ireland on the Second Reading of his Bill in 1906—
"Was the inevitable outcome of the result of the general election."
The meaning of the words "popular control" he took to be that the authority elected by the ratepayers should have the right to say what kind of education should be given to their children in secular and religious matters. There were many educational authorities who were very largely composed of representatives of the Church of England, believers in Church of England principles, and why might they not, being the direct representatives of the people, in the sacred name of popular control, establish schools of a Church of England character? If 99 per cent. of the representatives and 99 per cent. of the ratepayers should chance to be Roman Catholics, then popular control, according to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, consisted in compelling the 99 per cent. of the ratepayers to establish schools with practically Nonconformist teaching. One might use a homely illustration. A friend of his was recently tried for not having his motor car under proper control, and with running into a lamppost. He pleaded as an excuse that he had the car under perfect control, but that there was a slight defect in the steering gear.

1717
The machine was under perfect control so long as he did not turn to the left. So popular control in the eyes of the Treasury Bench would allow the representatives of the ratepayers to turn in the direction of Nonconformity, but not in the direction of the Church of England. Contracting-out in this Bill was the essence of this popular scheme. In 1906 it was clear that control meant control as it affected tax as well as rate money. He wondered what the feeling of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite must be when they realised that their own Government was endeavouring to put through the House and force on the Nonconformist portions of the country, a scheme which cut directly across popular control. Of course popular control formed no portion of the Bill of 1906, or the Bill of 1907. There could be no contracting-out with popular control and all that popular control meant. It was only an after-thought and was only to be used in exceptional cases. But so far as this Bill related to the towns it was the substance of the scheme; it must be the general rule and not the exception. He would say little of the pledges of the Government and their followers that "where public money is taken public control must of necessity follow." That was a question for them and their supporters to settle. They might be able to distinguish now between "rate-aid" and "State-aid": they might be able to quiet their supporters by some subtle reason why schools, both rate-aided and State-aided, must be under popular control and State-aided schools need not. But these stern Cromwellians chopped no logic in 1906. Let them recall the questions put to candidates at the general election by the Free Church Council. They were asked—
"Are you in favour of immediate legislation in order to secure: (1) Complete popular control for the elected representatives of the people over all schools maintained by the State."
Did this Bill profess to give "complete popular control for the elected representatives of the people over all schools maintained by the State"? Could any Member on the benches opposite who favourably answered this question go back to his Free Church constituents after voting for this Bill and say: "I
1718
have been steadfast to the pledge I gave"? That was the first question. The second was—
"Are you in favour of the abolition of sectarian tests for all teachers employed in schools maintained by the State?"
Did this Bill carry out that pledge? The third question was—
"Are you in favour of the omission of sectarian teaching from the curriculum of State-supported schools?"
Why this Bill perpetuated "sectarian teaching in State-supported schools" in every city and town in the land. He was informed that some 330 Liberal candidates returned satisfactory answers to the Free Church Council on these three questions. They knew too well how strenuously and fiercely the Free Churches had for some six years fought for the establishment of the principles laid down in their questions. They had had experience of their determination not to budge from this position, and he invited them into the lobby with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. From the political aspect the Bill violated the principles of the supporters of the Government; from the aspect of religious education it failed absolutely to meet the desires of those who wished for definite religious teaching in the schools. From an educational aspect, the Bill could not be regarded as other than wholly unsatisfactory. The Act of 1902 so far as efficiency of education went was a great step forward. That was generally recognised. The Bill of 1906 left undisturbed the education system inaugurated by that Act and dealt wholly with the religious question. But this Bill upset that system and carried them back again to the "intolerable strain" of the ante-1902 days, so far as the urban and many rural schools were concerned. That was felt to be a false step by all educationists. And if the Government persisted in this measure they would be putting back the education clock to a serious extent. They read that at the Annual Conference of the National Union of Teachers at Hastings this year the President, himself a teacher in a council school, said—
"This provision for 'contracting out' is about the worst possible solution that could have been found.… It is dead against the best educational interests of the children who will be taught in 'contracted-out' schools.

1719
If such a provision should ever become law it would deal the severest blow to the progress of popular education which it is possible to conceive, and it is diametrically opposed to our fundamental proposition that every child of the State has a claim to the provision by the State of equal opportunities for secular education."
This was not the opinion of a partisan: it was the opinion of one whose first and only concern was the progress of education. He did not stand alone. They might ask the Government whether they were prepared at a time when all persons acknowledged the need for increased efficiency in education, to proceed with this Bill, which was universally condemned as retarding educational progress? He would just show the House how the Bill would affect Lancashire. In that county 77 per cent of the schools were voluntary and 66 per cent. of the scholars were educated in them. There were only 100 of the single school areas to which the hon. Member for Louth had referred. In Lancashire there were 1,415 voluntary schools and 410 council schools, showing a majority of 1,005 voluntary schools. [An HON. MEMBER: How many scholars?] There were 461,000 scholars in the voluntary schools and 230,000 in the council schools. There were eight large boroughs in Lancashire, and there were no council schools in Ashton, Chorley, Bury, or Wigan. In Leigh there was 1 council school with 163 children, and 19 voluntary schools with 6,884 children. Preston had I council school with 467 children, and 37 voluntary schools with 18,000 children. Warrington had 3 council schools with 581 children, and 19 voluntary schools with 11,500 children. Where was the money coming from at £1 per head? The cost to Lancashire churchmen would be nearly £500,000 a year. They declined to ask the parents to pay fees, for it was sufficient for Church of England parents to pay the same rates as the Nonconformists. They were told that there was to be special facilities granted for the Roman Catholic and the Jewish communities. The President of the Board of Trade was not in the House, but he would remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself that special facilities should given to the Roman Catholics and the Jews.
1720
He would like to know in what way. Were they to have special rate-aid in addition to 47s. grant? Were Churchmen the only ratepayers of the country who were to be penalised? He would like an answer to that question. In Lancashire they intended to have exactly the same facilities and rights as were accorded to the Roman Catholics and the Jewish community. He did not often find himself in agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman when he said in Manchester last month—
"If it were right to say that we as Liberals are offering some special terms to either Nonconformists or Jews or Roman Catholics which we are prepared to deny to the Church of England, I say it would be unfair."
The Opposition agreed that any terms offered to Nonconformists, Roman Catholics or Jews which did not apply to the Church of England would be unjust and monstrously unfair. He trusted they would be told what those special facilities were. Compromise was in the air, but he did not know that it was to be found within the four corners of this Bill. He did not propose to say a word against Cowper-Temple teaching, but he would like to know how the right hon. Gentleman was going, even if they were willing to hand their schools over, to enforce the giving of Cowper-Temple teaching in them. He did not need to give a list of towns where the Bible was taught without note or comment, and where instruction was given in morality, manners, and customs, which was not Cowper-Temple teaching. How were they going to deal with those large educational authorities in Devonshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, and various Welsh counties where no religious instruction whatever was given? Was his right hon. friend going to mandamus all those local authorities? He said he should make a bargain to insist upon Cowper-Temple teaching being carried out there, but how was he going to do it? The right hon. Gentleman had made a friendly speech in the way of compromise, but it was a compromise in favour of one particular idea, and he had ended up by threatening them that unless they were prepared to compromise, unless they were prepared to give away their schools and see the many sacrifices they had

1721
made in the past swept away, they were to be led direct to secularism. All he could say was that in England they were not going to be led to secularism. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that the voters were going to vote in favour of secularism, he asked him to go to the country and say: "We have failed to effect a compromise because the members of the Church of England stick to their schools and we could not get them to give way; so they have forced us into the only alternative, secularism," and he wondered how many of the Party in power would come back. The hon. Member for Louth had asked them what their views were with regard to compromise. Their views were perfectly well-known. Let the right, hon. Gentleman withdraw this Bill and have a round-table conference. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the views of some of the bishops, especially the Bishop of St. Asaph and also the Archbishop of Canterbury. He had the greatest respect for the dignitaries of his own Church, but he begged leave to say on behalf of the people of Lancashire, at all events, that they on that side of the House were not an episcopally ridden body, but were elected by the parents of the children, and to them they would go to find out the kind of compromise that was most desired. It might be possible for the other side to force a short Bill through the House, or through the country, largely owing to the votes of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were elected by a portion of Great Britain which was not affected by this Bill. At all events they refused it on that side of the House. Whatever might be their position in the House, outside they were supported by an increasing body of opinion. While they were willing, absolutely willing, to consider a scheme of conciliation or compromise which would preserve the rights of Churchmen, as were preserved the rights of Roman Catholics, they would not compromise in any shape or form as to any proposal which gave one iota less to the Church of England than was given to Roman Catholics, or Jews, or Nonconformists. The Government might force the Bill through the House if they liked, but he would tell them that if the Opposition had
1722
not a majority outside to-day they very nearly had it, and it was not for them to suggest terms of compromise. They would wait until the time came when they could dictate terms to the other side, and they would not accept any compromise which did not meet all forms of rights, or, as it had been shortly put, which did not provide that every man should have his child educated in his own religion out of the rates he himself paid.
*MR. WALTERSsaid that any Member corning into the House for the first time would have come to the conclusion that this was a measure for the purpose of contracting-out all the schools of the country, and that the aim and object of the Government was that everybody who had a denominational school should adopt the practice of contracting-out; whereas the object of the Bill, if he understood it rightly, was to establish universally, if possible, council schools throughout the length and breadth of the land. The contracting-out clauses were placed in the Bill simply for the purpose of preventing injustice to the managers of such schools as refused to come into the general system of council schools of the country at large. That seemed to him a much fairer description of the Bill than the idea of universal contracting-out. It was very difficult to discover what really would satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the Bill of 1906 they were offered facilities, and at that time they considered that they made hon. Gentlemen opposite a very generous offer, but when they offered facilities they were asked for contracting-out. When to-day they made them an offer of contracting-out they asked for facilities. The fact of the matter was that whatever proposals they made they always happened to be the proposals which hon. Gentlemen opposite did not want. Perhaps the responsibility for that was not entirely that of the supporters of the Government; it might be that there was a disposition among hon. Gentlemen opposite to find fault with whatever the Government offered. To be quite frank, as far as his own opinion was concerned he really detested the proposal for contracting-out, and he did not think that they would find

1723
half a dozen men on the Ministerial side of the House who were really in favour of any considerable measure of contracting-out. It was said: "Why make this a provision of the Bill?" But this provision in the Bill for contracting-out was not made in the interests of Nonconformists. It was introduced into the Bill entirely for the purpose of satisfying members of the Church of England and members of the Roman Catholic Church. He had always been in favour of the maintenance of religious education in schools; but when he followed the course of education debates in that House, when he remembered the concessions they made in 1906 with a great strain on their own convictions, when he saw the Bill of that year rejected, and when, now, he saw their efforts to meet them in regard to contracting-out and witnessed the difficulties and objections raised, he had come reluctantly to the conclusion that they should have at last to take the advice of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and offer to the House and the country the secular solution. If hon. Members opposite would not take facilities, if they would not take contracting-out, then what would they take? ["Parents' rights."] He had never heard yet any clear exposition of what the rights of parents involved. As far as he could understand, if they were really consistent and logical in their opposition, then if they had parents with hundreds of different theories of religious questions, they would have to provide hundreds of different methods and curricula for instruction in them. The matter could only be dealt with on some basis of compromise. He had hoped that after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing this Bill, made in a spirit full of compromise and conciliation, they would have had something in the nature of a reciprocal disposition on the other side. When lie listened to the truculent speech of the noble Lord who proposed the Amendment, and to the excellent maiden speech of the Member for North-West Manchester breathing threatenings and slaughter against them, he had not at all the feeling that they were in an atmosphere of compromise. The fact of the matter was, the more they suggested compromise the
1724
more hon. Gentlemen opposite suggested strife. The more ready they were to make concessions the less willing were hon. Gentlemen opposite to receive them. If supporters of the Government insisted on what they considered would satisfy their friends, if they asked for what they considered a national system of education and then offered concessions, they were told that they were afraid of their own Bill and afraid to face the country. They must, then, frame their measure as they thought best, and carry it through the House with the help of their majority; and if the Bill was carried through that House and rejected by the other House, the responsibility rested upon the other side and not upon the supporters of the Government. A word or two about the contracting-out clauses. He hoped he had made it clear that, as far as contracting-out went, in his humble judgment the case for it was not favoured by the Ministerial side of the House. He did not believe that contracting-out was in the interests of education; on the contrary, he believed that it was contrary to the best interests of education. Though he opposed the Act of 1902 he could not help recognising that it had led to the unification of education, and he would be extremely sorry to see any considerable system of contracting-out adopted. It would mean that a large number of schools would be governed by narrow sectarianism or by a board of education faddists; he did not know which was the more objectionable dilemma to be placed in. As a Nonconformist he was surprised that his co-religionists had looked with any kind of favour on contracting-out. Under contracting-out, a school which was unable to keep up its efficiency under the Board of Education would find it difficult to raise money from the denomination. It was difficult before 1902; it was impossible now. What happened in a case like that? All extra subjects, all special subjects, would form the ground of an appeal to the Board of Education for a grant, and they would find the contracted-out school receiving special extra grants for medical inspection, for training colleges, for agricultural education, and for all sorts of things of that kind, so that imperceptibly they would find that instead of a 47s. grant

1725
it would steadily creep up by extra grants for special subjects. That would go on even under the present Government, and it would all be outside of popular control and the healthful stimulating opinion of the local public. A continual demand would be made on the national exchequer from time to time without any kind of popular control. Then after the next general election, if hon. Gentlemen opposite came back into power, at a stroke they would add to the grants from the national exchequer a sufficient sum for maintenance, and the net result would be that they would have these denominational schools entirely maintained out of the national exchequer without any kind of public control in their administration. That he maintained would be a new endowment of the Church of England and of the Roman Catholic schools. The National Union of Teachers, and the Education Association, consisting of 163 borough and county borough committees, had unanimously condemned contracting-out, and he had not come across any body of educationists in favour of it. He had not come across a practical educationist in favour of it, and he therefore suggested to the Government that they should drop the contracting-out clauses altogether. Let them put this plain issue before the House. They asked for a national system of education entirely controlled by the local education authorities. They did not want any contracting-out at all. If those who were not satisfied with that wanted facilities let them propose them as Amendments in Committee. They would be in a much stronger position if the Minister of Education would take up a firm position. It was impossible to conciliate their enemies whatever they did, but that would at any rate rally their friends. Let those who objected to their proposal put down their counter proposal. They were making a great mistake in offering a proposal for contracting-out. The Opposition had fastened upon that at once. They had good educational arguments against it. They despised it on financial grounds, and they distrusted it on religious grounds. If they put themselves in a strong position of advocating a universal council school only, they would have
1726
had much more chance of carrying the country with them, and he believed they would prepare the way for conciliation, concession, and compromise. If he was negotiating with a man he would rather that he plainly put down on the Table what it was he wanted, and he would rather himself suggest what he wanted as a concession than that the other man should offer him something which he did not want, and which was no use to him. He hoped they would stand firmly on their position, which they had consistently put before the country, which they had advocated at their elections, and on which many of them had been returned to the House, that they would have a universal council school entirely controlled by the local education authority.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid the First Lord of the Admiralty had made a speech which he believed he sincerely intended to be one of compromise, but he was not very explicit. He accompanied his suggestion of compromise, however, with a menace which was perfectly explicit. He was one of those who had not been indisposed to welcome a compromise, but he had not been much encouraged by this extraordinary Bill or by its even more extraordinary history. The right hon. Gentleman in days of greater courage had told them that the Bill was a sword. His predecessor had always been careful to say that his endeavour was to meet the case of the denominationalists. They understood that the olive branch was to be substituted for the sword. There were various signs of that, but they were only able to draw inferences. The right hon. Gentleman was promoted, and they understood that a conference was to be called. Nor could they be very certain of the causes, but it might be assumed that bye-elections had something to do with it, and they were told that the bishops were to be rewarded for the support they had given to the Government on another measure. It might be conceivable that it struck even the Government as not very consistent that they should attempt in the same session to run through a denominational University for the Irish and to deny the same privileges to the humbler

1727
classes of people in Great Britain. Whatever the reason might have been, it was not very important now, because apparently the policy was reversed again and the sword was introduced once more, with this exception—that the right hon. Gentleman told them that the sword was an olive branch, and that this Bill, if they looked at it carefully, was really exactly the same for all practical purposes as the Bishop of St. Asaph's. Anxious as he was for a settlement of this question, he was somewhat mistrustful of the right hon. Gentleman. If they came to the Bill itself he did not think any speaker contended that it was an Education Bill. Nobody had pretended to discuss it in that aspect. It was purely a Bill to settle the religious controversy. That was very well worth doing, and if the Bill would settle the controversy they would welcome it on that ground, even if it did not deal with the question of education; but no person who was not either very optimistic or very intolerant would imagine for a single moment that this Bill was going to end the long chapter of controversy that began even before 1870. The Government said that they based their proposals on three main grounds—first of all, that as the teachers are practically a branch of the Civil Service, there must be no tests for teachers; secondly, that as public money was involved there must be public control; and, in the third place, that as all ratepayers paid there must be undenominational teaching. With regard to tests, he thought a great many persons had rather hastily assumed that there should be no tests whatever with regard to the teaching profession. He was quite aware that it was a very difficult matter, but he thought a good many members did not quite understand what was meant by no tests. Two years ago the then Under-Secretary at the Education Office made a very illuminating speech with regard to the appointment of teachers, and how tests might be evaded, and how for all practical purposes they could test a teacher without putting the explicit words before him. The hon. Member for Louth had now done the same, but he thought he must have confused between tests in regard to the denomination of the teacher and tests with regard to whether he could
1728
give religious education at all. It was suggested that, if a teacher was unwilling to give religious education, the local authority could appoint what was called in the language of some educationists an ad hoc teacher for that purpose. But was it likely that the education authorities were going to pay extra money in order to pay supernumerary men to give for three-quarters of an hour teaching that the ordinary teacher declined to give? As a private person who was employing a teacher for his own children was entitled to inquire what the teacher's religious opinions were, so the community, which in this case was in loco parentis, if they desired their children to have a specific and definite religious teaching, were entirely within their rights if they inquired whether the teacher was able and willing to give it. To set up an extreme doctrine of no tests was to put the interests of the teachers before the interests of the whole community, which were more important, and if the community desired religious teaching they were absolutely justified in the so-called tests for teachers. He would not deal with the question of control, because he believed that most persons conversant with the administration of education would admit that over four-fifths of the field there was absolute control already under the Act of 1902. With regard to the third principle on which the right hon. Gentleman based his Bill, that teaching must be undenominational, that was an exceedingly double-edged weapon. The difficulty which the party opposite had never succeeded in surmounting was that it was obviously, in the minds of the people of the country, unfair that people should pay twice over, and that Roman Catholic and Anglican and Jew should be called on to pay for the teaching of their own religion while at the same time they were rated to pay for the teaching of another denomination. That was a difficulty which had been a stumbling-block ever since 1870, and none of the ingenuity and none of the arguments and none of the sophistry that had been expended in trying to demolish it had ever succeeded in disestablishing that idea from the minds of the people. The First Lord of the Admiralty had endeavoured to carry out his principles by

1729
making all schools council schools, to which he, for one, would not dissent. But he had proceeded to say that the council schools should give no teaching but Cowper-Temple teaching—where he must dissent, and where the right hon. Gentleman began to raise up difficulties for himself, because he was forced by that position to allow contracting-out. It would be impossible to throw it over altogether, because he had to meet the case of the Catholics. He put contracting-out in the Bill although it was denounced by every single Member who spoke on either side. There was no Member who sat on the Front Bench with him who did not denounce it. Everyone knew the reason why the right hon. Gentleman had changed. It was not at all dishonourable to him, but rather honourable, but there was no reason why they should not remember that when he spoke with full liberty as a lover of education rather than as a servant of the Government he denounced this proposal, which was the main essence of the Government Bill. Contracting-out then stood condemned without need of any further words from him, because there had been no person yet found hold enough to deny it. With regard to the concessions which were put in the schedule, he was no opponent of the London County Council syllabus, which, to a certain extent, represented the wishes, roughly got at, of the majority of the parents. He supposed, looked at ecclesiastically, it was roughly Congregationalism. But in the past the syllabus could be modified. It was open to the parents either to increase the amount of dogmatic teaching given under the syllabus, or to lessen it. But the right hon. Gentleman took a certain part of the syllabus issued by the London, County Council and set it up as an immutable, hard-and-fast creed which could neither be altered, lessened nor increased in the future. That was a very different matter from allowing the local authority to make its own syllabus of religious and Bible-teaching for the children in its own schools, and it was certainly going a very long way in setting up an establishment side by side with the establishment that they had already. One could only regret that the Free Churches who for many generations
1730
waged war against establishment, had been seduced by the loaves and. fishes of, at any rate, seeming establishment, if not full establishment, into an endeavour to set up a system so unjust to Catholics and the Church of England as the present one. The right hon. Gentleman, in his endeavour to gain some support for the Bill on grounds other than religious, offered them an increased grant. He knew that throughout the country there were many authorities who cared far more for the rates than for creeds and syllabuses. He thought if he could secure the support of the great army of economists, he might hope to enlist the assistance of the educational authorities. He remodelled the system of grants and told the House that by his system large help would be given out of the rates. What had happened? So far from relieving the burden on the rates the right hon. Gentleman would throw a serious extra burden on the counties. Inquiries had shown that the terms laid down by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to his grants would cause an extra burden of 2½d in the case of Derbyshire, graduating down to 1d. in other places. It was true the right hon. Gentleman had given a large sum in relief of rates, but that sum, owing to the way it was given, was absorbed by the boroughs and the counties, instead of getting any advantage, had a very serious burden thrown upon them. He did not think the right hon. Gentlemen's bait was likely to be very attractive or that he would gain very much support to the other parts of his Bill by his financial proposals.
MR. McKENNAasked whether the noble Lord had included the transfer from the parish rate to the county rate in his figures.
VISCOUNT MORPETH: Yes. It was true that by the re-shifting of the burden it would be made to spread all over the county. But quite apart from that the right hon. Gentleman would see that his proposal did not relieve the counties.
MR. McKENNA: Has the noble Lord overlooked the fact that under the proposal for the counties there is to be

1731
paid out of the Exchequer a minimum of 4s. per child more than is paid now?
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid he had not overlooked that fact. The figures he was using were not his own. They had been got out by the clerks to the education authorities throughout the counties of England. The right hon. Gentleman would have a great work to perform if he was going to ingratiate himself by these means with the education authorities of this country. In conclusion he would say the Opposition had been challenged again and again to put forward their own scheme. Their solution had been repeated again and again in the House. The solution they advocated was one under which all churches, where there were a sufficient number of persons in the parish or in the schools, should have the teaching of their own particular doctrines. They were told that that was impossible, but it was nothing of the kind. It was done every day, both abroad and in this country—in our Army schools, our industrial schools, and in some cases our day schools. It was not an impossible solution, but one hon. Gentlemen opposite did not desire. If it was desired it would be the easiest possible thing to put it into practice, and he believed it was only in some such way as that, where equal justice was done to all, and no attempt was made to proselytise, that we should obtain a settlement and religious peace.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid in the course of these debates he had been struck by the absence of any consistent attempt on the part of the Opposition to appeal to the right of the parent. They had now fastened on contracting-out, which was not of the essence of the measure, but a concession to the laudable desire of those who sought the full treatment of their own particular denominational opinions in the schools of the country. But he would have thought, after the speeches delivered up and down the country upon the sacred right of the parent to determine the religious education to be given to his own children, that the one standard that would have been brought to the judgment of this Bill was the right of the parent, and nothing else. It
1732
was true that the Member for North-West Manchester did allude to it. He had only one criticism to pass on that gentleman's maiden speech, and that was in regard to his statement that he spoke authoritatively on behalf of Lancashire. The Member for the Walton Division had forestalled the hon. Gentleman as speaking on behalf of Lancashire, and it was somewhat puzzling to another Lancashire member to know to which of these two authorities he was to appeal. One thing was certain: they could not continue to build up an educational system for this country upon the sole basis of the right of the parent. Examine it as they might, they were forced to the conclusion that that was too unstable a foundation. For the State to content itself with merely purveying to every sect the particular dogma which it desired, would end in confusion and the destruction of such religious teaching as they had. If they were to make any progress in elevating the moral and spiritual atmosphere of the schools, it must be done by the State and on behalf of the community. He intended to give the Second Reading of the Bill, with certain reserves, his most hearty support. He would consider that the Government were guilty of almost dishonour if they went out of power without dealing with the education problem. He held most emphatically that the Government was the trustee of a legacy of a most unfortunate character from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. It was perfectly true that in 1902 the right hon. Gentleman co-ordinated education, but he only coquetted with popular control, and he left a large number of parents and teachers with a deep and abiding sense of grievance. Hon. Gentlemen opposite in an earlier stage of this Bill had agitated themselves to discover what was called its spinal cord. That might be a congenial study to hon. Gentlemen who desired to sever that cord and see how much vitality rested on that part of the measure. But the supporters of the measure would rather adopt the language of the Spiritualists if they might and say they wished to see such portions of the Bill materialise as were most capable of being materialised, if it was impossible to get the whole Bill, and in proceeding on these lines the Government would

1733
be well advised to trust rather to the enthusiasm of their friends than to the forbearance of their enemies. In an earlier portion of the debate the hon. Member for Leicester had described the clause dealing with single-school areas as a proposal amounting to the secular solution.
MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid his point was that if parents desired to accept special facilities, which were provided for outside school hours, and did not accept Cowper-Templeism, that to all intents and purposes would satisfy those who advocated the secular solution.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he was surprised that any form of settlement could be regarded as paving the way to the secular solution which provided for the establishment of Cowper-Temple teaching by statutory bargain on behalf of the trustees when they transferred the schools to the local authority. If a local authority took over a school in a single-school area on the basis that they would give Cowper-Temple teaching, that was a statutory bargain, and he did not see how any compulsion should be required for such a transfer. The only comment he wished to make on that was that it was a violation of the discretion of the local authority. It was only an approximation to the right of the parent which they were giving under the present system of education, because in the single school parishes which had been transferred they had Cowper-Temple teaching compulsorily established, whereas in the other schools, which were not in single-school areas, they had such teaching merely at the option of the local authority. He had no doubt that that point had received the attention of his right hon. friend, and that he was satisfied it could be adjusted. He had been struck with the speech of the gentleman who moved the Resolution condemning this Bill at the Representative Church Council. He was much impressed with the statement made in that speech in favour of separate types of schools. That gentleman seemed to be of opinion that the best solution of the education question was that every sect should be housed in its own special building. That was an ideal which would
1734
not be acceptable to the majority of Liberals. It was true that some of them voted in favour of the Irish Universities Bill, which embodied the principle, but no doubt they did so in the belief that the principle could hardly be translated across the water. Certainly in England the true ideal of elementary education was not the separating of children into different schools according to their denominational differences, but rather, as far as possible, bringing them together in one school, and accommodating, on the best terms possible, their religious differences. The two problems of the town and the country were distinct. The Bill itself was a proof of how entirely different, both historically and actually, the question of the single-school parish was from the question of the school of the urban area. The question of the teacher, for example, was much more easy of solution where they had one school in which all the denominations were accommodated than where they had separate types of schools, with teachers attached to each denomination, and whose pay and prospects it was extremely difficult to reduce to a single common denominator. Therefore he urged that the Government should consider whether it would not be desirable, whatever became of the rest of the Bill, to proceed with the clauses affecting single school areas. His right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty said on the First Reading of the Bill that he was ambitious. Ambition was the leading vice of politicians, but he thought that the field for its display ought to be carefully chosen. The Liberal Party had to deal not with a social evil, but with a social inequality, and it could not, as in the case of the licensing question, summon the assistance of the great moral and spiritual agencies which had sustained it in many a stormy battle in the cause of social reform. The question was urgent, and he was keenly anxious that the Government should not go out of office without having done something to redress the grievance in the single-school areas. The present Opposition, if they came into power, would do nothing to deal with the question, or to vindicate the right of the parent, which was violated in these single school parishes, and which

1735
in 1902 they absolutely refused to touch with the tips of their fingers. He suggested that the Government should if necessary divide the Bill into two, and, at all costs, proceed with that portion which dealt with the single-school parish school. The practical advantages of so doing were extremely great. Might he say without cynicism that practical advantages were not to be despised in politics? There would be this advantage, that by dealing separately with the single-school areas, the Government would gain the support of the Irish Party, who would have no cause for intervention. That would be a distinct gain to them. It would also be a gain to the Opposition, who, while they had not scrupled to receive the votes of Irish Roman Catholics, were extremely loth to endure too close an embrace from their representatives in the division lobbies. It would probably be a gain to the Irish Party themselves, who on this question were at issue with some, at least, of the priests of their own religion in this country. He believed that on educational grounds there was amongst the great body of men and women of the country a sincere desire for a settlement. By pressing forward the question of the single-school areas they would not prejudice the settlement in the urban areas. No doubt there was some idea of compensation as between town and country, but if a settlement could be achieved of the difficulty between the Church and Nonconformity in the single school areas, then he believed they would have settled the major portion of the controversy, and would have done something to get rid of the spectre of religious difficulty in the schools, in which the education of the children shrank and was stunted. He hoped the Government would not go out of office leaving, at any rate, one of their pledges dishonoured, and that the one which affected most vitally the future of the children of the country.
*SIR JOHN RANDLESsaid that from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading down to that of the last speaker it did not seem to him that any strong argument in favour of the Bill had been advanced. The speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty himself
1736
was directed chiefly to the question of compromise, peace and conciliation, or, in the alternative, threats. It was assumed that Nonconformity was hostile to the Church. There was Nonconformity and Nonconformity. He himself was a Nonconformist, but he was in no sense desirous of settling the controversy in a spirit in any way antagonistic to the Church to which he did not belong. He was satisfied with Cowper-Temple teaching but at the same time he saw no reason why ratepayers or taxpayers belonging to other Churches should not have every facility he would desire for himself. The hon. Member for the Louth Division of Lincolnshire had illustrated the attitude of mind of many Nonconformists when he referred to the fact that no Protestant teacher would be appointed to the school of the Roman Catholic. Such a thing was not at all likely, and yet the very essence of the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty in moving the Second Reading was that there would be no test for teachers. He himself was quite convinced that no body of men associated with the Wesleyans would ever tolerate the presence of a Roman Catholic teacher in their school. The matter would, therefore, work both ways. They might make a great virtue by saying that there should be no tests for teachers, yet underlying it all was the fact that in some form or other the teacher would be stamped with the creed of the school to which he was appointed. The difficulty of the question centred round the single school area. In the urban districts and large towns the difficulty was non-existent. The Bill of 1902 was a great advance. It removed grievances, but not every grievance. It did much for education; but the legislation which was to follow did not deal so much with education as with the religious aspect of the question. He was not at all unfriendly in his attitude to the £100,000 grant to the necessitous districts. If there was a grievance there let it be remedied; but the grievance was greatly exaggerated. After the Act of 1902 it was thought by the authorities of the Church referred to by the hon. Member for Louth that grievances would arise, and they issued a circular to every superintendent minister throughout the country asking that they should draw

1737
attention to any grievance that arose either to parent or child in consequence of that Act. A report was made to the Conference, at which he himself was present, which stated that no case that constituted a grievance had arisen in the Church. That showed him that the grievance which was alleged to be so acute by some hon. Members was, to a large extent, a grievance of political Nonconformists rather than of religious Nonconformists. He did not say that there was no ground of complaint, but it was exaggerated, not in the interests of education, but in the interests of political Nonconformity, and he did not think that that was helpful to the settlement of the controversy in which they were engaged. The great object he had, as a Nonconformist and as a citizen, was that whatever the Bill, if carried through the House, did or did not do, it should not put a single child outside the scope of a national system of education. No matter how small a number of children were put outside the scope of a national system, they would create a grievance which could not be easily met, a grievance which would grow, which would strike at the children of any section of the community, whether Roman Catholic or Anglican, and which they could not tolerate as a nation for any length of time. Contracting-out or any device designed to get round a particular corner or difficulty would fail and have to be undone, because it would strike a blow at the children of the land and be injurious to the best interests of the nation.
*MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSsaid that no one could have listened to the course of the debate and contrasted it in his mind with the tone and temper of the debate two years ago without feeling that here at last they were within approximate distance of arriving at some basis of settlement. They were discussing that night not so much the Second Reading of the Bill before the House, but as to whether its provisions afforded a basis for the negotiations which they understood were about to take place for a peaceful settlement of a controversy that ought to have been settled long ago. The time was opportune. The passions which flared up five years ago had gone down. The
1738
firebrands had become olive branches. Dr. Clifford and the Archbishop of Canterbury vied with each other as to how they could attain some effective way out of the difficulty; and he thought it would be a reproach and even a tragedy if under these circumstances they in the House of Commons, when everything seemed to point to a peaceful solution, failed to find some effective way towards a settlement of this much-vexed question. He thought the first thing to do was to understand and appreciate as far as they could the standpoint of the other side. He did not think a single Member on the opposite side of the House would deny that there was a real and genuine Nonconformist grievance in the single-school areas. That opinion had been admitted by none more heartily and sincerely than by Lord Hugh Cecil. The noble Lord had said that there was a grievance and it ought to be removed at the first possible opportunity. In so far as this grievance was concerned did this Bill provide an effective remedy? The Bill, in his view, would leave no trace behind it of this grievance to the Nonconformists. But was it quite certain that in removing the Nonconformist grievance in the single-school districts they might not be creating another form of grievance, though not so heavy or quite so objectionable, as the grievance they sought to remove? They on that side of the House had in moments of heated controversy said, and said quite truly, that the Church schools in the rural districts had been too often established and maintained, not so much for educational or for sectarian purposes and for the purpose of evading a school board rate. That was true. But there could be no doubt in the mind of any candid man that at all events a large number of these Church schools in rural districts had been built in the first instance, and maintained subsequently at great sacrifices, by men whose only object was to secure Church of England teaching for the children of Church of England parents; and unless they accepted that he did not see how they could come to any permanent or speedy settlement of the matter. What did this Bill offer to the Church of England owners of Church of England schools? It gave them no return for

1739
the surrender of their schools to the State. This was one defect in the Bill which should be remedied in the negotiations outside. Something ought and must be given as an equivalent or compensation to the Church of England people who were asked to consent to the alteration of the whole character of the schools by their being changed into State schools. What was the Nonconformist grievance in the urban areas? The reality of that grievance was sometimes disputed, but in his opinion it was none the less there. The cardinal tenet of Nonconformity—the cardinal principle of its existence—was that the State had no right to interfere with any man's religion at all; that no State, no matter how high-minded its individual members might be, could be trusted to teach religion in the schools or anywhere else; that religion was beyond the scope of the State itself. That was the view taken by Mr. Richard and Mr. E. Miall, and that was why they fought for the secular solution in 1870. And few Nonconformists looking back on the past thirty-eight years would deny that had Mr. Richard and Mr. Miall had their way a great deal of this unhappy controversy would have been eliminated from the social life of the country. It had been said that they could not understand or appreciate the conscience which, while it could tolerate the support of denominationalism out of the taxes, revolted actively against the endowment of that denominationalism out of the rates. He thought that that was a very unfair criticism of the Nonconformist position. Those who knew the history of this question knew that the Nonconformists from the start refused to accept the compromise of 1870 and that one of the things which led to the defeat of the Gladstone Government in 1874 was the defection of the Nonconformists. The compromise of 1870 was entered into without their consent and against their protests. Whereas in 1870 for every penny the voluntary schools received out of public funds another penny was contributed by the denominationalists, by 1902 the compromise was so whittled down that the proportion of voluntary contributions to State aid stood at 2d. to every shilling. Noncon-
1740
formists had no opportunity of making their protest except at the polls, and immediately the Act of 1902 gave an opportunity they did protest more than vocally and in such a way that they refused the payment of the rates until the leaders of the Opposition were at last convinced that there was a strong Nonconformist opposition to the Act of 1902. Neither was it fair to say that Cowper-Temple teaching meant Nonconformity. He should have thought that anyone that knew anything about Nonconformity knew that Nonconformist doctrine transcended the syllabus of the London School Board. He instanced the case of the Baptist denomination. The one point of doctrine of that denomination which differentiated it from others was the doctrine of adult baptism by immersion. But that was a doctrine that could not be taught under the Cowper-Temple Clause. It was absurd and unjust to say that all that Nonconformists wanted was provided for them in the Cowper-Temple Clause. He admitted that during the last thirty-eight years since the great debates in 1870 the position of the Nonconformists had greatly changed, and that their attitude towards State teaching of religion had undergone a revolutionary and disastrous alteration. In those days the cardinal principle of Nonconformists was that no religious teaching should be paid for out of public money or be recognised by the State. Such teaching had to be by voluntary effort alone. From that position they had been lured or driven, step by step, for the sake of peace, until they accepted, at first reluctantly, but with increasing conviction as time went on, that what was called simple Bible teaching should be given in the State schools by State paid teachers. Nonconformists must bitterly regret that now, because ever since they departed from the standpoint of their predecessors they had never ceased to be taunted with having sold their principles. The consequence was that the solution of this difficulty became much more difficult and complicated than it otherwise would have been. What was the grievance left to the Nonconformists in urban areas where there was a choice of schools? So far as he could see the only grievance that now existed was that denominational teaching was paid

1741
for out of public money and taught by State-paid teachers who had to submit to tests. It was almost impossible to reconcile the position of the Nonconformists who believed in and advocated Cowper-Temple instruction in schools by State-paid teachers to children compelled by the State to attend, with their being opposed to denominational teaching in an Anglican school. So long as Nonconformists agreed with Cowper-Temple teaching in the schools of this country they could not refuse to the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches the right that their religion should be taught at public expense by State-paid teachers. They objected to dogmatic teaching, but every article in the Christian faith was a dogma. The first words of the Lord's Prayer were a dogma which could not be accepted by those who did not believe in the Christian faith. The answer to the statement that the Cowper-Temple syllabus provided the fundamental teaching of Christianity was that that was not the case, as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had said. Cowper-Temple teaching was something quite inconsistent with the religion of the Roman Catholics, and was repugnant to that religion; it was a new religion quite distinct from that taught in the Roman Catholic schools. The attitude of the Nonconformists in this matter was not a reasonable attitude. So long as there were members of great religious communities in this country who said they could not accept Cowper-Temple teaching as an essential part of their religious teaching, by endowing Cowper-Temple teaching the State was endowing a religion with which these people were at variance, and they had a right to say: "You have endowed a religion which is not Nonconformist, but which is not consistent with that religion, and therefore you must endow our form of religion in the same way." The conclusion he would like the House to arrive at was that come to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, whose absence from the House they deplored. The conclusion come to by the right hon. Gentleman, and that which he now respectfully urged on the House as the only way out of the difficulty, was that they should recognise that the State had nothing to do with religious teaching,
1742
and that State-paid teachers as such should not be required to teach religion of any kind, but that there should be a universal right of entry to the schools for all denominations. On those lines alone would it be found possible to arrive at anything like a permanent settlement of this question. There should only be one system of education, so far as secular education was concerned, and no religious tests for teachers, and, whatever religious teaching was to be given in the future should be given at the expense of the denomination who desired that teaching, but there should be universal right of entry into the schools for all denominations. He knew there were difficulties in the way of this, and whether the right of entry should be inside or outside school hours and whether a State-paid teacher appointed without religious tests was to be allowed to volunteer to impart religious instruction constituted the two great difficulties that had to be met. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham on both those points; he was of opinion that religious teaching should not be given in school hours. But if that were conceded, he did not see any great danger in allowing the teachers to volunteer to impart the instruction, because he could quite understand that by so doing, they would fasten themselves on the minds of the children far more than in any other way. If there were this overmastering desire on the part of the teachers to take part in the religious instruction of the children, then it was not too much to ask them to come half-an-hour before the school commenced in order to do so. There was an attempt in Wales a few years back to come to an agreement on this education question, and the Bishop of St. Asaph and the Chancellor of the Exchequer met and formed a real concordat, which was accepted by every one of the Welsh County Councils, which were composed of a vast majority of Nonconformists, and the most influential laymen throughout Wales. The religious teaching was given at nine o'clock in the morning, whereas the school hour commenced at 9.45. The teacher during the three quarters of an hour was allowed to volunteer to give religious teaching. That, of course,

1743
meant that there would be the right of entry for every denominationalist, not only to Church but also to board schools. There was that concession made to the Church in return for the concession they made. It was a real concordat. He was sorry, therefore, that through circumstances which he need not relate to the House that concordat was not put into operation. The fault was neither that of the Eishop of St. Asaph nor that of his right hon. friend. If it had been put into operation, they would have had a very valuable object-lesson in the ease and facility with which the question, which had been unnecessarily invested with difficulties, could be solved by the exercise of a little commonsense and a sense of fair play.
LORD EDMUND TALBOT: If the hon. Member who has just sat down will allow me, I should like at once to recognise the very liberal tone of his speech, and to thank him—firstly as a Catholic—for the very kind words he used in reference to my own persuasion. I cannot agree with the suggestion he made that this controversy should be settled by religious instruction being given outside school hours, but I none the less appreciate the kind tone of his remarks. But it is remarkable that every speaker who has yet spoken from the Government side of the House, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, while expressing willingness to vote for the Second Reading, has remonstrated, and remonstrated strongly, about the terms of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—I think I am not unfairly criticising the whole of his speech—spoke not on the merits of the Bill before us at all. I should like to call attention to one point which I do not think has yet received much attention, and that is that this Bill entirely repeals the Free Education Act of 1891, and I think it is somewhat startling that the Government—the Liberal Government of to-day—should destroy that great charter of free education to the poorer classes of the country. It is, of course, true that under this Bill free education can still be obtained for those—but for those only—whose parents are content with the establishment in
1744
this country of one religious form of education. I speak with some feeling on this point, because, when the Free Education Act of 1891 was passing through this House, it was argued in favour of its passage, and from both sides of the House, that those who would benefit most by its, becoming law were my own co-religionists, the Catholics of this country. Now in this Bill that grant of free education is repealed, and my co-religionists in place of it are told that they may pay fees, while at the same time they have to pay their share of the rates for schools to which they cannot send their children. Whether that was intentional or unintentional, I do not know, but I must, on behalf of my co-religionists, say that in my humble opinion that is nothing less than an insult to the poorest of the Catholics in this country. It is not necessary for me to go into the question of the insufficiency of the 47s. grant, in reference to the contracting-out scheme. That has been dealt with by the hon. Member for Waterford, and I hope by this time it is conclusive to the Government, and to hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, that this scheme, whether or not it was intended especially and alone for my co-religionists, is absolutely impossible, and one which under no circumstances whatever can we possibly accept. I do not really understand—considering the speeches we have heard, and what we know to be the feeling outside in reference to this question—from what motives the Government have brought forward the Second Reading. It is palpable and evident that this Bill cannot pass even if forced through this House. And even if it became law, it could no be worked and would not be worked. Certainly, so far as children of my co-religionists are concerned, their parents will not pay the rates for schools to which they cannot send their children, and at the same time pay fees to the schools to which they can send them. To prophesy, I know, is dangerous, but I think on this occasion it is safe to prophesy that this Bill will certainly not become the law of the land.
*MR. PICKERSGILLsaid the Bill might be regarded

1745
from two points of view. It might be regarded, as the hon. Member for Louth a little while ago regarded it, from the point of view of the single school districts, or it might be regarded from the point of view of the urban areas. As a London Member, he desired to regard it from the latter point of view. He did not propose, therefore, to traverse the whole field of the Bill, but to limit his remarks to one portion of it, viz., the provisions regarding contracting-out. From the point of view of educationists, contracting-out was absolutely bad and reactionary. He never thought that the Liberal Party, when the community had once acquired control over the schools, although it was true that that control was partial and incomplete, would go back upon that principle. It always seemed to him that the natural and almost inevitable course of development would be in the direction of complete control of the schools. It was that belief which reconciled him in some degree to the Act of 1902, because it seemed to him to be a kind of halfway house. He was sorry, therefore, that now, instead of going forward to get a complete and absolute control—popular control—this Bill contained provisions for exempting an indefinite number of schools from the control which they already possessed. Let them consider what contracting-out meant from the practical and administrative point of view. It was becoming more and more the tendency not to treat a school as a separate and independent unit, but to group schools together for various purposes. It was becoming quite common, for instance, to send a teacher round to a group of schools to give special instruction. It was obvious that under these circumstances the contracted-out schools would be deprived of that advantage. Again, there were laundry and domestic training centres, manual training schools, and similar institutions under common management; and there were the questions of the feeding of school children and medical inspection. In all these respects the contracted-out schools would be at a very serious disadvantage. Then, from the financial point of view, if these proposals were to take effect, the ante-1902 position would be repeated. The strain would again become intolerable. It was
1746
true they were proposing to increase the Government grant by some 5s. or 6s., but having regard to the increased cost of all the old services of the schools which were in existence before 1902, and having regard also to the fact that they had imposed upon the schools new services, the deficiency to be supplied from voluntary sources would certainly not be less than it was before 1902 if the contracted-out schools were to be kept up to the level of the public elementary schools. It was now suggested that they were providing safeguards in this Bill for maintaining the efficiency of the contracted-out schools, but those safeguards would prove absolutely illusory. Everyone who was acquainted with the history of the subject knew that in practice before 1902 there were two standards, one applied to the rate-aided schools and another and lower standard applied to the voluntary schools. Under a contracting-out system, they would inevitably revive those two standards. London had always been unjustly treated in regard to the amount of Imperial grants which it had obtained. At present the Government grants which London received were only 29 per cent. of the total expenditure whereas the Government grants which the county boroughs received to aid the education rate were over 53 per cent., and under the proposed redistribution of grants London would only receive 36 per cent. of its total expenditure. In fact, London was harder hit by the imposition of the 6s. limit than any other part of the country, and he strongly pressed upon the Government that in justice to London that 6s. limit ought not to be applied to the case of the Metropolis. But his more immediate purpose was to point out the effect of the proposed redistribution of the grant upon voluntary schools in London. It would be absolutely impossible to maintain the contracted-out schools in London on a level of efficiency with the public elementary schools. The London County Council spent on voluntary schools £3 16s. 8d. per child, and that was entirely independent of administration expenses. If they added, say, 5s. a child, which was a very moderate estimate, for the upkeep of the buildings, they arrived at a sum of at least £4 per child for the maintenance of the voluntary schools.

1747
At most the Government grant would be 47s. per child, and there was no security that it would be at that level. Thus a sum of about 34s. per child would have to be supplied from voluntary sources to maintain the schools even at their present rate of expenditure. But the present rate was considerably less than the expenditure upon the provided school. The staffing and the salaries of the non-provided schools were being gradually raised to the level of the provided schools, and therefore, the present expenditure upon the voluntary schools would have to be considerably increased if their efficiency in respect of staff, both as regarded quality and number, were to be kept upon the same level with the provided schools. He deprecated contracting-out altogether, but if they were to have contracting-out he put in a claim on behalf of London, and having regard to its particular circumstances it would be only fair that London should have special treatment.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid the main feeling that a very large number of Members must have had on hearing the First Lord of the Admiralty was one of profound disappointment, because whatever their ideas on the subject of the Bill might be, at any rate they had come to the House with full impression that they were going to learn something they did not know before. They thought they were going to realise what the proposals of the Government were to be after the curious oscillations of policy of the past month, but the speech told them absolutely nothing. To allude to an extremely old story, the speech of the First Lord reminded him of the famous American politician, who said: "These are my principles. If you don't like them I will change them." What he actually said was that he would not recommend the Bill on its merits, but mainly on the ground that it would be of an absolutely different character, that safeguards would be introduced; he recommended it, not because of what it was, but because of what he hoped to make it. Under the circumstances it would have been fairer to the House and certainly more satisfactory to his own
1748
party, and more likely to conduce to the success of the Bill if he had given some indication of what the Bill was going to be, instead of this apparently rather disreputable shadow which he declined to bless even in the most modified form. It was to his mind typical of a sort of funeral oration on a rather disreputable relative in which the orator wished to make the most of the best points he could find, but could find very few. The impression left on his mind was that the right hon. Gentleman, fully conscious, as indeed he might well be, owing to the criticisms which had come from his own side, of the defects of the Bill, was only anxious to try and gloss them over in the hope that during the course of the next few weeks some bit of good luck might so transform the Bill that it might pass the House in a different form. It was absolutely useless to wave the secular bogey. The people of this country would never tolerate the secular solution, and the argument was absolutely futile. That was the strength of their position. If the solution of the Government failed, as it was inevitably bound to fail—as it was admitted it would—they would have to come back to their standard, which was to provide fair play for all denominations, and equal and fair treatment without unduly favouring one or the other. The characteristics of the people of this country had always been their strong feeling of justice and desire for fair play, especially to minorities—an almost sentimental desire which had often led them into making great mistakes. It would eventually secure the solution that they all desired, and the absolute failure of the Government proposals. It was perfectly impossible that any Bill conceived in the spirit in which this had been could ever hope to pass through the House of Commons, and if it did it was impossible that it could ever be worked in the country. The right hon. Gentleman made a most amazing statement when he said the Bill introduced by the Bishop of St. Asaph's was to all intents and purposes the same as the Bill of the Government. He had deliberately left out two or three of the most important differences. He had made no allusion to teachers being allowed to give religious instruction, or to the right of entry into council schools, or

1749
to the giving of denominational teaching in schools hours. These were three points of essential difference, and there were many others. The argument that, because a certain but very much misguided favour was accorded to the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill, the whole of the party which opposed the Government were committed to the Government Bill was absolutely absurd and was not likely to commend itself to anyone who had studied the question. The right hon. Gentleman had given a caricature of the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill, and when the Bishop read it he would begin to see ever more than he did now what a great mistake he had made in delivering himself into the hands of the enemy, and proposing a compromise of which he could not have thought out the full purport and meaning. They were in a great difficulty, he admitted, owing to the absolute impossibility of discussing, not the Bill as they had it, but the Bill with the shadowy gloss which the First Lord had endeavoured to place upon it. It seemed to him that he had put his successor in an extremely difficult position by the speech he had made. He would be extremely sorry if he were the President of the Board of Education to have to carry out legislation on the lines which had been laid down. He believed that, particularly in rural districts, there were two main points on which the last general election turned. They were the questions of whether the education rate was to be maintained, and there was a strong grievance against it as being a new payment which they had not had to make before, and among a certain section there was a feeling of grievance. The Liberal Party denounced the education rate on the ground of its being sectarian and unfair. A large portion of the rural ratepayers took that to mean that the Liberal Government would reduce or abolish it. In the same way a certain number voted on the question of the religious grievance and religious freedom as they called it. But the Government in the two main Bills which they had brought forward had deliberately broken both these implied pledges. They had largely increased the possibility of the education rates going up and had made the religious question infinitely more difficult. In rural districts where there was a
1750
large urban population they were suffering under a very great grievance. In the village where he lived they were paying over £100 a year over and above what the school cost to maintain, and in excess of the benefit they actually got for elementary education. That was due to the fact that the school board debts which were almost entirely incurred by urban districts had been put on the country rate instead of on the district rate, and also owing to the extravagant administration in urban districts. It was obvious that in rural districts where they were not so much needed as in urban districts the rates would be very much higher. In the West Riding of Yorkshire there was 85,000 surplus places in the elementary schools over and above the number of children on the register. It was said that this was due to the shifting of the population, but even if that were so it would be in the urban districts where the increase was likely to take place, and they would suffer from an increase of rates in the rural districts. Therefore he was justified in saying that, despite the larger grants to education, as far as the rates were concerned, the rural districts would be in an infinitely worse position than in former years. As regarded the religious grievance, that was patent to everybody, and the Bill which the Chief Secretary for Ireland introduced was very much fairer than the present measure. In the West Riding of Yorkshire it was said there were 1,100 children who required accommodation on account of this religious grievance, but even that number was arrived at by exaggeration. In one village the parents of eighty children asked for a provided school where there was only a Church of England school, but those eighty children were put down as 150; and if that proportion had been observed all through it was obvious that the total would be less than 1,100. That proved how shadowy this alleged grievance was. In his own district there had been no serious religious difficulty, and he did not think it was ever likely to arise. In the Bill of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, although he took away their schools to be maintained during school hours they had the full right of using the schools out of

1751
school hours, but that was now to be taken away from them. In this Bill the Agnostic, the Liberationist, and anyone who objected to the doctrines of the Church of England were all treated on the same lines. The clergyman would have to pay a rent in order to hold a meeting in a voluntary school, and that was not the case under the previous Bill. The Chief Secretary also gave facilities for religious teaching out of the regular hours of school teaching. He thought, at any rate, that he was on firm ground in saying that under this Bill they had very much worse terms than under the Bill of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. A great deal had been said about compromise. If they had been told the basis of the compromise it would have been easier to arrive at a decision before the debate came to a conclusion. The cry for peace and compromise was a dangerous one in many ways. It was at such a time very often that the most vital principles were given away, and the greatest mistakes made. He did not believe that any solution arrived at by such means would be satisfactory or permanent. He did not believe in peace at any price, nor in terms in which one side gave everything and the other side took all. He thought it was extraordinarily bad tactics on the part of his own side to begin to offer terms now, the Government having got themselves into an impasse, and being able only to threaten them with the secular solution. The President of the Board of Education seemed to treat that statement as a joke. The Government had introduced this Bill and they had not even told the House what the nature of the compromise was to be. The people of this country would never accept the secular solution, and the Government could not go any further without penalising the Catholic schools. Consequently, they were bound to come back to the position of giving fair play to all denominations. The policy of bullying was never likely to succeed, and it was less likely to succeed now than ever it was. The strength of the Opposition had considerably increased in the constituencies, largely owing to the Government's education proposals. Every day there was a feeling growing that this question must be settled, not on a secular basis,
1752
but on the basis of fair play, compromise, and justice to all concerned. He did not believe that this measure was ever intended to pass; it was more or less of a sham adopted to get the opinions of the various sections of the House in order to steer a middle and safer course. Whatever decision the House came to in regard to this measure the only basis upon which the question could be finally and firmly settled was one of fair play and justice to all parties. They had had a great trust handed down to them and they should not throw it away lightly or without due consideration. The Government should recognise that conscience was not all on one side, and they could not expect them to rest content under an even greater grievance by giving up their principles and betraying the trust which had been handed down to them.
*MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid that the Labour Party was going to support the Second Reading of the Bill. The two points which commended themselves most of all to the party were the increased Government grant of 47s. to the local education authorities and the clause dealing with the single school areas. Under this clause parents might say: "We do not desire Cowper-Temple teaching," for the assumption was made by the Government that Cowper-Temple teaching was regarded as being denominationalism by a considerable section of the parents. In the transference of the schools, therefore, they might make provision for denominational instruction outside school hours. The parent who viewed Cowper-Temple teaching as denominationalism sent his child to receive secular education at a public school which might be used for the purpose of denominational education to be given by other than school teachers out of school hours. If that was a satisfactory compromise, it was based on a secular solution, and he was prepared to accept it. Right of entry outside school hours with the whole of the national system based on secular instruction, would be perfectly satisfactory. He would also vote for the Bill for a general reason. The Unionist Party when they were in a majority in the House did not show that love of justice and fair play so much spoken about in the debate.

1753
They made a mistake in 1902 when they were in a position to show that they did love justice and fair play as far as the Nonconformists were concerned. Every one admitted that the conditions created by the Act of 1902 needed to be readjusted. It did not matter whether they agreed with passive resisters or not, but they must admit that there was such a thing as passive resistance. The position of the passive resister was, from his own point of view, at any rate, a very reasonable one, and it was the duty of this House to make such an alteration in the educational law of the land as would make passive resistance, if it was to be carried on at all, absolutely irrational. But he could only describe the present debate as one of confusion. What were they really discussing? Nominally the House was discussing that evening the Second Reading of the Bill, but the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty was, in effect, a throwing-over of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman had nothing to say for his Bill. He was not at all surprised at the adverse criticism which had been so plentiful during the afternoon from the other side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman himself had begun it. All he said was—
"I produce this Bill; whether I stick to it or not is another matter; if I can come to an arrangement on this Bill with the Bishop of St. Asaph or the Archbishop of Canterbury, within certain wide limits, then I am prepared to produce a Bill new in lock, stock, and barrel."
Personally he was not opposed to that method of procedure; indeed he thought that the Government would have been wise had they adopted it in 1906. He was surprised to find that the Unionists thought the Bill of 1906 such a blessed measure. He never knew that they loved the Bill so much until he heard them professing a posthumous affection for it that afternoon. That, at any rate, was a cue to the Government. If the Government were to enter into a conference—which he hoped might be successful—would they revive the Bill of 1906 and propose to come to an arrangement with the other side by reintroducing the four-fifths clause? Would they consult the hon. Member for the Barkston Ash division as to the parts of the Bill of 1906 which he had been blessing in such unmeasured terms this evening?
MR. LANE-FOX: What I said was that this Bill is worse than that of 1906, bad as it was.
*MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDdid not think it would be profitable to discusgss the actual words employed by the hon. Gentleman. He was bound to say the expressions used by the hon. Gentleman in his speech seemed to him to be infinitely more lavish in praise of the Bill of 1906 than the words he now used. Was the conference into which the Government was about to enter to be a religious or a political one? Was it going to be a conference, the result of which the Government would accept as satisfactory if it came to an arrangement merely with the Archbishop and the Bishop of St. Asaph, or would the success of the conference be measured by how far the Government was able to secure the assent of the Opposition to the new form of the Bill? He thought the House ought to have some information as to what the scope of the conference would be. Who was going to be at the conference? Were the representatives of the Government and of the Established Church alone to be at the conference, or was it going to be also attended by the hon. Member for the Louth Division? Was it going to be attended by political representatives? Was the Front Opposition Bench to nominate a representative, or was the House itself to be at the conference at all? It was true the Government could come to an arrangement with the Archbishop and then put on their Whips to carry the arrangement through the House by a majority. But he would point out that the Trade Union Congress, the Labour Party Conferences, and Labour organisations of all kinds had shown a burning desire to settle this question and had instructed every Labour Member to adopt a certain policy. If the conference was going to result in something that would be carried by the House practically by consent, surely the opinions of the great organised labour movement of the country must be consulted and allowed to voice themselves at the conference just as much as the representatives of the Church of England. They were particularly interested in the controversy as their people were vitally interested in the

1755
educational efficiency of the public elementary schools. They were specially interested because if the Bill emerged from the conference in a new form they would have less power than they usually had in Committee to make changes in the Bill, since it would then be no longer the proposal of the Government subject to modifications, but it would be a Bill which was the subject of previous agreement, and no alteration could be accepted by the Government outside the scope of that agreement. Therefore, it was necessary that all parties should be represented at the conference. The religious difficulty, unfortunately, was the main cause of trouble in this matter. They might talk about education, but they knew that, at the back of their minds, was sectarian strife. It was a historical inheritance, and they had to make the best of it. He begged the Government not to talk of Cowper-Templeism as a weapon against denominationalism He himself might be prepared to accept it as undenominational, but then he must not be asked to send his child to be taught in school the spiritual grace and beauty of the Gospel of St. John by a man who had not passed a religious test. If they were going to teach the most fundamental rudiments of religious ethics, provided that they went beyond the ethical border into the domain of religion, the man who taught them ought to be just as subject to a religious test as the man who taught the dogmas and tenets of Roman Catholicism. He thought the Government would have been wise to have faced an educational propaganda in the country for a unified national system upon secular lines, allowing denominationalists to come in before or after school hours. This Bill did not affect Roman Catholic schools; they would have to be dealt with separately. He would suggest that a solution or a semi-solution might have been grafted on to the four-fifths clause. They had sacrificed the denominational claim, but only by a method of jumping out of the frying-pan of 1902 into the fire of 1870. He supposed the day would come—he hoped it was far off—when hon. Gentlemen sitting above the gangway would be able to get a majority from the country, and the
1756
educational history of 1902 might be repeated. They were only playing a game of battledore and shuttlecock, and not presenting a solution of the religious difficulty. The Labour Party were strongly, definitely, and decisively committed against the contracting-out system. They did not believe in it, and they would not accept it. They would divide the House, in and out of Committee, every possible time against contracting-out, because they did not believe that any contracting-out system would be effective; but, as compromise was in the air, if contracting-out was to be forced upon them against their hopes, might he suggest that the Government should protect them against its worst evils? Everybody who had been a member or a manager of a school board, or education authority, knew the truth of the admission made by the Minister of Education himself which had been read by the hon. Member for Waterford, that they could not keep up the efficiency of the contracted-out schools merely by sending to them Whitehall inspectors. These could not bring the same pressure to bear on contracted-out schools as on ordinary public schools. That being so, and one of the causes of the inefficiency of the contracted-out schools being the low salaries paid to the teachers, would not the Government insist on adequate salaries being paid to them? Would they not rigidly insist upon a standard of efficiency for all teachers in recognised schools, and upon efficient apparatus being used in those schools? The result would be that instead of a grant of 47s. it would become more like 57s. Forty-seven shillings was a purely hypothetical figure, and had no relation to the needs of the school. It would not keep them up to their present standard, for, as soon as they were contracted-out, down would go the standard, and the gain in improvement made in the last ten years would be lost. He, therefore, begged the Government, if they did not stand out against contracting-out, to protect the children by seeing that the contracted-out schools were kept up to the efficient standard by giving them out of the national purse a sufficient sum to enable them to keep up to the standard. Another point which had been brought home to him very forcibly by a deputation

1757
from certain denominational teachers the other day. They said that they were prepared to accept lower salaries, to teach larger classes, to sacrifice flesh and blood to carry out their principles; but that the greatest grievance they would have to suffer if the Bill passed in its present form would be that they would have to go back under clerical domination. Therefore, would the right hon. Gentleman give security to those teachers and put them on a minimum wage, and supplement that by granting them absolute security of tenure even if contracted-out? If the right hon. Gentleman would thus temper the wind to the shorn lamb, the lamb would still object to being shorn, but would be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman all the same if he accepted the suggestion now made. The point the Labour Party felt most upon was contracting-out. They were going to hold to the secular solution. The right hon. Gentleman might say it was impracticable and would not be accepted by the people. He was not quite so sure of that. The country was much more intelligent than a great many imagined it was, and he was certain that it was thoroughly sick of the un-Christian and disgraceful squabble which had so retarded our educational progress during the last century. Some people talked about tariff reform to protect us against the Germans, but there would be more sound reason in the argument that a settlement of the religious difficulties and the securing of real educational progress would do more to protect us against the Germans. His party were not going to accept contracting-out, but if it was going to be forced upon them he asked the Government to realise that it would settle nothing at all, unless at the same time they secured efficiency in the contracted-out schools, so that their children should not suffer and the denominationalist might not feel so aggrieved as he was bound to feel in its present form.
*MR. TALBOTcongratulated the hon. Gentleman on his very interesting speech. They always listened to him with pleasure. Of course the hon. Gentleman would not expect him to agree with his solution, though he did agree with many things he had said. He did not agree that the solution
1758
of this matter would be the secular solution, because he thought that the intelligence of the country was rising, and that the people were more sensible and took a wider view of these things than they used to do. It could not be denied by anyone who watched the present condition of things that the secular solution would never commend itself to the bulk of the people of this country. [An HON MEMBER below the gangway: No.] The hon. Gentleman said "No"; he represented a large number of the working classes of the highest intelligence in this country, but there were a large number of the working-classes whose sentiments were not those of the Labour Members, and he thought that the hon. Member would find when there came to be a real conflict over this question between the religious and secular solution, that it would not be the secular solution that would prevail. However, he might be wrong, and the hon. Gentleman might be right. He cordially agreed with the hon. Gentleman in his repudiation of contracting-out. Of all the miserable expedients which had been suggested for the settlement of the education question, that of putting a certain number of schools, whose managers and supporters happened to differ from other people in the country in their religious views, on a lower educational basis was the most miserable. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman would accept his support, he would be very glad to go into the lobby with him on any Amendment which would destroy the contracting-out clause. As to the Bill itself, he had had the honour of a seat in the House for a very great number of years, and had heard a large number of Bills of various kinds introduced and speeches delivered in their favour, but he had never heard so unsatisfactory a statement on behalf of a Government Bill from the representative of any Government as he had heard that day. The right hon. Gentleman was a very able man and could speak very well, but he had unfortunately had a task put before him which it was absolutely impossible to fulfil, for he was moving the Second Reading of a Bill which was not intended to pass. Whoever heard of that before? There was a Government, with the greatest majority

1759
ever known, proposing a Bill on a cardinal matter of policy which was to be sent to the other side of the House and they were to propose the Amendments. This was a Government with an enormous majority, and when it came to one of their great Bills, one of the great planks in their platform, they proposed the Second Reading of a Bill which the Opposition was to amend for them. If that was all the strongest Liberal Government could do all he could say was: "Save us from a strong Liberal Government." It was said by the right hon. Gentleman that there was no change in the policy of the Government, whilst at the same time they were told that they were in accord with another Bill of a different character. The right hon. Gentleman said, as he understood, that he was delighted with a Bill brought in by a Bishop in another place; that the Government Bill was the same as that of the Bishop; that the Bishop's Bill followed that of the Government; that its first clause was copied from that of the Government. So that what the House was really asked to do was not to support a Bill brought in by the Government, but one that had been introduced by a Bishop in another place, which the Government were going to take up, and which the right hon. Gentleman said contained the two great principles of public control and no religious tests for teachers. Public control they had always had. Public control meant that the State took care that the schools were administered in the way the State laid down as the proper means of educating the children of the country. That was already done by the attendance of His Majesty's inspectors, but what he supposed hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite meant was that the managers ought to be elected by some local body. Whether that would contribute to educational efficiency he took leave to doubt. With regard to religious tests for teachers, the hon. Member for Leicester had said that if religious instruction was given at all in a school outside school hours it ought to be given by a person who was convinced of its truth. He was very much struck with that remark. He could not understand this phrase, "No religious tests for teachers" so often repeated by hon. Gentlemen opposite
1760
that they had almost come to believe in it themselves. Before teachers taught, surely they should be tested as to whether they believed that which they were teaching. Hon. Members were led astray by this phrase. Everybody who undertook a public or private duty had to be tested. It could be no hardship to a cook that she should be tested as to whether she could cook, and therefore a teacher must be tested as to what he could teach. That was admitted so far as secular education was concerned, because the teachers were compelled to pass several examinations. But for the highest teaching, religious teaching, for that and that only, they were not to be allowed to have any tests. Who could possibly object to a person called upon to give religious teaching being a religious person, being tested as to whether he believed the teaching which he was called upon to give? That was all that was asked for. He objected quite as strongly as did the hon. Member for Leicester to contracting-out. We were acting under a law, which, though not perfect, with certain modifications worked extremely well. He was one of those who cordially supported the plan of giving facilities for Nonconformist teaching in single school areas or wherever Nonconformity pressed for them. That plan was not accepted at the time it was suggested, although it was possible of course that an arrangement of that kind might be made now. All he desired to say upon that question was that as a Member of the Opposition he declined to take the work of the Government into his hands. The position of himself and those who were acting with him was that they had one Act of Parliament which had worked for six years, and with which they were satisfied; the Government were not satisfied with it, and it was for the Government to show how they wished it to be amended. Then the Opposition would meet them and assist them, if possible, to settle these points. They had heard of a conference. If such a thing were to take place all parties alike would have to be represented. He was not sanguine that such a conference would take place before these debates closed, but, whether it met or not, of one thing he was certain, and that was that this educational difficulty would never be settled until

1761
it was recognised by those who attempted to settle it that the claims of conscience must be dealt with equally by all who had religious convictions. They had been accused of not having recognised sufficiently the Nonconformist grievance of former days, and of having trampled on Nonconformist consciences. Even supposing that that were true, and he would be sorry to have any share in such an offence, surely it was a wrong way to remedy a grievance which was acknowledged by imposing another grievance on another set of people. That was the cardinal vice of all these educational propositions of the present Government. They had ignored the fact brought home by the hon. Gentleman who had delighted the House by his maiden speech, and had forgotten that the Church of England had as deep religious convictions as the Roman Catholics, the Jews, the Nonconformists, and other religious-bodies. Until that was recognised this controversy would never be settled. In order to meet the demands of the Board of Education, large sums of money had been contributed by members of the Church of England for the repair, renovation, and in some cases, the rebuilding of schools, on the faith that when those schools were put in order they would be maintained in the same way as other schools. The proposition now was to take them away from the denomination which built them, in order that they might be made the property of the county councils and used as provided schools. Was it possible to settle the difficulty in this way? He had racked his brain to find out how it was that men who were moral, honest, and just could have come to this conclusion. Some of them, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, took the extreme Nonconformist view and thought they could advance their cause in this way. It was a measure which absolutely ignored the elementary rights of at any rate one of the most important denominations of the country. He did not know whether it was a fortune or a misfortune; but, because the Church of England was an Established Church, was it to have no rights at all? If their consciences were not to be respected more than those of any other people, they ought to be respected as much. It should be
1762
remembered that it was the Church in the past which only provided for the elementary education of the people; and the reward Parliament was now asked to give to that body was to take away the schools she had built and maintained for all those years. Was that treatment which any fair body of men would mete out to those who had served the State as he claimed the Church had served it? He could assure the House and right hon. Gentleman opposite that if they wanted to settle this question, they must in the first place and from every point of view regard the religious convictions even of those most opposed to them as of equal value with their own. Whether they were to have a rearrangement or not, nothing could be a suitable or permanent settlement of the question which did not take that into account.
*MR. NAPIERsaid he rose to support the Bill, not because he felt any great affection for it, and not because he liked it as well as the Bill of 1906, but because he believed it would create some improvement upon the existing condition of things. It seemed to be rather a severe attempt to translate into law principles which he believed the country decided at the general election of 1906, and to which he believed the country still adhered. He was greatly pleased to find that the First Lord of the Admiralty delivered a most conciliatory speech in moving the Second Reading. He was induced by that speech to hope that the severity of the letter of the Bill would give place to a spirit of sweet reasonableness on the part of the Government in dealing with it, and that that spirit would spread across the floor of the House so that they might be able in Committee to elaborate a compromise which, if not satisfactory to everybody, would at all events meet with the general approval of reasonable men on both sides of the House. Did the elements of a compromise exist? It was useless to talk about compromise unless the elements did exist. The principles embodied in the Chief Secretary's Bill of 1906 had often been referred to. They were: Complete public control, abolition of tests for teachers, and

1763
he thought he might also say, the establishment of the rule that public money should not be devoted to denominational teaching. Those were also, he thought, the principles decided upon by the country at the general election. He asked himself whether those principles, which were accepted by all Members on that side of the House, were not accepted to a great extent by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. They might not be accepted precisely in the same manner as they on that side accepted them, and, if hon. Gentlemen opposite had to draw up a Bill, it would probably not be the Bill as drawn by the Liberal Government; but still he ventured to submit that as a matter of fact a substantial agreement existed between the two sides of the House upon the principles to which he had referred. One need not go into the history of the question of complete public control. The fact that the Act of 1902 was believed by many hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House to embody, though not properly or fully, the principle of public control, that the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill had a very large backing by the Church of England and was supported to some considerable extent on the opposite side of the House, and the declarations of the Archbishop of Canterbury that he was willing to acknowledge the system of public control—all pointed to, the fact that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House would accept the principle provided only they could obtain securities that it should not be used to the detriment of the denominational teaching to which they attached themselves. He did not gather that the principle that there should be no tests for teachers was repudiated by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. He thought they with them believed that the teaching profession was after all a branch of the Civil Service, and that the members of it should be entitled to the benefit of the same rule as other members of the Civil Service. They said, however, that they were entitled to have some security that the teachers should be able to teach that which they professed to be able to teach. No one, he believed, had ever disputed that proposition. They believed, as hon. Gentlemen opposite
1764
believed, that they had no right to set a teacher to give either Cowper-Temple or denominational instruction unless they had security that he knew his subject and was able to impart it to his pupils. That, however, was a vastly different thing from inquiry into the personal belief of the teacher. They must trust the elementary teachers of the country, just as they trusted the masters of the great public schools of the country, not to play the hypocrite in relation to the religious teaching. They had no right to test a man's personal belief. It was a thing of the spirit and conscience and could not be satisfactorily subjected to any such tests. The Church of England said that they did not object to their money being devoted to the teaching of Wesleyan, Congregational, or Primitive Methodist forms of Christianity, but if those denominations felt that they could not conscientiously vote public money for the purpose of teaching the form of religious belief held by the Church of England, then he believd the Church of England were willing to consent to a rule that no public money should be given for the purpose of denominational teaching. If Church people could not make a sacrifice for peace by consenting to pay for the teaching of their own religion, he thought they did not rightly interpret the meaning of their religion. If these three points were conceded, points which formed, he thought, the verdict of the general election, then they had made some progress toward a settlement. All three points were comprised in the Bill. But there were two other principles on which, unless they could come to some agreement, they would not arrive at a settlement, and to which the people of the country attached very considerable importance. One was that they wished in any national settlement that there should be adequate security against secularism. He did not believe for a moment, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester, that within any measurable Period this country would decide in favour of a secular system. In that House they might be wearied of the discussion of the religious question in relation to education. People who attended Church congresses and Nonconformist conferences and gatherings of that kind were no

1765
doubt weary of the subject by this time, and perhaps if left to themselves would turn to the secular solution. But the great mass of the people of the country were not sickened with education debates as they were. In his view, if any responsible statesman were to propose a secular solution, the country would give the unmistakeable answer that it would have none of it. The second thing which they would have to provide in any settlement which they might hope would be adopted, was that there should be proper facilities for denominational teaching. He had often wondered whether the demand for denominational teaching was as great as was represented, and he doubted if it was. He doubted whether there was any very large number of people who really did want it. He thought the Bishop of Birmingham was probably correct when he said that his view of the general establishment of Cowper-Temple teaching was that people would not avail themselves of facilities for denominational teaching for their children. But they had not exhausted the matter when they came to that conclusion. The point to which they should pay attention was that there was a very large number of people who did not themselves want denominational teaching for their own children, but who were strongly of opinion that for those who did want it there should be ample facilities. They were constantly told that Cowper-Temple teaching would satisfy members of the Church of England to a very great extent, and so he believed it would, but they were leaving out of consideration the important point that it would not satisfy those members of the Church of England who thought that those people who required denominational teaching should be able to have it. He felt he was very presumptuous, after so many persons of authority had spoken, in suggesting that the elements of a settlement existed, but he would not be doing his duty to the great cause of peace which he had much at heart unless he were to suggest what he thought were the outlines of a possible settlement. Assuming they had got these five things which it was necessary to satisfy in order to bring about educational peace—the three requisites upon which the general election was fought—
1766
public control, the abolition of tests for teachers, the establishment of the principle that public money should not be applied to denominational teaching; assuming also that the secular system was out of the question and that they had to satisfy this demand for denominational teaching—in what way was it possible to combine all these requisites in one system? They could not possibly establish a system of local option. He doubted whether the House would desire to do it. He thought they would all shrink very much indeed from the constant local conflicts about religion in connection with education which would follow upon the adoption of anything like a local option system. In his opinion the only way in which they could reconcile these five requisites, which in certain respects conflicted, was by establishing a national system of undenominational or fundamental Christianity which would be taught in completely publicly controlled schools at the expense of the State, supplemented by reasonable facilities for denominational teaching at the expense of the denominations in school hours. That was a logical system, complete undenominationalism as a State religion in education, complete and universal facilities for all denominations at the expense of the denomination and in school hours. Why national undenominationalism, he would be asked. Because it was necessary to guard the State against sectarianism. If they left religious teaching to be done only by the denominations there was very grave risk that in many parts of the country at various times they might be unable to get that religious teaching done. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham once pointed out how that system had failed in Birmingham. He believed that if they wished to ensure that there should be a religious system in the schools they would be bound to provide that it should be carried on at the expense of the State. He thought undenominationalism was not only necessary but advisable. In many parts of the country people would be perfectly willing to agree upon an undenominational syllabus, and if at the same time they gave facilities to the denominations, they would bring an additional lever or

1767
motive for driving the denominations to agree upon an undenominational syllabus which would be satisfactory to all of them. Probably on both sides of the House they were agreed that if they could get a common agreement upon religious subjects—if they could get the denominations to agree on a common order of teaching—it would be infinitely better for young children than to pen them in different rooms and to give different children different instruction in the various forms of Christianity for the different denominations. Then he would be asked, was it fair to pay for undenominational Christianity when they declined to pay for denominational Christianity? He thought it was fair. In the first place, they were admittedly adopting it as a security against secularism. It would be adopted by the nation as a whole, as the only possible form of Christianity which it was possible for the nation as a nation to teach in the schools. Therefore, he thought it would be fair that the nation should pay for it. In those cases where there was an agreement on a common syllabus, where the only form of religion taught was undenominational, it was clearly fair that it should be paid for by the State. He did not, however, for a moment admit, as had so often been stated, that undenominationalism was the religion of Nonconformity. All Nonconformists held specific doctrines which could not be taught under the ordinary Cowper-Temple teaching. It might be said with justice that Cowper-Temple religion was more agreeable to Nonconformists than to the majority of Churchmen, but even to that he could only give a very qualified assent. Cowper-Temple religion was the teaching of those root notions which lay at the root of all Nonconformity as well as Church doctrine. If he were asked whether simple Bible teaching led to dissent or not, he should say that it did not. They would probably be told that the local authorities would never consent to the right of entry being given into all the provided schools of the country. He would rather the right of entry were not given, but he did not believe that the local authorities would set themselves against anything which might possibly prove to be a settlement of this question. If this House should agree to a system
1768
under which there should be a general right of entry into provided schools he had little doubt that local authorities would approach it from the same point of view. He believed that, although this arrangement might interfere with administrative efficiency, the local authorities would agree to it because it was the only solution at the present moment that had any chance of being accepted. What could be more proper than that in the towns the Church of England should have the right of entry into all the schools, and in the country Nonconformists should be able to obtain the education that was acceptable to them? If by an alteration of the Cowper-Temple Clause they could provide that the Christian religion from the Bible should be taught in the provided schools, the Church of England would feel that there was much greater security that the doctrines of Christianity to which they attached importance would be taught, and in every part of the country the parents would have the choice between Cowper-Temple teaching and denominational instruction. He knew there were administrative difficulties in the way, but he thought the local authorities would be able to solve them. There were village schools in which there was only one schoolroom, but at the present time there were more classes in that schoolroom than one. Either by a shifting of the hours, by taking a room in some adjoining house, or by some other device the local authorities, when they were told that they had to solve the administrative difficulties would find some way of doing it. There was one question which he thought would be difficult of solution, and that was whether they would allow the teachers to give special denominational instruction in denominational schools. He would allow the teachers, other than the head teachers in village schools to give denominational instruction. Where it was impracticable for other persons to give the religious instruction he would consider its being given by the head teacher. If this solution were adopted the Nonconformists would obtain complete public control, all tests for teachers would be abolished, no public money would be given for denominational purposes, and the Nonconformist grievance would be redressed.

1769
Churchmen would get the right of entry into all the schools of the country, and there would be practical equality as between Nonconformity and the Church of England. He hoped that the issue of this debate might be that some practical arrangement would be entered into whereby this dispute which was doing so much injury to both religion and education might be brought to an end.
*MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he did not dispute the seriousness of the proposals of the hon. Member for Faversham in reference to compromise on this question, but they were somewhat lacking in actuality unless they heard the opinion of the Government in regard to them. If they were acepted, they would be worthy of serious consideration, but at present they had nothing but the Bill, and such light as they might derive from the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty. He did not think there ever was a Bill the substance of which afforded a greater contrast to the title. Its two great predecessors in 1870 and 1902, whatever their controversial provisions, were large constructive efforts. In the first case the need was to get children into school; and in the second case to co-ordinate and unify education, and to prevent the waste and overlapping that existed before 1902. There was no secular reason at all for this Bill. Indeed, there was a strong argument against it from the financial point of view. With the financial liabilities which the country had incurred for next year, the prospect of the Bill was alarming. In connection with old-age pensions they had to provide an extra £5,000,000; the Post Office service would require an addition of £250,000; the automatic increase in the Navy would take £750,000; and at the very least £3,000,000 more would be wanted for construction—and then on the top of all this £1,500,000 was to be the cost of this Bill. He presumed the object of the measure was to compose religious difficulties, for he could not suppose that any Government would foment them. But they deiberately gave a preference to undenominationalism, as to which he would only put one point. He instanced a village in
1770
which there could only be one school, and where one half of the children were Christian, and the other half Hebrew and in which they offered to teach both the Old Testament alone. What an absurdity that would be. Yet what was true in that case was equally true of schools where the children were of different denominations of Christians. The teacher would have to do one of two things. He would either have to teach some of the children doctrines which their parents did not want to be taught, or he would have to omit the teaching of doctrines which other parents considered essential parts of religious education. He objected entirely to the contracting-out proposals. He protested against the name contracting-out as a misnomer. There was no contract about it at all; there was a compulsory alternative. A contract was a free bargain. Not only was it no contract, but those who refused to take the maintenance offered in the Bill were to be put upon an inferior status. But what was more serious than the question of expense was that the schools were robbed of their statutory position and rights. At present schools which supplied the wants of the population had a right to maintenance by the local authority, but this Bill sought to strike that away. Even if they did not expect to vote the money, they would attach impossible conditions to the grant. For instance, the Board of Education might say that the teachers must be trained at a particular kind of college or the school would not be recognised, or they might say that no teacher should belong to a religious Order, or they might force religious instruction to be given in impossible hours. In fact instead of being an integral part of the great educational system of the country, the schools would drag on a precarious and starved existence by the grace and favour of the Minister in Whitehall. It must be obvious that if this Bill passed there would be nothing but war. He was not at all sure that passive resistance as it now existed might not be ended by putting in a clause that anyone who objected should be allowed to ear-mark their rates for the council schools alone. That was an administrative matter. But if this Bill passed, all sorts of methods of resistance

1771
in all probability would come into existence. The example had been set, and it was a game which two or more could play at. He was sure, however, that his friends would not be driven to any such method except in the last resort. He shared the sentiments which had been uttered in favour of peace, if possible, but it must be peace with honour. He had never heard of a court-martial which decided that fatigue was an excuse for surrender. They, too, must keep their powder dry, and forget neither their principles nor their friends. There was, no doubt, fatigue, but a good deal of it was the fatigue experienced by unhappy writers of leading articles on the subject who had nothing fresh to say. After all, the work of education was going on in the country very efficiently, and when they heard of a breach Of Christian charity, he believed the disputants were very good friends, as witness the sinister conjunction of certain ecclesiastics in favour of another confiscatory measure which it was charitable to suppose they did not properly understand. They were told that there was no other alternative than that proposed by the Government, but even that had not been put before them except in the most shadowy way. The First Lord of the Admiralty had told them that there was not much difference between the present Bill and that of the Bishop of St. Asaph. He said there would be some difficulty as to facilities, and that that Bill provided that the facilities should be universal. If the Government meant that these facilities should be given in school hours, and that the teachers should give, the instruction, then the question entered upon a new phase. He observed that there was au ominous silence on the benches opposite in regard to that point. Or again, could it be supposed that a secularist solution would solve the question? It would simply lead to just as much agitation as now and to a universal demand for the right of entry in school hours. Rather than have this Bill he would infinitely prefer the plan for the separation of secular and religious instruction as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
1772
Birmingham. There was a danger when it was suggested to them on that side of the House that they should make a proposal, for the Government would take it as a maximum and proceed at once to whittle it down. If hon. Gentlemen desired a settlement they must do more than say so. It was not for those who were satisfied with the existing system to formulate proposals to change it. If the Government was serious in desiring peace the first thing to do was to withdraw the Training College and Secondary School Regulations. Assuming a conference and a settlement to be in sight, what principles should be acted upon? He would say: "Beware of logic, or any hard-and-fast system, but recognise existing facts." After all they must recognise that schools had associations and traditions. It was not a question of mere bricks and mortar, of codes and syllabus, of class-rooms and cubic feet. That was a very narrow view to take. And so it was also with higher education. He had seen it in his own experience at the Oratory School, where the buildings and surroundings were of little account, and he would not change the lessons he had learned there for all the glorious traditions of Eton or Winchester. There were elementary schools which were animated by the like patriotism; it would be cruelty and folly to extinguish such places, for the spirit they had bred was an asset of the nation. The whole question lay in alternative accommodation. In those towns where alternative schools were doing their work with no harm to others, why, in God's name, could they not let them alone? He thought the grievance in single-school areas was greatly exaggerated, and he did not believe the clergyman who abused his position in one of these village schools was one in 100; but there was a theoretical grievance, Which in rare cases might amount to an actual grievance, and there the just solution was to be found not in destroying the rights of one set of people, but in separate religious instruction and united secular instruction. The strength of the nation lay in the diversity of the elements which could be called into being for the purposes of national life. But, although, diversity was of the essence of a settlement,

1773
they could rear their educational structure on a basis of true equality as well—equality of treatment for the teacher; equality of choice for the parent, equality of opportunity for the child—and, above all, the dominating principle—to "render to Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and to God the things which are God's."
*SIR J. COMPTON RICKETTsaid that if there was really such a desire for a settlement as the hon. Member for Barkstone Ash had suggested there ought to be no danger in assuming that it could be complied with. Party lines were blurred by differences on religious subjects, but he did not think that those supporting the Government had much to fear from a party point of view, even if this question were left open until the next election. Both sides appeared to use the general terms, public control and no tests for teachers, but public control as it now existed was half-hearted and even Anglicans hardly objected to see it made real. With regard to tests for teachers, at this time of day it must be very difficult to imagine that they could secure the right kind of teacher by means of a test. The value of tests had been proved to be of little account, even in securing the purity of the doctrine of a Church, and at a time when opinion was fluid on religious subjects the attempt to obtain declaration of conscience could not be accomplished by legislation. To import a test was even beyond the power of that House. There could, in no real
1774
sense of the term, be a test for teachers. In these circumstances they could only ask that the man who taught should know something of that which he taught. Some knowledge of the Bible ought to be required. All they asked and expected from Bible instruction, so called, of a simple character, was to lay the foundation for the subsequent teaching of the Churches through the Sunday school and the home.
And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the, Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

PUBLIC OFFICES SITES (EXTENSION) [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any Expenses, so far as not otherwise provided for, incurred by the Commissioners of Works under any Act of the present Session, to provide for the Acquisition of Land for the extension of certain Public Offices in Westminster and of the Patent Office, and for certain other public purposes."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
Adjourned at eight minutes after Eleven o'clock.

VISCOUNT GORMANSTON.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Friday last, that the right of the Viscount Gormanston to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
The Lord Gormanston (Viscount Gormanston) sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3.) [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cornwall, &c.) [H.L.]
Also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Leeds Corporation; Cheshire Lines Committee; Margate Corporation.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the additional provision in the following Bill have not been complied with: Holderness Water.
The same were ordered to lie upon the Table.
Ammanford Urban District Council Water Bill [H.L.].—A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Leith Burgh Bill [H.L.].—A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Blaydon and Ryton Water (Transfer) Bill. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the orders made on Wednesday and Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
West London, Barnes, and Richmond Tramways Bill [H.L.].—Read 2a (according to order), and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Thames River Steamboat Service Act, 1904 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
River Wandle Protection. Moved, that the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill later than Tuesday the 5th day of May next, "be dispensed with in respect of a petition of Gilliat E. Hatfield, W. R. Lloyd Jones, and H. F. Bidder, promoters of the River Wandle Protection Bill; agreed to, the said petition praying for leave to bring in a Bill for the preservation of the underground sources of the River Wandle, presented accordingly, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto, and read and referred to the Examiners.
Southwell District Gas Bill.—Brought from the Commons, read 13, and referred to the Examiners.
Interoceanic Railway of Mexico Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition against; of the county council of the county of Perth; read and ordered to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Report of the Inter-departmental Conference on the Coast Guard, 1907.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3987. Italy (Rome).
  No. 3992. China (Antung)

  CONGESTION IN IRELAND (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Final Report of the Commissioners; with appendices, index to and digest of evidence.
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND).
  Return prepared pursuant to Section 3 of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, giving particulars of cases in which persons have been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners, up to 31st December, 1907.
  BANKING AND RAILWAY STATISTICS (IRELAND), DECEMBER, 1907.
    RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
    Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st December, 1907, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871), with reports of the inspecting officers, assistant inspecting officers and sub-inspecting officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which wore inquired into. Part II. Reports on accidents.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Statistical tables for the year 1907.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
  Statement exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India, during the year 1906–7. Forty-third number.
  SHOP HOURS ACT (BOROUGH OF DARLINGTON).
  Order made by the Council of the Borough of Darlington, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for a certain class of shops within the borough.

  POST OFFICE (INLAND) POST.
  The Inland Post (No. 10) Warrant, 1908, dated 28th April, 1908.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNION OF BENEFICES (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1860.
  Scheme of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for effecting an union of the
  1528
  benefice of St. Luke, Charlton, and the benefice of St. Paul, Charlton, within the Metropolis and county of Kent, and for effecting certain other measures incidental to or arising out of such union. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 67.)

NEW BILL.
  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for further promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary was presented by the Lord Chancellor, read 1a; to be printed, and to be read 2a on Wednesday next. (No. 68.)

THE LATE PRIME MINISTER.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, I am sorry for the absence of my noble friend Lord Crewe, in whose name stands the Motion which I am about to make. I cannot hope to emulate the felicitous words he would have addressed to you; but it needs no speech of mine to recommend the Motion to your Lordships, and you will desire me to use but a few words. On two recent occasions, tributes, cordial in feeling and graceful in appreciation, have been offered by the official spokesmen on both sides of the two Houses of Parliament to that kindly and honoured figure whose passing from amidst us unites all parties of the State in a common sorrow; and if we refrain now from further speeches of eulogy it is not because his memory has ceased to dwell in our hearts.
The action which the Government have determined to take is in accordance with precedent. Thrice in my own presence and recollection similar Motions have been laid before the two Houses of Parliament after the death of a statesman who had filled the highest office to which a servant of the Crown can aspire, and curiously enough on all those three occasions the Motion was made in the month of May. On 9th May, 1881, in honour of Lord Beaconsfield; on 20th May, 1898, in honour of Mr. Gladstone; and on 17th May, 1904, in honour of the late Lord

1529
Salisbury; and now, on 18th May, a similar Motion is going to be passed in honour of my dear friend the late Prime Minister. My Lords, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was not endowed with the brilliancy of Lord Beaconsfield or the universal genius of Mr. Gladstone, or the commanding intellect of Lord Salisbury; but he yielded to none of them in the unbounded devotion with which he inspired his followers, and the affectionate esteem with which he was regarded by his political opponents. Justus et tenax propositi, he lived his life and served the public weal, endeared to all who knew him by his modesty, his transparent straightforwardness, his genial humour, and his responsive sympathy with the weak and suffering amongst his fellow men, He was pre-eminently a good man as "goodness" is defined by Bacon—
"The parts and signs of goodness are many; if a man be gracious, and courteous to strangers, it shows he is a citizen of the world, and his heart is no island cut off from other lands, but a continent that joins to them; if he be compassionate towards the afflictions of others it shows that his heart is like the noble tree that is wounded itself when it gives the balm."
May I add a few words as to the private life of my friend Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman? I had the privilege of living with him on intimate terms for more than thirty years; he was a trusted friend, and I know how he sympathised in the joys and sorrows of all around him. He was a good guest; he was a better host. He was full of good stories and recollections of the past. He was a marvellous French scholar. I think all of you will agree that some of his French speeches were really tour de force, and combined humour with the very best French idiom. These were great qualities. But he had a higher quality still, and that was the great love and devotion he showed towards his wife, Lady Campbell-Bannerman. He had the most absolute confidence in her judgment. He referred to her in all difficult situations, and I am sure that many of the decisions of his life were come to upon her advice. I have twice stood by the open grave that contains the coffins of Sir Henry and Lady Campbell-Bannerman, and I can assure you I have brought hack from that experience a sweet and fragrant
1530
memory. I close my few observations as I began. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman may not have been cast in the same mould as the three giants of whom I have spoken; he, I think, was made of a milder steel; he trusted to conciliation rather than to aggression and compulsion, and so did good service to his party, his country, and his King. My Lords, I submit that it is meet and right that a memorial should be raised to him in our Abbey of Westminster, where are found the effigies of so many British statesmen of renown close to the scene of their most arduous labours.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty will give directions that a monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, to the memory of the late Right Hon. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, with an inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by this House of the eminent services rendered by him to the country in Parliament and in great offices of State, and to assure His Majesty that this House will concur in giving effect to His Majesty's directions. "—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have already on previous occasions endeavoured to express, and, I believe, with the concurrence of those who sit near me, our admiration for the many qualities that distinguished the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. We sympathise and we desire to express our sympathy with those who, either as colleagues or private friends, are lamenting his loss. It is right and proper that such men, with such a record, should be honoured, and that their memories should be kept alive by suitable memorials erected at the public expense.
We certainly, therefore, on this side of the House offer no sort of objection to the Motion of my noble friend so far as it relates to the propriety of honouring the late Prime Minister; but I do trust that noble Lords opposite will not think I am approaching the subject in any carping spirit when I venture to address

1531
to your Lordships a word of warning with regard to that part of my noble friend's Motion which proposes that the memorial shall be erected in Westminster Abbey. I say this for three reasons. There are three considerations that I think will be obvious to all. In the first place the Abbey, the noblest of our national Cathedrals, is already crowded, I might almost say indecently crowded, with memorials to public men, some eminently distinguished, others not so well known to fame. The congestion of memorials, in my opinion, detracts from the beauty and dignity of the Abbey. It is so great that, as your Lordships will recollect, when not long ago it was determined to erect a monument to the late Lord Salisbury, it was found that this could only be done by interfering with the position of other monuments already in possession of the ground. I cannot, my Lords, help thinking that the time has come when we might cry "Halt "in this process of erecting monuments to our public men in Westminster Abbey.
My noble friend relies in this instance on precedents, and he has mentioned cases in which memorials have been erected to deceased Prime Ministers within the precincts of Westminster Abbey. But I am sure it must have been pointed out to my noble friend that a considerable number of Prime Ministers, men of great distinction, have not been honoured by memorials within the precincts of the Abbey. There have been eight since Pitt. I may mention the names of Lord Liverpool, Lord Grey, Lord Melbourne, and Lord Derby, none of whom have been honoured by memorials in the Abbey. There would therefore, in my opinion, have been nothing at all invidious so far as Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was concerned if it had been decided to erect a monument to his honour in some place other than the Abbey. It cannot be contended that there are not other sites convenient for the purpose. There are, for example, the precincts of the Houses of Parliament, inside and outside the precincts of the House with which he was closely associated. For these reasons I confess I should not have been surprised had His Majesty's Government hesitated to
1532
propose the erection of this monument in the Abbey itself. But that is a matter no doubt they have fully considered. I do not at all desire on this occasion to press my objection or to say anything that might seem to denote grudging acquiescence in the Motion; all I wish to do is to raise a note of warning and to express the hope that in future we may think twice before we lay down a rule that all Prime Ministers are, as a matter of course, to have monuments erected to their memory in Westminster Abbey.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I am quite sure that the remarks—the just remarks—which my noble friend has made with regard to the over-crowding of Westimnster Abbey were not suggested to him in any degree in connection with the person whom we propose to honour this evening. What my noble friend has said is perfectly true. No doubt Westminster Abbey is much crowded, and I hope that future Governments will bear the suggestion of my noble friend in mind; and, though I do not think it is so very easy to find a place equally suited to the purpose as the Abbey itself, yet I am quite sure we all feel the force of the observations of the noble Marquess.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentience.
Ordered that the said Address be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with the;White Staves.

TERRITORIAL ARTILLERY.
*THE EARL OF DENBIGHrose "To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to reconsider the general scheme for raising horse and field batteries of the Territorial Forces, and whether they will in the first instance confine themselves to the raising of a limited number of such batteries in certain selected areas where the local conditions may be considered favourable and encouraging, and whether, until the practicability of these Territorial batteries as efficient units for war is considered proved, the Government will devote the balance of the money already

1533
allocated to Territorial Artillery to maintaining the Regular Horse and Field Artillery at a greater numerical strength. "
The Noble Earl said: My Lords, the Question which stands in my name has been on the Paper for some time, and I greatly regret that it was not possible for me to ask it at an earlier date. The reason mainly was that the sudden and unexpected adjournment of Parliament happened on the day on which I had it on the Paper, and it has been impossible to bring it forward before now. I know many will say that it is now too late to discuss this question of the Territorial Artillery, that no good can be gained thereby, and that the argument ought now to be considered as closed. I beg to differ from that. There was plenty of plain speaking on this subject a year ago, but unfortunately it was very difficult to direct public attention to the details of the whole scheme at that particular time, and it is only recently that the people of this country have begun to realise what it all means. The result is that anything which is said now on the subject of the Territorial Army attracts considerably more attention than exactly the same thing did when said a year ago. The reason why I venture to bring this matter forward is that there are large numbers of those whom I respectfully consider to be most competent judges, who regard it as a most serious and vital question; we feel that a very great mistake has been made, and we are trying, even at the eleventh hour, to make people realise this fact, that a Territorial Army is one thing, but that the question of having that Army entirely dependent on Territorial Artillery is a totally different one.
I wish to say, in the very clearest way, that I do not desire to utter any criticism whatever upon the Territorial scheme as a whole. In common with most people, I look upon it as a most ingenious and praiseworthy one, and I sincerely hope it will succeed. It is because I hope it will succeed that it is my earnest wish to see one of its weakest spots remedied, and that weakest spot I consider to be the question of the field artillery. We are told that we must not criticise, and that the whole scheme is hanging in the balance.
1534
But if this new creation is of such delicate growth that the merest breath of criticism will make it wither and die, then I respectfully suggest that the sooner we know the fact the better.
To begin with, I consider that the whole artillery scheme was founded upon absolutely wrong lines from the very beginning. We were told of what had been effected with the Lancashire Field Artillery Militia, and we heard a great deal of the C.I.V. battery which, went to South Africa, and which was formed from the corps that I have the honour to command, Neither of these is in any way a proposition similar to one of the Territorial batteries which is now being formed. In South Africa they never met any properly-trained artillery; but there is no getting away from the fact that the special purpose for which the Territorial Army and the Territorial Artillery are being formed is that of meeting the trained artillery which will most assuredly accompany any Army that may land on these shores, whether it is bent on a raid or actual invasion. Then we are told what single guns of the Elswick battery did in South Africa, and of similar work done by other corps. I believe their work was very good indeed, but it is not the class of work that is going to be required of the Territorial batteries in this country.
Next we are told that we must have the full Continental proportion of five guns per 1,000 men for our Territorial Army. We are told that the country will not pay for regular artillery to that amount, and I daresay it would not, because it would not be necessary, and that, therefore, we must have Territorial Artillery; and I noticed the other day that the eloquent and gifted Military Correspondent of The Times, who seems to hold a brief for the War Office at the present moment, stated that the reason for adopting the present scheme of Territorial Artillery was that when it came to the question of providing artillery for the Territorial Army this particular scheme was believed to be the cheapest and the quickest. Now, I admit the cheapness of it, but it is certainly not the quickest, and it will be many years before any of these batteries now being

1535
formed will be of the slightest possible use as a fighting unit. Then, again, with regard to the proportion of guns required, I know it to be the fact that many most distinguished and experienced officers, some of them occupying the highest commands in this country and looked upon as leading authorities, are entirely unable to understand why it should be necessary to adopt this particular standard of five guns per 1,000 men for use in an enclosed country like England, where it would be practically impossible to use such large masses of artillery. I received a letter the other day from an artillery friend of mine, from which I should like to read to your Lordships a paragraph. He says—
"Another fact in which I think the War Minister has made a fundamental error is in allotting only Volunteer Artillery to the Territorial Army. The Territorial Infantry cannot be as highly trained as the Continental troops, and it was an axiom with such masters of war as Frederick and Napoleon that as the quality of their infantry fell off so they increased the efficiency of their artillery. We, on the other hand, allot our least-trained artillery to our least-trained infantry, and to make matters worse the theatre of war (viz., England) in which such artillery is to be used is the most difficult in Europe for the successful employment of the arm. "
That is worth thinking over. Mr. Haldane and the Army Council do not agree with Frederick the Great and Napoleon. They either refuse to admit that what was true in Napoleon's day is ten times more true in these days of modern weapons of precision, or they shrink, from motives of economy, and perhaps from political reasons, to tell the people the real truth, and they prefer to let the country think that artillery on the cheap will answer the purpose just as well.
We are suffering at the present moment from lamentable ignorance on the part of the general public as to what is required of field artillery and what constitutes the training of field artillery of which we hear so much. The first thing to remember is that artillery cannot win battles of itself. Artillery exists for the purpose of helping infantry to win battles, and in modern warfare infantry cannot win unless they are backed and supported by good artillery. When I
1536
say good artillery I mean artillery that is absolutely reliable, and I assert that reliability cannot be obtained except under certain conditions which are well known to every artillery officer. We hear about the mysteries of artillery. Mysteries of artillery only exist in the minds of those who know very little about it. There are no mysteries of artillery; but surely those who have been through the mill and are acquainted with artillery training may be credited with knowing perhaps a little more than those who have not.
I wish to say, therefore, that one of the first requirements is good and experienced officers, more especially battery commanders. There has been a vast amount of most mischievous and pernicious nonsense talked recently in the country as to the ease with which artillery work can be picked up. I call that nonsense most advisedly. I think it is a great pity that the people of this country, who are not familiar with artillery work, should be misled and be made to think that artillery work can be picked up easily, when the reverse is the fact. I would suggest that if it is so simple to pick up artillery work, then the donning of artillery uniform must have a singularly deadening effect on the intellects of our cadets when they leave the Woolwich Academy, or else we spend unnecessary tiny and money in training artillery officers. A good artillery officer must be a good rider. If a battery commander is always thinking what his horse is going to do next he cannot give proper attention to what he ought to do next with his men. He must have a good eye for country, he must be capable of quick decision, he must be a good horsemaster, and have a thorough knowledge of fire discipline and gunnery; above all things, he must be a good and trained observer of fire. Although it may sound not a very difficult matter to judge the burst of a shell and to say on which side of a target it falls, if those who doubt the difficulty would watch some of the artillery practice carried on on Salisbury Plain they would very soon find how singularly deceptive the observation of fire is, and how dependent on correct observation is anything approaching to accurate practice. This,

1537
as I say, is a most difficult matter, and requires constant practice.
Then, again, the non-commissioned officers and men must be well trained until the whole battery is like a machine. No battery commander can make good practice with a bad battery, and the best-trained battery in the world must fail absolutely in the hands of an incompetent battery commander; it would not only fail, but would be absolutely at that battery commander's mercy for good or for evil, and it might easily be annihilated in a very short space of time through some misjudged act or move on the part of the commander. To have either officers or men well-trained requires constant work with the battery as a whole. Yet at the present moment you are raising Territorial batteries all over the country to be commanded by men who have had absolutely no field artillery experience whatever; not only that, but I notice that in some places the batteries are being divided in sections, two guns in one place and two guns in another; and I read with astonishment two days ago of a horse artillery battery which is to be divided, with each of its four guns in four different towns situated some eight or ten miles apart. The consequence is that the commanding officer will rarely be able to get those guns together except in camp, and it will, therefore, be practically impossible for him to train either the men or himself. The result is that when he gets into camp he has to begin teaching his men elementary work which should have been learned weeks before, and the camp training in this way loses half its value.
It is impossible to exaggerate the helplessness of ill-trained artillery, or of an ill-trained battery or battery commander, in the face of a well-trained quick-firing battery. The latter would come into action quicker; it would get its first gun off quicker; it would pick up the range quicker, and then possibly with a blast of shrapnel would obliterate the other battery before it had begun. People do not realise what a quick-firing gun is. It is not a gun for the purpose of continual firing at great speed, for in that way you would soon use up the ammunitions. A quick-firing
1538
gun has been aptly described as a gun of opportunities. It is one which enables you to take advantage of your enemy if you catch him at a disadvantage, and it enables you, in that particular case, to pour in a fire that is absolutely overwhelming. All that requires great quickness, coolness, thorough knowledge, and accuracy; and I respectfully state that those conditions cannot be obtained without very careful and elaborate training.
Then take the case of covering infantry in the ssault—one of the most responsible and difficult duties of field artillery work. This means being able to keep up an accurate and well-timed fire over the heads of your own infantry up till the last possible moment, for the purpose of compelling the enemy to keep their heads down and take shelter and thus prevent them pouring in an accurate rifle fire themselves. If the supporting artillery engaged in this delicate and critical work is not absolutely reliable in its shooting, it would demoralise the very best of infantry; it would demoralise them at the most critical moment of the attack, and might bring about an awful disaster.
We are told that this great scheme of Territorial Artillery is absolutely essential to the Territorial scheme as a whole, that its absence would spoil the symmetry of the organisation. When I hear that I am afraid I feel inclined to say rather irreverently: "Hang your symmetry." But in your Lordships House we must not say that sort of thing, and therefore I will content myself by observing that I think the results to be obtained are of rather more importance than the symmetry of the scheme. If the rest of the Territorial Army would only realise the position and the real duties of artillery in the field, I think they would be the first to insist that they should be supported by something better than Territorial Artillery. I am perfectly well aware of the fact that the Secretary of State for War has said on many occasions that there was no intention of using Territorial Artillery untrained, and that the whole basis of the Territorial idea is that we are to have six months of preparation before the enemy lands

1539
in this country. If that comes off, all well and good; but Mr. Balfour, in the other House, pointed out, in a very forcible way, the unsoundness of tying the whole argument to this one hypothesis. Is it not the least likely that we might be attacked by a fresh enemy, and is it absolutely certain that we shall be able to choose our own time for sending the expeditionary force from these shores? At all events, it must be conceded, I think, that there is very considerable risk in the matter. I think that risk ought to be guarded against, and surely it would be a wise precaution to guard against a breakdown of your scheme by taking exceptional precautions regarding the artillery portion of it, which everybody admits is the most important and the least capable of being improvised at short notice. It is because we feel so strongly on this point that, even at this late hour, we urge the Government, in the strongest way, to consider the advisability of doing something in the way of stiffening the Territorial Artillery with Regulars in some form or another.
I am fully aware of the fact that at this, period mere destructive criticism is very undesirable, and does no good. I agree entirely with Mr. Haldane when he say: that there is a large amount of most admirable material in this country well suited for the manufacture of the rank and file of Territorial Artillery. Personally, I hope to see the Territorial Artillery succeed, and I do not wish to say a word to discourage any genuine efforts in that direction. But what I say is: "Give it a chance, "which you are not doing at the present moment. Confine your efforts to suitable localities, places where you can get your batteries all together, where horses, officers, and men are available, where you have manœuvring and practice ground within reach. And, most important of all, I suggest that where the Government have not already got capable Volunteer officers in command—and I think the Volunteer Field Artillery officers really capable of commanding batteries in this country might be counted upon the fingers of one hand, certainly of two—they should set capable and suitable Regular officers, with ample instructional staffs, to take
1540
command for the first few years, and thereby give the batteries that chance which you are not giving them at present under the Territorial scheme.
You want to encourage your junior Volunteer officers. I daresay a good many of them would come on to be capable battery commanders, but, to make a capable battery commander, you have to catch your officer young and catch him early. You have to find the man who is an enthusiast, and who is able and willing to give a sufficient amount of time to acquiring the requisite knowledge, and I do not think you will find that men of that description grow on gooseberry bushes. If you will give your Territorial Artillery a chance, as I say, by limiting the numbers of batteries, by selecting those localities where such batteries can be formed, and by sending Regular officers to give them a start, then I think as time goes on you will have junior officers coming up who will be competent to take command, and you will be able to encourage them by letting them know that those who are capable will be given the chance of commanding batteries. I think that is the very least that could be lone. Personally I would very much sooner have seen some scheme for having brigades in which one battery was a Regular one, coupled with two of the Territorials. The Regular battery would be of very great assistance to the Territorials; and I think you will find that the Territorial batteries, where they are situated in places with no Regular artillery in reach will find themselves very seriously handicapped. But you are, as you are starting these batteries now, doing your very best to make the Territorial Artillery an absolute farce, and more especially the horse artillery, which you are arming with a gun very much too heavy for the purpose.
It may interest you to know that some years ago—I think in the year 1891 or 1892—when breech-loading field guns were being introduced into the service, there were some cavalry manœuvres on the Berkshire Downs, under Sir Evelyn Wood. They had the 12-pounder gun, which in those days weighed about 38 or 39 cwt. behind the horses. One day early in the manœuvres they had to

1541
make a somewhat rapid advance of five or six miles, a thing that might occur any day in warfare. The result was that one of these batteries killed five horses which dropped dead in their tracks, many others being incapacitated, some of them for ever. This caused a considerable amount of thought to be given to the proper weight for a horse artillery gun. The weight was thereupon reduced, by taking off ammunition and in other ways, to 30 cwt., and it was then found that they could keep up with cavalry. I am informed that it was that circumstance which set the proper weight for a horse artillery gun at about 30 or 31 cwt. I asked the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War a question the other day as to what gun it was proposed to provide for these horse artillery batteries, and he replied that the weapon proposed was the 15-pounder converted gun, which weighs about 41 cwt., though I believe it is proposed to reduce the weight to about 39 cwt,. by taking some of the ammunition out of the boxes. The result will be that your Territorial Horse Artillery batteries will be armed with a gun fully 8 or 9 cwt. too heavy for the purpose, and all in the interests of economy.
Now, I wish to say a word on a question which is just as serious. This Army scheme involves the reduction of thirty-three batteries of the Royal Field Artillery to practical nonentities, all, again, in the interests of economy, whilst money is being thrown away in other directions upon Territorial Artillery. I most sincerely hope that consideration will be given to that fact. I will not say more about it now, but I believe that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the Cross Benches, who can speak with so much authority, will address your Lordships on that particular point presently. I will only say now that I have not addressed myself to this subject without a due sense of the responsibility of bringing it forward at the present moment. When I first took an open part in this controversy I was roused to do so by the absolutely erroneous statements and false deductions brought forward with regard to the batteries of which I have a particular and special knowledge. I cannot claim to have had
1542
any very extensive war service like many noble Lords in this House, but I respectfully submit that ten years regimental duty in the Field and Royal Horse Artillery, and fifteen years subsequent command of the only Volunteer corps in this country which has attempted anything in the nature of Volunteer Horse Artillery, at all events gives me some right to speak on this subject in your Lordships' House; and I think I may claim that the experience I have had has given me some insight into the details necessary for the moderate success which we have been able to achieve, and has also enabled me to form some reliable opinion, not only as to the capabilities of Volunteer Artillery, but also, what is still more important, some idea as regards their limitations. I wish all success to the Territorial Artillery, but I do not believe that. His Majesty's Government are going the right way about it; and I hope that even now at this late period the Government will do something in the way I have indicated to make the movement a greater success than it promises to be at the present time.
EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, on the last occasion I had the honour of addressing your Lordships I ventured, with a full sense of the responsibility that I was incurring, to express my carefully-weighed opinion as to the uselessness of the artillery which Mr. Haldane is about to create. The remarks I then made about the artillery have been interpreted by Lord Lucas—who, I trust, will allow me to offer him my warmest congratulations on the important position he now holds—as applying "equally to the other branches of the Territorial Army," and "as a sweeping condemnation of the whole force." A similar interpretation has been given to my words by the Secretary of State for War in another place. Lord Lucas also made the statement that, whilst I—
"Last year had given a qualified blessing to the scheme, now, when a critical stage of its development has been reached, and everyone was looking for a pat on the back from me, I passed a heavy sentence on a yet unborn child."
My Lords, I am no master of dialectics, and I must confess that I am at a loss

1543
to understand how anything I have said can be made to bear the interpretation put upon it by Lord Lucas and Mr. Haldane; and I trust I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships that there is not the slightest foundation for that interpretation, and that the opinions I have expressed about the Territorial Army have been consistent throughout. To that part of the scheme which is sound, practical, and in accordance with the exigencies of war I have given my heartiest support, while all that is unsound, unpractical, and that cannot be of any use in peace or war I have unhesitatingly condemned.
In support of this assertion, I should like to explain to your Lorships that, when the question of Territorial Artillery was first mooted, I told Mr. Haldane of the trial that had been made on Salisbury Plain, when I was Commander-in-Chief, with the batteries of the Lancashire Militia Artilery, and that after they had been given far more training than it is intended, or would be possible under the scheme to give to the Territorial batteries, and having had besides the great advantage of being assisted by a large staff of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Regular artillery, it was reported that, efficient as they had become, they could not hope to cope successfully with the highly trained batteries of a Continental Power. Then when for the first time it was officially intimated in Army Orders of February, 1907, that, with the exception of eight horse and thirty-three field batteries, the Territorial Artillery would be the only artillery left in this country to meet an invasion after the despatch of the expeditionary force, I took the earliest opportunity—namely, in June of that year—to bring the matter to your lordships' notice, and to point out the danger of trusting to Territorial Artillery.
Let me repeat what I said then. My words were—
"Are we to send amateur artillerists, equipped with obsolete guns, into action with highly trained experts, provided with the deadliest modern weapons Whatever else, my Lords, we may think we can improvise in the hour of danger, or begin to train after the crisis has arisen, artillery cannot be improvised. Artillerymen must be trained before the crisis and not
1544
after, and given a very different training to the annual week or fortnight, which is all the proposed scheme provides."
A glance at Hansard will show you that these were my exact words. I can detect no uncertain sound in these words, nor do I think they convey the idea of a blessing—qualified or unqualified—as given by me to the proposed artillery. On the contrary, at the very outset I expressed a decided opinion as to the futility of trusting the defence of this country to inadequately trained Territorial batteries.
Then as to my remarks upon the Territorial Artillery being pronounced "a sweeping condemnation" of the whole force, let me recall to your lordships' memory what I said only a few weeks ago in this House. It. Was—
"I am a firm believer in the vital importance of our having a Territorial Army, or, as I should prefer to call it, a National Army, and I have no hesitation in saying that this country owes a deep debt of gratitude to Mr. Haldane for all that he has done, and is still doing, in spite of the great difficulties lie has to contend with, to provide us with such an Army. The right hon. Gentleman has laid the foundations of a National Army, the framework of which is quite admirable, but it is for the country to see that that framework is tilled in with thoroughly serviceable material, properly organised to take the field."
I cannot conceive how anybody can impute to these words "a sweeping condemnation "of the Territorial Army; but, as misconception has arisen, I should like very briefly to state my opinion of Mr. Haldane's scheme in connection with the reorganisation of the Yeomanry and Volunteers.
To my mind the scheme represents an earnest and carefully planned attempt to raise a Territorial Army on a voluntary basis, and, as I said before, the framework appears to me to be admirable. The chief merit of the scheme lies in the manner in which it is sought to bring the Army into touch with the nation, to stimulate public interest in the Army throughout the country, and to bring local influence in each county to bear upon the actual provision of the troops. I consider it to be a most praiseworthy effort in the right direction, and I hope, with all sincerity, that it may be crowned with success. When, however, the details of the scheme come to be examined,

1545
there appear to be very grave defects. As regards training, I do not disguise the fact that, in my opinion, an opinion which I feel assured is shared by the Army generally, and by a large number of civilians as well, the period fixed by the Act is far too short to permit of any branch reaching a reasonable standard of efficiency. But, whereas it may be possible to give the Yeomanry and infantry a very moderate amount of military knowledge in the limited time at their disposal, provided they are commanded by officers who have themselves been properly trained, I have no hesitation in saying that it is absurd to suppose that the artillery could be taught even the rudiments of their business in so brief a period, how much less could it be given the training necessary for combined action with the other arms. So far as organisation is concerned, I think it is an undoubted advantage that the Yeomanry and infantry should be formed into brigades and divisions under permanent commanders; but, holding the opinion I do, as to the uselessness of Territorial Artillery, I cannot be expected to agree, merely for the sake of symmetry, to its being included in the organisation. To include it would, in my opinion, be a wasteful expenditure of an enormous sum of money for a purely fanciful purpose.
My Lords, I am told that my criticisms are valueless from the fact that I am under a total misconception of the basis underlying the whole scheme; and Mr. Haldane has taken pains to show what he conceives to be the real foundation of our military strategy and the erroneous nature of my premises. Put as concisely as possible, Mr. Haldane's contention, as I understand it, is this, that, under no circumstances conceivable, will the whole striking force be allowed to leave these shores until the Territorial Army has been given a breathing space of six months in which to make itself efficient. In other words, that the Territorial Army can absolutely rely on six months respite for training and preparation after the declaration of war; or, failing this, that it will always have the Regular Army, or at all events a part of it, to assist in the defence of the United Kingdom. If this be, indeed, the foundation on which
1546
Mr. Haldane's scheme is based, the right hon. Gentleman spoke nothing but the truth when he said that he had "wholly parted company with" me.
This confession, my Lords, throws a lurid light on the military aspect of the scheme. Consider for a moment what it means. It means that we are deliberately to adopt a policy in peace which will entail interference with the strategic liberty of our expeditionary force in war. It means that, if our frontiers in India or Canada are threatened, or serious trouble arises nearer home, we shall be denied the possibility of putting out our whole strength to ward off the danger. A part, according to Mr. Haldane one-third, of the expeditionary force will have to remain at home, whilst our second line of defence is undergoing what is called "the hardening process." I say that this is an impossible foundation for our military policy, and one for which neither history nor common sense can give any warrant. I can conceive no more sweeping condemnation of the material of which the Territorial Army is to be formed than this profession of faith of the Secretary for War in the loving kindness of an enemy who, intending to attack us, will be considerate of our convenience to the extent of allowing us, when war is declared, six months for preparation to defeat him.
Mr. Haldane has sought to detract from any value my opinion may have by attributing to me two diametrically opposite views as regards the probability of invasion, quoting for that purpose a speech of Mr. Balfour's, based on calculations of the Committee of Imperial Defence, of which I was then a Member. That speech was made in May, 1905—three years ago; and the conditions on which the Committee then formed their opinion have undergone a very considerable change, and further inquiry has shown that the decisions then arrived at no longer hold good. Let us, for argument's sake, grant that we should enjoy immunity from invasion for six months after war is declared. Even then I still adhere steadfastly to my opinion that it would be utterly impossible to train such a mass of artillery—182 batteries—even dining the summer within anything like

1547
so brief a period. But what if the training had to be carried on during the six winter months? The men at that season would have to live in tents, for there would not be sufficient barrack accommodation for anything like the numbers that would have to be trained. Will my noble and gallant friend Lord Lovat say whether he would train the hardy Highlanders on the moors of Scotland in the depth of winter, and, if not, how much less could dwellers in towns and people working in factories and at mechanical trades be expected to bear up against such exposure? And at that season of the year, or indeed, at any other season, where would all the 182 batteries carry out their tactical training and their gun practice?
As Major-General Sir George Marshall, an officer of experience, who commanded the whole of the artillery during the late war in South Africa, pointed out in a letter published in The Times a few weeks ago—
"There are only four land ranges available in the whole kingdom."
The greatest difficulty is often experienced in providing sufficient range accommodation for the Regular batteries usually serving at home—a little more than half the number that are proposed for the Territorial Army—and are these 182 Territorial batteries to be transported from all parts of the country to these four land ranges, one of which is in Ireland?
The noble Earl, Lord Lucas's predecessor, told us a short time ago that the County Associations had been instructed to see what could be done about local ranges. I fear there will be no satisfactory result from their researches, for Committee after Committee has been assembled for the same purpose, and their Reports showed that very few sites eight to nine miles in length and two miles in breadth were anywhere available, and that the cost of such ranges would be practically prohibitory. It is possible that sea ranges may be found in certain places, but minor tactics—perhaps the most essential, and certainly the most difficult, part of an artillery-man's training to learn—cannot be taught on a sea range.
1548
Then the annual training is to be for fifteen days only; and even for this short time, under recent instructions, it would appear that no one who has anything else to do need attend; and I would ask you please to remember that this might be all the training the Territorial Artillery would get before an enemy lands on these shores. For, however much it may be desired, no one, not even the most sanguine of Mr. Haldane's supporters, would, I imagine, take upon himself to guarantee that we shall have sufficient warning to ensure the artillery being given the six months much-needed training. And is there anyone in this House who, after what has happened so often in the past, would feel absolutely certain, even if timely warning were given, that the Government of the day would take advantage of it to mobilise, seeing how fearful we always are of appearing to expect, or to make any preparation for, war?
From the fifteen days two must be deducted for Sundays, two for coming and going into camp, and one day for inspection, paying the men, survey boards, etc. Thus the fifteen days have dwindled down to ten days for actual training, two of which are to be devoted to artillery tactics and gun practice. Now, even if the ranges happen to be close at hand, this would allow a ridiculously short time for carrying out such essential duties. It really would seem as if this all-important matter of artillery tactics and gun practice had never been taken seriously into consideration by the War Office authorities, or the Secretary of State would surely not have ventured to propose the dangerous experiment of waiting until war breaks out before the training of the artillery could be properly taken in hand.
I am accused of inconsistency with regard to the possibility of bringing the Territorial Artillery up to a reasonable standard of efficiency—first, because I expressed approval of the work done by Volunteer Artillery in the South African War; and, secondly, in that, as commander-in-chief I agreed to the proposal of forming, as an experiment, twenty-one such batteries for three of

1549
the six Army Corps organised when Lord Midleton was Secretary of State for War. Where is the inconsistency? In the first place, one of the two batteries—the C.I.V. Battery—practically belonged to the Honourable Artillery Company. It was commanded by a Regular officer; its adjutant and the more important non-commissioned officers were Regulars, and the majority of the men had had many more advantages in the matter of training than it would be possible to give to the Territorial batteries. The other—the Elswick Battery—was chiefly manned by skilled artificers of unusual intelligence, whose business gave them a thorough knowledge of the weapon they had to use, and they were men of a type which it would be chimerical to hope to find for the personnel of 182 batteries throughout the country. Moreover, these batteries had each something like three months training in the field before they were seriously engaged with the enemy, and what is a very important matter—they were never opposed by highly-trained artillery, but only by artillery with little, if any, more training than they had had themselves. As regards Lord Midleton's proposal, I acquiesced in that experiment being made because I was able to imagine then, as I can imagine now, the feasibility of raising a limited number of batteries in certain selected areas—as is proposed by the noble Lord who opened this debate—where local interests and training possibilities appeared to hold out reasonable hopes of carrying such an experiment to a fairly successful conclusion. Surely no impartially-minded person can see any similarity between the experiment that was contemplated in 1901, to form twenty-one batteries in carefully selected localities as a reserve to the Regular artillery, and Mr. Haldane's proposal to raise indiscriminately 182 batteries in all parts of the country, not as a reserve to the Regular artillery, but to take the place of the Regulars and to be the sole artillery—with the exception of eight horse artillery batteries—on which we shall have to depend for the defence of this country.
I read the letter of the Inspector-General of the forces, which Mr. Haldane
1550
produced in support of his scheme for raising Territorial Artillery, but I must confess that I find it difficult to treat it seriously. I will only say that the deductions which I draw from military history differ fundamentally from those drawn by Sir John French. There is, however, one most important point upon which Sir John French touches when he says that "with effective instructors" much can be done in the way of training artillery in six months. The late Undersecretary of State for War, in replying to a question which I put to him privately, told me that arrangements were being made for the provision of the necessary instructors. Personally, I can see little chalice of any "effective instructors" being forthcoming. We are more than 4,000 officers short of mobilisation requirements for the Regular Army alone—irrespective of any demand that India might make upon us for the same purpose—and when war breaks out every officer that can possibly be made use of will assuredly be employed with the expeditionary force. The few Regular officers that may be left behind after the despatch of that portion of the expeditionary force which it will be permissible, according to the scheme, to send abroad will have their hands full in training men to replace the wastage of the Regular artillery; and if, as I ant confident would be the case in any great emergency, the whole expeditionary force had to be sent out of the country without regard to any time-limit the situation would be so much the worse. The Territorial Artillery, under these circumstances, would have to train itself—in other words, there would be no training at all.
I have no doubt whatever that when the crisis arises the men would, as Sir John French thinks, exert themselves to the utmost to remedy their want of training by personal courage and devotion to duty; but what Napier calls the "mechanical courage of discipline" cannot be improvised, nor can willingness to serve the country compensate for inefficiency, based upon ignorance of artillery tactics, and insufficient experience in the use of a complicated weapon. I prefer to agree with Prince Kraft, who, in

1551
comparing discipline with enthusiasm, says—
"Enthusiasm is but burning straw unless the true soldier spirit is present. It flares up a short time, but goes out at once as soon as it is chilled by the reality of war."
I can imagine no more terrible fate for a commander than to be called upon to defend these islands with troops insufficiently trained, both as regards officers and men; and I sincerely trust for their own sakes that none of Mr. Haldane's military advisers who support the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to give this modicum of training to the Territorial Army will ever be required to undertake such an impossible task. No, I cannot alter by one iota the opinion I expressed in this House two months ago that the Territorial Artillery on such a scale as is proposed would entail vast expense to this country in peace without the hope of any corresponding return in war. I repeat that I consider it would be not only valueless, but a source of danger both in peace and war—in peace, because the fact of its existence would hill the public into a false sense of security; in war, because of its inability to afford the necessary support to the other arms or to cope with the trained artillery by which it would be opposed.
This is not a party question. It is essentially a national question; and, as a soldier sitting on the Cross-Benches, I should be most unwilling to take part in any Army debate which had for its object the injury of either party of the State. I have served in the field under both Liberal and Unionist Governments, and from no one have I received more kindness, more encouragement, or more consideration than from the two noble Marquesses one the Leader of the Unionist, the other the late Leader of the Liberal Party in this House. Then, Mr. Haldane is a personal friend of mine, and it is most distasteful to me to do or say anything to add to his difficulties, or to increase the heavy burden he has to bear. And I certainly would not do so did not my experience of war and my intimate knowledge of artillery satisfy me that by the course which is being pursued with regard to that branch of the Territorial Army the safety not only of the country, but of our great Empire, is endangered.
1552
We are at present committed to nothing more than a paper Army as far as the artillery is concerned. And before any further steps are taken I implore you to make an effort to prevent the grievous error we should make if we consented to the formation of 182 batteries of Territorial Artillery. Let us confine ourselves, in the first instance, as Lord. Denbigh has suggested, to the raising of a limited number of such batteries. I would say twenty-one field batteries at the outside; in addition, there might be the fourteen heavy batteries, as proposed, and perhaps fourteen sections of pom-poms to serve with the mounted portion of the Territorial Army. Neither of these would require anything like the tactical training that is essential for horse and field artillery. Such batteries could be raised where there might be some hope of securing the services of the required number of intelligent men suitable for the artillery and where, possibly—I am afraid I cannot say probably—suitable range accommodation might be locally found. We cannot, we dare not, without running frightful risks, to say nothing of the great waste of public money, commit ourselves further than this at present.
Meanwhile it is essential for the security of this country that the thirty-three Regular batteries should be maintained at the full establishment, in order that they may be available on the shortest possible notice for home defence when the whole of the expeditionary force shall have been despatched. In such a condition they would be infinitely better fitted to assist in training the Territorial Artillery than they are at present on the lamentably low establishment of two guns, sixty-five of all ranks, and forty-five horses. And such batteries, though few in number, would most certainly put more heart into the other branches of the Territorial Army should they ever find themselves opposed to the highly-trained troops of a Continental Power, than any number of Territorial batteries, and they would cost much less in the end than the 182 batteries it is proposed to raise.
It has been urged that the Territorial batteries should be given a chance,

1553
and that we should wait for three or four years to see whether they could not be made efficient. My Lords, at the end of three or four years who is to pronounce on the efficiency of the Territorial batteries? Those who are responsible for their existence, and those who have honestly done their best to give them their so-called training, are they to be the judges? My Lords, there is but one test for the efficiency of artillery, and that test is war; and are we to wait for war in order to be certain whether the Territorial batteries are fit for the duties for which they were raised?
I am asked why I did not say last year what I am saying now about the Territorial Artillery, and I am told that to give expression to such views at this time is to discourage those who have been requested, and have consented, to raise Territorial batteries. I hope I have made it clear to your Lordships that, as soon as if knew that Territorial batteries were to be raised, I lost no time in pointing out as emphatically as I could that, unless they were given far more training than was laid down in Army Orders, they could not be trusted in war. I had no conception then, nor indeed did I know until this year's Army Estimates were published in February last, that the thirty-three Regular batteries were to be placed on such a low establishment as to prevent their being able to take the field, and that, with the exception of the eight horse artillery batteries which, as I explained on a former occasion, might at any moment be required to replace wastage in the expeditionary force, we should have to depend solely upon the 182 Territorial batteries for the artillery defence of these Islands.
And with regard to any discouraging effect my words may have had, my reply is that, if I could feel there was any reality about the proposed batteries, or see any prospect of so vast a number ever being of the slightest use, so far from doing anything to discourage their formation, I would gladly welcome them as a valuable addition to the Royal Regiment of Artillery. But, knowing as I do that it is hopeless to expect them ever to become efficient enough to be
1554
trusted in the field, and, as I have shown, that by the scheme they would be the only artillery available for home defence, I consider it my duty to use every effort to prevent the wholesale adoption of a measure which I regard as fraught with possible disaster to this country; and if any words of mine can help to this end, I shall feel that I have not appealed in vain, and that I have no reason to regret having taken up so much of your. Lordships' valuable time.
LORD OREN FELL: My Lords, when came down to the House this afternoon I had not the slightest intention of addressing your Lordships, and I do not rise now to denounce in any way the Territorial scheme. I am a member of the Territorial Association of my county, and shall do my level best to bring what is given us to do to a successful issue. But I listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, and I rise simply to say that, I concur in every word he said with regard to the difficulty of training artillery. For the last four years I have had the duty of supervising a very large force of artillery in Ireland. I have invariably attended the practice camps and I know how difficult it is nowadays even for highly skilled officers and men to do justice to the new gun. I have watched carefully the work of officers which I have had to supervise, and it has often been my painful duty to recommend that certain officers in the Royal Artillery even should not be promoted to the higher ranks because of what by a civilian would be considered very slight deficiencies—want of the power of observation and of taking proper ground, and their inability to perform other duties which those responsible for training artillery should be able to perform. I only say this to show how difficult it will be for the officers of the Territorial Artillery to become efficient with the very small training they will receive. The noble Earl who called attention to this question to-day suggested that the force should consist of two batteries of the Territorial Artillery and one battery of Regular Artillery. To make things safe I would say let the proportion he two batteries of Royal Artillery and one battery of Territorial Artillery. Lord Roberts has mentioned

1555
the great difficulty in England of providing proper ranges. Even in Ireland, with the large force of artillery I had under my command, we had not a proper range. When I was in command in Ireland I endeavoured all I could to induce the Government to purchase more land for the purpose, and I hope that under my successor the absolutely necessary ground will be obtained. It has been my duty to search for suitable ground for ranges. I visited a great many parts of Ireland for that purpose, and I realise how very difficult it is, with all the various rights that exist in England and in Ireland, to find sufficient ground for proper practice with the new gun. As I have said, I am a member of the Territorial Association of my county—Buckinghamshire—and I am sure that we shall always support any scheme propounded by the Government of the day, and do our level best to make it a success. But I hope that after what has been urged by the noble Earl and by the noble and gallant Field Marshal the greatest possible care will be taken in carrying out a scheme which to us soldiers presents the very greatest difficulties.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY oF STATE FOR WAR (Lord LUCAS): My Lords, the speeches to which we have listened have dealt chiefly with the question of the Territorial Field Artillery. No alternative to the plan of arming the Territorial Army with its own field artillery has been forthcoming, but suggestions have been made that they should be allowed to have a certain proportion of batteries of the Regular Army. The question of the reorganisation that is taking place in the Regular Army has also been mentioned. With your permission I would like, before dealing with the question of the Territorial Artillery, to put before your Lordships the position with regard to the Regular Field Artillery. Though the two questions are entirely separate, they have a distinct bearing on one another.
As your Lordships know, the proposal is to organise an expeditionary force of six divisions, for the mobilisation of which sixty-six batteries of field artillery are required. The raising of a force of sixty-six batteries, which is a considerable increase on what has ever been
1556
proposed before, is at the present moment exceedingly difficult for two reasons. In the first place, the force of artillery required now is larger, because in common with foreign countries we have hid to increase the number of guns per 1,000 bayonets and sabres; and, in the second place—and this is where our chief difficulty comes in—the new gun has entailed an increase of 50 per cent. in the personnel of the ammunition column. Therefore we are faced, first of all, with the problem of producing a larger number of field batteries, and, secondly, we have to increase the personnel of the ammunition columns.
The position is that if the sixty-six batteries and their ammunition columns were mobilised with Regular Artillerymen, under the present system of enlistment—that is to say, six years with the colours and six years with the Reserve—there would be a deficit of no less than 7,000 men. That is a deficit which it is extremely difficult to meet. Even if we had continued the system of enlistment which was in force when the present Government came into office—three years in the Colours and nine in the Reserve—and even had we been able to get sufficient men to prolong their service in order to provide drabs for India, it would not have been me. There is no practical proposal on the lines of the plan suggested by hold Midleton of enlisting a number of three-year men that would enable the necessary men to be obtained. The Army Council, therefore, were forced to adopt the system of manning the ammunition columns with the Special Reserve; there was no alternative open. The shortage of 7,000 is after stripping the thirty-three surplus batteries and returning the guns to store. We have never yet in this country had any mobilisation scheme which provided the full complement for the ammunition columns and the rest. We have never had any scheme which did not entail returning surplus batteries to store, and it is, as a matter of fact, a delusion to consider those surplus batteries as combatant units. They are nothing of the sort, as you demobilise them automatically as you mobilise the rest of your force. Partly for that reason

1557
the number of artillery batteries kept in this country has never been in very strict proportion to the number that would be required on mobilisation. There have always been these surplus batteries, and under any scheme of mobilisation it has always been intended to absolutely strip them and do away with them as combatant units.
Under the present scheme you have an improvement upon that. You have your skilled training cadre. When this scheme is in working order we shall, for the first time, not contemplate returning those guns to store; they will remain as training batteries with Regular complements, and will have a certain combatant value. That is, as I say, far in Advance of anything we have had up to this time. To say that by the present system combatant units are being destroyed is not at all an accurate statement. You could not have had these thirty-three batteries as combatant batteries. The advantage which we claim for this scheme, and which certainly could not be said about the artillery system in force when this Government came into power, is that, in the first place, it enables the necessary drafts for India to be provided; secondly, it enables you to mobilise the whole of the sixty-six; and, in the next place, it will provide training machinery to replace the wastage of war. In so far as it has been said that the policy of the present Government is to starve the artillery, I would point out that there is an actual increase in numbers at the present moment of between 200 and 300 men.
I now turn to the question of the Territorial Army. It has been stated from the very beginning that the Territorial Army was intended to be the Second Line; it was never intended that it should take the field immediately on the outbreak of hostilities. That is not the function of a Second Line Army. If it was ever thought possible that a Second Line Army could take the field on the outbreak of hostilities, surely no Continental Power or any other would maintain a much more expensive and elaborate First Line Army. We look, as we have always looked, to the Navy
1558
and the Regular Army as the First Line, and the position remains the same with the Regular Army stronger by better organisation, enabling an expeditionary force of something like 100,000 men to be sent abroad with yet from 40,000 to 60,000 of the Regular Army left in this country with their proper complement of all arms.
We do not say that we have suddenly revolutionised the whole system of defence of this country. We have never laid claim to anything of the sort. What we lay claim to is that we have set up the machinery that will place this country in a position far stronger than it has ever been in before to meet the strain which comes upon a nation after six months of war. At about the end of that period it is intended that the Territorial Army should be fit to take the field, and this will enable the country to get, so to speak, its second wind, which it could not do before. It is like the difference between a man in training and a man who is not. At the end of six months, or about that time it is intended that the Territorial Army should be fit to take the field absolutely independent of the Regular Army. That being so, it is absolutely essential that it should have a proper complement of the necessary combatant arms.
The Army Council have made allowance for the difficulty of using artillery in this country, and have decided on the proportion of four guns to the 1,000. In regard to the question of the artillery of the Territorial Force I confess I have not been able to follow Lord Denbigh's reasoning. Either your Field Artillery is going to be efficient at the end of six months training on mobilisation, or it is not. If it is not going to be efficient, why does the noble Lord propose to allow to each brigade of artillery two of these inefficient batteries? If, on the other hand, it is possible to have two efficient batteries of field artillery in a' brigade, surely it is not beyond human capacity to raise a third battery. And if, as Lord Roberts says, the six months continuous training on mobilisation is not going to give the force the efficiency you want, then I do not see what is the point of the National Service League, an organisation which proposes to give considerably less training.

1559
The Army Council have never underrated the objections which may be raised to their proposals in regard to the Territorial field artillery. But if your Lordships have read the speech made by Mr. Haldane on the subject in another place you will have seen that these proposals have the support of the artillery expert advisers of the Army Council. I am willing to admit that, to a certain extent, it is an experiment, but it is an experiment against which no one has been able to produce a prima facie case, while, on the other hand, there is a certain amount of prima facie evidence in its favour. There is the remarkable case of the Honourable Artillery Company, a corps commanded by the noble Earl Lord Denbigh. When the noble Earl started field artillery he was met with the same sort of opposition as he is now Offering to our scheme. He was told that what he aimed at was impossible of achievement. If they succeeded in attaining so high a standard of efficiency in a fortnight's training, surely it is not too much to hope that the six months training on mobilisation will be sufficient to enable the Territorial artillery to attain to something like the same condition of efficiency. There are also the batteries commanded by Colonel Allen in Sheffield, and by Colonel Grant in Glasgow—they afford remarkable evidence of what can be done, in spite of a certain amount of opposition from the War Office.
Reference has been made to the amount of instruction which the officers of the Territorial artillery will receive. The Army Council quite recognise, as was emphasised by both the noble and gallant Field-Marshal and by the noble Earl who initiated this discussion, that it is of the utmost importance to have skilled and well-trained commanders of the batteries. In each command there will be an officer commanding and a staff officer who will be either Regular or ex-Regular officers. In each brigade there will be a Regular adjutant, a Regular sergeant-major and six sergeant-instructors, so that when a battery is going through its ordinary preliminary work it will have what is considered to be a sufficient amount of expert help and advice. Then with regard to higher training, it is the
1560
intention of the Army Council to concentrate it, at present, upon the officers and non-commissioned officers of the batteries and to leave nothing undone to provide them with first-class instruction and experience. First you have the machinery supplied by the training brigade which will be able to give a large amount of instruction and assistance. Besides that, officers will have, within financial limits, which I think will be wide, practically unlimited opportunities of being attached to Regular batteries for training and fire practice. In fact I am told by officers of the Regular artillery that it will be perfectly possible, under this scheme, for officers of the Territorial Artillery to have more general instruction, especially in firing work, than was possible for officers of the Regular artillery fifteen or twenty years ago.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: Will they get any extra pay when going through those courses?
*LORD LUCAS: They will receive the pay of their rank.
LORD AMPTHILL: How are they to find the time?
*LORD LUCAS: The question of time is, I agree, an important one. But if the noble Lord suggests that there are not 180 or 360 people in this country who can afford to give up sufficient time to do this work, then all I can say is that he has a higher opinion of industry in this country than I have. There are very difficult matters which officers have to learn and without which knowledge they cannot become good battery commanders. The question of observation of fire, which has been mentioned by the three previous speakers, is a very technical one, and I am told by Regular artillery officers that it is so difficult that there are many officers in the Regular artillery who cannot learn it. It is a gift, and if you have not got the gift no training can give it to you. On the other hand, if the officer has this innate gift, it is their opinion that the amount of training open to him should be sufficient to make him a good observer of fire.

1561
With regard to ranges, land ranges are more suitable than sea ranges for artillery practice, but between land and sea ranges there is at present a sufficient number for the preliminary work of all the batteries of the Territorial artillery, and it is hoped that by the time the first two years training is over greater facilities still for firing will be provided. After all, the whole point of this debate turns, not so 'much upon a condemnation of the Territorial field artillery, as on a doubt whether it is possible to raise so many as 182 batteries. I gathered from what was said that it is not denied that it is a possibility.
EARL ROBERTS: I beg your pardon. I say it is an absolute impossibility.
*LORD LUCAS: After considering all the questions we hold a different view from the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, and regret that we cannot include him among our supporters. I may say that I am very sorry if I misinterpreted in any way the noble and gallant Field-Marshal's previous utterances on the general question. The noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, seemed to think it would be possible to raise batteries only in certain suitable districts, and he suggested that you should only raise them where you found capable Volunteer officers.
*THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I suggested that the first efforts should be confined to certain suitable localities, and that where you could not find capable Volunteer officers to command them you should send down Regular officers to start them for the first few years.
*LORD LUCAS: After all, what is a suitable locality for raising field artillery? Is there only one class of man capable of doing field artillery work? How can you tell what is going to prove a suitable locality until you try? These things spring up in the most unlikely places. Who would have thought that in the heart of the City of London would be found the very best Volunteer field artillery that exists in this country? The men from the centre of London are not born horsemen. A great many of them, I take it, are
1562
not the kind of skilled mechanics and artificers whom Lord Roberts admits make fine artillerymen, such as in the ease of the Elswick Battery. Yet you have been able to raise in the City of London an extremely efficient battery, and if we can get many more batteries like that we shall consider the experiment a success.
*THE EARL OF DENBIGH: One of the great factors in the success of the Honourable Artillery Company has been the assistance they received from the Royal Horse Artillery at St. John's Wood. But one horse artillery battery has only a limited number of horses. It could give assistance to us, but it could not do so in the case of all the batteries you wish to raise in London.
*LORD LUCAS: The Honourable Artillery Company have, no doubt, received greater assistance than we can give to a, larger number of batteries, but there is no ground for thinking that it is not proposed to give other batteries assistance from Regulars. We are going out of our way to find assistance for the Territorial Army. The Honourable Artillery Company has had these advantages, owing to the public spirit and loyalty of the members, and, possibly, because it is a rich company. We are going to offer to other corps very nearly the same facilities as have been enjoyed by the Honourable Artillery Company, but at no cost to themselves at all. We are going to ask that these batteries may be raised everywhere, and I do not see how anyone can say that, with the teeming population in this country, it will be impossible to raise sufficient men to give us 182 batteries. Even if the attempt fails in certain places it will not be proved that 182 batteries cannot be raised. It is quite true that capable artillery officers do not grow on gooseberry bushes, but it is only by having work with a battery that a man can ever become an efficient artillery officer.
Finally, I disagree entirely from the point of view that, because you cannot raise certain batteries, von will not be able to raise batteries in other places. On the occasion of a great national emergency, if it were a question of training the Territorial artillery against

1563
time, to say that we should not get ranges and facilities, is putting a very low estimate upon the public spirit of the citizens of this country. There will be heaps of ranges and heaps of opportunity for training offered. When the war fever is upon people and it is a race against time, with the skilled instruction and guidance that they would always have with them to direct their efforts, I venture to think that energy of that kind—not the kind described by Prince Kraft and referred to by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal—is a very valuable thing, and by it the Territorial artillery will be able to do in six months twice as much as they could do in time of peace.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships welcome with great satisfaction the noble Lord the Under-Secretary in his present position. At the same time I believe there is not one of your Lordships who will not have sympathised with the noble Lord in having the uncongenial task of trying to make what appears to us an impossible case against the very powerful arguments addressed to the House by the three noble and gallant Lords of great experience and authority who preceded him. I do not think You could have a stronger consensus of opinion than that supplied by the noble Earl on my left, who has himself great experience of Territorial batteries, and of the sort of material out of which our Territorial batteries will be composed by the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Roberts, whose authority is second to no man in the world on the subject of artillery; and by the noble and gallant General, Lord Grenfell, who has had recent experience of handling auxiliary troops in his Irish command.
I rise not to enter into the details of the controversy before your Lordships, for so far it must be admitted that many of the arguments put forward by the three noble and gallant Lords to whom I have referred have gone by default of answer in their favour. But I ask your Lordships to consider what is the position in which we are left by this discussion. You have heard the official voice of the Under-Secretary telling us
1564
that there is no possibility of having better trained artillery than the Territorial Army when we have sent the expeditionary force out of this country; and you have heard the trained experts telling the country in no uncertain voice that that Territorial artillery would be perfectly unfit to face an invading artillery. Then are we to close this debate with nothing better than the assurance from the Government that they must send all the Regular artillery abroad, and that they are prepared to remain in a condition which leaves us practically defenceless at home in case of invasion?
I put this point. Either there must be more Regular artillery at home, or there must be less Regular artillery sent abroad. As regards the numbers at home, I think the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary ought to pursue a little more logic in his arguments. What he said, practically, was this, that we had 7,000 men too few, and then he said that we should be in a better position when we had reduced the batteries by 2,400 men. Since Mr. Haldane became Secretary of State for War, the terms of service have been altered. When Mr. Arnold-Forster left the War Office the terms were three years with the Colours and nine with the Reserve—that gave you a Reserve of three for one.
LORD LUCAS: The three years system is only possible if you get a sufficient number of men to continue in the Reserve in order to find the Indian drafts, and if you do get sufficient men to continue their service it does not give you anything like three times the amount of Reserves.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: 2,400 men are to be reduced. We are still in possession of those troops, but it is said that they must be disbanded. I say that every word which has passed to-day makes it an act of criminal folly on the part of the Government to disband them. We are spending £27,200,000 for a position of absolute insecurity, and we refuse to spend £27,500,000 so as to give us a nucleus of field artillery that would enable us to defend ourselves against invasion. What is the authority for this

1565
change? The noble Lord the Under-Secretary said that Mr. Haldane had stated in another place that the Army Council were perfectly satisfied and took the responsibility for the change. Can the noble Lord name any officer on the Army Council who will get up and say that these Territorial batteries can be trusted one by one against Continental batteries. The outside that the Army Council have said is this—
"We have got a certain sum of money; certain amount has to be done, and we take the responsibility for this change."
I will take one by one, the distinguished officers who have spoken on this subject. General French was cited in the House of Commons. All that he said, apparently, was that with six months training he could "make something "of these Territorial batteries. But will they get six months training? Sir Ian Hamilton said that three or four of these batteries might be pitted against one Regular battery; and Sir George Marshall wrote to The Times the other day expressing the gravest doubt, in almost the same terms as were used by the noble and gallant Lords who have spoken from the cross-benches to-day. Absolutely the only testimony we have had first hand has been that of the noble Lord the Under-Secretary himself, who, speaking in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility, told the country that if he could get hold of the King's outriders and a few men from Maxim's, he would undertake to have an efficient battery in a week. I am glad that in the official position he now occupies he has not repeated that fallacy.
What is the chance of their having the necessary training even for the six I would urge on the Government again months proposed? I take some exception to the language used by the Secretary of State for War in this matter. He says that, when sending troops abroad, we must be careful not to send more than we can spare, consistently with our home defence, until the Territorial artillery hardens into efficiency. That is an admirable doctrine, but how often has it been possible to carry it out? When we sent out troops in 1814 to America did we suppose that Napoleon was going to escape from Elba and that we should need every man and horse
1566
we had sent there in Flanders? Or did the Tsar of Russia before the Penjdeh incident consult the convenience of this country as to whether our troops were or were not locked up in the Soudan? Did anyone in September, 1899, suppose that by January, 1900, we should require every battery of Regular field artillery which could be sent to South Africa? I submit that this is an altogether false thesis to rely upon; it is a position which cannot be defended in practice, and it is one to which we ought not to make ourselves parties.
I have already troubled your Lordships on this subject in the course of the present session. I will say no more. Nothing that I or any other civilian could say could add to the strength of the warnings to which we have listened in the course of the last two hours. The doubts that were caused by the previous debate have been doubled by what has taken place to-night. The promise that these thirty-three batteries shall not be done away with until the Territorial Force has been got thoroughly into condition, or, to use the words of the Secretary of State, "until four or five men exist for every one who is to be done away with," may be being kept in the letter, but it is not being kept in the spirit. Those thirty-three batteries have been so reduced that they could not mobilise for many weeks. Whether the men are still in the service I know not, but they are not with the batteries. The process of dismembering those batteries is still going on, and your Lordships have a right to protest against that pledge not being strictly adhered to.
I would urge on the Government again that they have a great scheme. They can have no difficulty about money because their Scheme contemplates more than 300,000 men, and there is every reason to suppose that the numbers, even if the scheme can be a success, cannot be raised to a higher level than that of the old Auxiliary Forces. That being so, no questions of money arises, and when there is so universal a profession of opinion against these batteries being done away with I trust the Government will re-consider the position. We sincerely wish well to the Territorial

1567
Force, but there is nothing which has caused us so much discouragement or distrust in connection with the scheme of the Government as their determination to rest on the Territorial Force in the matter of artillery responsibilities with which they cannot cope, and to leave them without that backing of Regular artillery which we are told by experts in the matter to be absolutely essential.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I am not a military expert, but all my life I have taken a great interest in ordnance. In the first place, let me say I am delighted with the universal compliments which the Territorial Army has received from all sides of the House. It is practically admitted that the whole of the infantry and Yeomanry sections are likely to be a great success, but the case put is that artillery under a territorial arrangement is not possible or is not sufficient, and that it should be largely supported by Regular Artillery.
*THE EARL OF DENBIGH: By Regulars in some form or another.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHThat it should be supported by Regulars in some form or another. While welcoming the remarks of Earl Roberts in approval of the principle of the Territorial Army, I doubt whether the speech he has delivered to-night and the speeches of other Army officers in the country will assist in getting officers and men to join the Territorial Army. I think they ought to have the good side of the Territorial Army pointed out rather than the bad. I do not deny the bad side in the least. I do not deny that the whole business is, to a large extent, a gamble, but it is one in which I am very willing to lay odds on its success. Any words that the noble Field Marshal says on this subject must have attention paid to them. What I propose to do now is to lift the veil upon official secrets. I am going to tell you what has taken place in the Defence Committee. There has been a little syndicate which has given us a great deal of information with regard to a possible raid from Germany. That syndicate consisted of the noble Field Marshal, Colonel Repington, who is a great friend
1568
of the noble Earl's—I am afraid that, by my experience, he is an enemy of mine—Lord Lovat, and Sir Samuel Scott. I can, however, from a letter written in The Times by Colonel Repingtion, answer the Field Marshal upon every detail. Colonel Repington said it was not true that the present Government found the Army ready for war—
"It found an Army possessing many valuable and excellent qualities, both of a moral and of a material order, but readiness for war was not one of them."
The letter went on to say that men were lacking for service of ammunition columns necessitated by the adoption of new artillery, and the artillery of the expeditionary forces was lacking in numbers required for the initial mobilisation. But the condition of the artillery of the Auxiliary Forces was infinitely worse, the guns in charge of Militia and Volunteers being hopelessly antiquated, and there was no organisation for war. Colonel Repington went on to say that Lord Lansdowne's rearmament of part of the Volunteer artillery with modern 4·7 and 15-pounder guns showed that he hoped to make use of them; while Lord Midleton included twenty-one batteries of Volunteer artillery in his plan for the 4th, 5th, and 6th Army Corps, and Lord Roberts declared that this could be done without danger.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Is this a public document?
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: A public document, which appeared in The Times newspaper.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Was it submitted to the Committee of Defence?
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: No, no.
EARL ROBERTS: The noble Lord has pointed to me as if I had something to do with the letter. Colonel Repington can write what he likes. I am in no way responsible.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I was only trying to show the difference between Colonel Repington and the noble and gallant Field Marshal.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Our ears must have played us a strange trick. I thought I understood the noble Lord to refer to a communication made by what he described as a small syndicate of which the noble and gallant Field Marshal is a member—a representation made by this syndicate to the Committee of Imperial Defence; and did he not refer to the substance of that communication?
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: No, not a word.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then how did the syndicate come into the noble Lord's argument?
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Colonel Repington is a great friend of the Field Marshal.
EARL ROBERTS: How do you know that?
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I have seen you sitting together.
EARL ROBERTS: I may sit with people and they may not be my friends.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Does the noble and gallant Field Marshal deny that Colonel Repington is a friend of his?
EARL ROBERTS: I do not say that he is or that he is not.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: All I am saying is that Colonel Repington wrote a letter to The Times on the subject of Territorial artillery, and I am reading that letter.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The noble Lord said he would tell us the opinion of the Committee of Imperial Defence.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I will come to that.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I would ask the noble Lord to give us that opinion, instead of sheltering himself behind the opinion of the military correspondent of The Times.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I am going to make the best case I can. Colonel Repington, as I have said, referred to Lord Midleton's inclusion of twenty-one batteries of Volunteer artillery in three of his Army Corps, and said—
"Lord Roberts declared this mold be done without danger. Rearmament was only partial and incomplete. Training was even lest attended to. Mr. Haldane has not sweps away a single battery of horse or Field Artillery. The only living subject of the King who has suppressed or swept away a battery of Field Artillery is Mr. Arnold-Forster, who committed this indefensible act in the year 1905. Mr. Haldane has also not appreciably diminished establishments. Total available number of horse and Field Artillery in 1905, 36,702; in October, 1907, 39,380.
"Second Line Artillery—Three courses were possible: (1) It might, have been exclusively Regular; (2) it might have been strengthened like the Lancashire Field Artillery Militia by some 40 per cent. of officers and men, who were serving or had served in the Regulars; (3) it might have been formed on the same lines as the rest of the Territorial Army."
This is being done—
"(1) Would have taken many years, and the cost would have been prohibitive; (2) had the disadvantage of all half-measures, and would have cost £1,250,000 annually; and the result could only have been qualified efficiency; (3) became practicable by the conversion of the 15-pounder gun. The converted 15-pounder stands comparison with the German gun in rangy and muzzle, velocity, and neither gun has fixed ammunition.
"Territorial Artillery.—Mr. Arnold-Forster, in his book' The Army in 1906,' bears testimony to the efficiency of the Honorary Artillery Company. He advocated four years enlistment, compulsory attendance in camp for at least fourteen days, and additional drills, together with obligations to join the Army Reserve. What he recommended himself he condemns when carried out by Mr. Haldane. There is no reason to suppose that the Honorary Artillery Company conditions are peculiar to London.
"Conclusion.—The decision to improve and increase the existing Volunteer Artillery is sound, because (1) the Territorial Army must have Artillery; (2) this Artillery is provided at the smallest cost and in the shortest time; (3) the possibility of future developments; (4) fair and reasonable prospect of a certain degree of efficiency; (5) no alternative plan."
* THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Will the noble Lord read to the House my letter to The Times in reply to that letter?
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: It was a very good letter. I think Colonel Repington's letter is a complete answer the noble Field Marshal, and it suggests

1571
a very important question for your Lordships' consideration. I wish to say a word about the 15-pounder gun. Last month I saw a trial at Eastney with a battery of six of these old-fashioned 15-pounder guns without shields. I do not think your Lordships would disagree with the opinion of the Blue Marines in regard to this gun. It shows that it is a very useful gun and likely to suit the Territorial Army. The target was, I think, about 2,000 to 2,600 yards out to sea, and it was only one foot square. The battery was brought up with great cleverness, and the practice made was extraordinary. If anybody had been sitting on the target, he would have been shattered by the shrapnel. A Report which was furnished to me by the Marine authorities on this trial stated—
"The battery consists of 15-pounder breech-loading guns identical with those till recently used by the Royal Field Artillery. These guns are very good and accurate up to a limited range, but they are not powerful enough for the requirements of modern war, and they have, therefore, been superseded by the 18-pounder for the Royal Field Artillery. The old guns are to be used by the Territorial Force, and would be useful for fighting in a close country where very long ranges could not be obtained."
That is exactly the kind of country in which the Territorial Force will act.
"The system of instruction at Eastney is thoroughly up-to-date. The ranging of the battery (that is, the rapid finding of the range by a system of trial shots) and indirect laying (that is, the system of concentrating the fire of the guns on the enemy without being exposed to the enemy's view) are carefully taught. It is hoped that very soon the new 18-pounder gun will be available for instruction at Eastney, as the Marine Artilleryman is expected to be able to use any gun whether belonging to the sea service or land service."
That is, I think, a very good statement; and the Navy are always ready to cooperate with the Army whenever they can possibly do so.
"The 15-pounder gun was the gun used by our Field Artillery during the South African War, and on many occasions its range was found insufficient."
The noble Field-Marshal will admit that firing in South Africa was very different from firing in the confined land of Great Britain. I think that is rather a good case.
* THE EARL OF DENBIGH: For gun or for the Territorial artillery?
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: For both. The total establishment of the Royal Artillery is as follows:—Headquarters divisional artillery, 56 officers, 266 other ranks; field artillery brigades, 943 officers, 24,477 other ranks; field artillery (howitzer) brigades, 224 officers, 5,222 other ranks; horse artillery, 100 officers, 3,000 other ranks; heavy artillery batteries, 114 officers, 3,669 other ranks; mountain artillery brigade, 29 officers, 752 other ranks; and garrison artillery companies, 286 officers, 7,360 other ranks. That total of 1,745 officers and 44,739 other ranks is a fair proportion of the 185,000 men of the Regular Army in this country. Lord Midleton and Mr. Arnold Forster have each attempted to reorganise the Army, and my right hon. friend found the Army absolutely disorganised and the War Office in a state of chaos.
LORD HENEAGE: It is still.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHMy view is that it is entirely altered, and I believe Lord Lucas would be inclined to say so also. We have two lines of defence. The Regular Army of 185,000 men are instantly ready to strike and to be moved where they are wanted. The Territorial Army will be trained as well as they can be, but they are not expected to be called out at a moment's notice; they would have three or six months notice. I do not suppose that more than two-fifths of the Regular Army would be moved out of the country until the Territorial Army had become trained. We must not forget that we have a strong Navy, manned by officers and men who would give a good account of themselves in time of war. The concentration of the Navy in home waters would make it very difficult for an enemy to land on these shores. The Army would have the co-operation of the Navy, and I do not believe the Navy would be likely to let an enemy get through.
Yesterday I had a conversation with an artillery officer who said he believed the 15-pounder gun would be more useful to the Territorial Force than the 18-pounder, because the 18-pounder required a great deal more ammunition.

1573
Moreover the noise caused by quick-firing was very distracting, and it required a very steady officer to govern the firing in a satisfactory manner. The view of this officer was that it was better to break up the batteries of four guns into batteries of two guns, because a company would be likely to get better results if attached to two guns than they would get if they worked the battery as a whole. I am told that the 15-pounder gun which is so sneered at is really a most efficient weapon at its own range. It would have an extremely effective shield of hard steel, a quarter of an inch thick, and weighing 1 cwt. The shield would resist a rifle bullet at 500 yards, and as shrapnel has less power of penetration than a rifle bullet, it would give great protection to the men who were working the gun. The view of this officer was that in England the Territorial Force would get as near to the enemy as they could, and they would be able to use the 15-pounder gun at comparatively close range with great effect. I have endeavoured to state something in favour of my right hon. friend, and I hope I have had some Success.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, what I have to say will not take more than a minute. I rise merely to correct an erroneous statement made by the Under-Secretary. The noble Lord went out of his way to refer to the National Service League, and said that under Mr. Haldane's Army scheme more training would be given to the Territorial soldier than under the scheme proposed by the National Service League. That is not the case. The National Service League propose six months training, with this essential and important difference—that the training should precede the outbreak of war instead of coming afterwards. There are other differences between the principles advocated by the National Service League and those of the Territorial scheme, and if the former principles were adopted there would be no fault to find with the Army scheme. I venture to suggest that it is part of the duty, not only of the Secretary of State, but also of the Under-Secretary, to become acquainted with the actual nature of those proposals before referring
1574
to them in public, and it is also part of their duty to see that the movement of the National Service League is an important social movement which is daily growing in force, and which will, I firmly believe, become before long the most important movement in this country.
*LORD LUCAS: As a point of personal explanation, I might say that I took what is the most widely read and most interesting publication of the National Service League—the compiled speeches of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal; and at the end I read a short statement, signed by him, saying that the terms proposed were three or four months.
LORD AMPTHILL: If I may, I shall be very glad to send the noble Lord sonic literature.
LORD WYNFORD: My Lords, Lord Tweedmouth, implied that this debate would have the effect of deterring enlistment in the Territorial horse and field batteries. Whether this will be the case or not, I feel sure that the intention of those who have initiated these discussions, and have written to the newspapers or spoken on the subject, has never been to dishearten intending recruits so much as to point out the difficulties which lie in the path of success, with a view to overcoming them. I wish to associate myself with the noble Earl who initiated this debate in all he said, and I think, with him, that there are grounds for believing, in some instances, in particular localities and under special conditions, that these difficulties may possibly be overcome; but, like him, I fear that in many instances they will be very great. The noble Earl pointed out the extreme disadvantage under which a great many batteries which could not be raised in one particular locality or district would labour. He showed that the different sections of the batteries would never be able to be brought together for drill except at the annual training. The noble Earl also spoke of the immense demands that would be entailed on the time of the battery commander, who in the artillery must be a great deal more in touch with his, non-commissioned officers and men than is necessary in other arms of the service.

1575
In the big towns and cities the facilities are greater. They are no doubt greater where there are large central drill halls within easy reach of the officers and men, and where the batteries can be easily horsed. We have heard a great deal of the battery of the Lancashire Artillery, which was reparted, on the Scottish manœuvres, to have negotiated a bank on foot which the Regular artillery were either unwilling or unable to overcome. But, my Lords, I never attached much 'credence to that story, and I have good grounds for believing that the facts were not quite as quoted by Mr. Haldane in another place. However, I do not question that this battery, and many others in similar circumstances, and under similar conditions, could be well horsed for their week's training, and might possibly reach a fair standard of drill and fire discipline. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, a short time ago, in a speech, rather made light of the training which has to be undergone by a battery of field artillery. He seemed to think that all that was required for an efficient battery was a few drivers, a few men, their gun works, and a week's training. Will the noble Lord permit me to suggest that if he attended one of these practice camps, either at Okehampton, Salisbury plain, or in Wales, for a fortnight or even for a week, he would alter his opinion considerably, even if he did not altogether change it. In his speech he seemed to ignore the question of trained officers, and as regards the men I myself can say that a man who is a skilled mechanic and has been employed in gun works, has a very great advantage over others. The actual handling of a gun is easy to grasp, and will be learned more quickly by the more intelligent and educated class whom we hope to get in the Territorial field batteries, than, of course, by a recruit who joins the Regular artillery. But the noble Lord does not appear to grasp the fact that when a commander of artillery knows his men perfectly you have not then obtained an efficient battery. You have yet to train these men together, to carry out certain laid down principles of drill, and to conform to the strictest discipline, and they have yet to pass through the experience of a practice camp, where they can manæuvre and fire under as nearly
1576
as possible service conditions. Now, my Lords, for that we must have artillery ranges. A great many people until recently were under the impression that an artillery range required a ground very similar to a rifle range. But I think that impression has been removed, and it is now understood that a flat plain or a level sandy stretch makes the most impracticable range that could possibly be imagined, and that such ranges as Shoeburyness, Barry, Colwyn Bay and others are useless for the training of artillery under service condition. It is a satisfaction to hear that His Majesty's Government realise this to a certain extent, and intend taking steps to provide proper artillery ranges; but it must be clearly understood that none of these Territorial field batteries can be considered efficient until their efficiency has been satisfactorily proved under conditions as similar as possible to what they would meet on active service. By that I mean a selection of and manoeuvring into the most advantageous firing positions, and the direction of fire on targets in positions that the enemy would necessarily occupy. Two or three years, at the very least, will pass before this can be accomplished. I wonder where these 148 batteries of the Territorial artillery are going to practice even in the next two years. They will ail require to practice either at Whitsuntide or during August Bank Holiday week, and it will mean that in the space of about twenty days arrangements will have to be made for the odd batteries to fire 200 rounds each.
My Lords, let me say one word about the horse artillery. These require to be more perfectly trained, both when mounted and when in action. They require to be more perfectly trained as a unit, to be better horsed and the Government are giving them a gun that is too heavy for them. Would not better results be obtained with the same personnel and the same horses if these batteries were formed into batteries of 3-pounder Hotchkiss guns, or even maxims?
Let me turn for one moment to sonic remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made. He said that the officers of the Territorial field batteries are

1577
to have unlimited opportunities of being attached to Regular batteries. I cannot imagine where the noble Lord is going to find the officers who are to have the unlimited opportunities. They may be given the unlimited opportunities, but if they have the opportunities, can they spare the time? Lord Lucas also stated that they would have greater opportunities of observation of fire than battalions of Regular artillery had ten or fifteen years ago. Well, my Lords, in ten or fifteen years the Regular artillery have not stood still. The Regular artillery have advanced considerably. The observation of fire requires practice, a great deal of practice, and it is not the slightest use to say that because an officer can come down and watch practice and drill and observe fire, he will be able therefore to command a battery of artillery.
Let me turn for one moment to the thirty-three training batteries of Regular artillery. His Majesty's Government gave an undertaking that the Royal Field Artillery should not be reduced. But the noble Lord, Lord Midleton, said that one of these batteries is already reduced in numbers. It has come to my knowledge that some of them have been reduced in strength by as much as 30 per cent. or more. I can only infer that these men have been transferred to batteries on the higher or lower establishment, and I trust my inference is correct. But what I particularly wish to point out is the effect of reducing the establishment of these thirty-three training batteries. For all practical purposes they will cease to exist. The establishment of gunners and drivers alone in these batteries is forty, excluding non-commissioned officers. Well, my Lords, there there are always a certain number of men employed, in the battery not available for military duty, such as officers' servants, grooms, clerks, storemen, and others, and when these have all been reckoned, and you deduct 1 per cent.—not a large percentage—for sick men, there remains not one single man available for parade. The staff of noncommissioned officers is far too small for the work to be performed, considering they will have to instruct, not merely the Special Reserves, but also the Territorial artillery. It will not permit of
1578
any non-commissioned officers or men being sent on courses of instruction, nor will it allow of any non-commissioned officers or men being granted a fortnight.
*LORD LUCAS: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say that the establishment of these training batteries is provisional at present. The whole thing is in the nature of an experiment, and if it is found that the establishment is not big enough to carry out training properly, there is no reason why it should not be increased.
LORD WYNFORD: But I am trying to point out to the noble Lord the difficulties that will be entailed on battery commanders who will have their batteries reduced on this establishment. How can you expect to give good instruction to your special reservists under such circumstances as these?
*LORD LUCAS: The reports from these training batteries are quite excellent. General Sir John French, the Inspector-General, has been round inspecting a number of men who have been under training for three months, and he reports very favourably indeed on them, saying they are not only learning their work very well, but are an exceedingly good class of men.
LORD WYNFORD: I do not doubt what the noble Lord says, but I am not talking about Special Reservists in the cadre of the battery. It does not matter what the report is this year or even next year, the batteries will gradually go down hill and cannot possibly exist on the present establishment, and I can only hope that the Government will take early steps to raise the establishment and to enable the men to carry out the duties imposed on them.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Lord who last spoke on behalf of the Government occasioned a somewhat bitter disappointment on the House, because when he rose from his place he said it was his intention to lift the veil of secrecy as to the Imperial Defence Committee. We expected, particularly when we called to mind his recent record, that we should have

1579
something of an extremely piquant and interesting description, and, therefore, our hearts sank within us when it turned out that his great revelation was nothing more nor less than the reading of extracts from a letter written by the special military correspondent of The Times, a letter which most of us—I for one—have had many opportunities of perusing, and which is certainly very well worth reading. The noble Lord made use of that letter for the purpose of a class of argument of which we have heard a great deal during the course of these discussions as to the Territorial artillery. I mean the argument which we naturally describe as an ad hominem argument, which seeks to confute one's opponent by attributing to him opinions dissimilar from those which he expresses at the moment. I confess I am not greatly moved by arguments of that class, and I say, frankly, I would very much prefer that the whole of us should be convicted of the utmost inconsistencies rather than that this country should remain vulnerable to a foreign foe. Let us he inconsistent, let us also be invulnerable. The noble Lord made the best use of the military correspondent's letters, and they are, I think, a very admirable defence of the Government plan; I think, on the whole, the best defence to which I have listened. But, upon the whole, what is the gist of Colonel Repington's defence I speak from recollection, but I think it does not come to very much more than this, that the Government plan gives you the best you can get, considering all the circumstances, considering the limitations in point of numbers of men, and above all, the limitation in point of money available; and, therefore, he argues, "Accept that and make the best you can of it. "But I am not quite sure that it is fair to quote that distinguished authority in support of the view that these Territorial batteries will really be so very praiseworthy as noble Lords opposite suppose. I will not quote the military correspondent of The Times as fully as my noble friend quoted him, but I will read one brief extract from another letter. This is what he wrote, I believe, last year—
"If any politician believes he is going to obtain officers fit to command modern quick-
1580
firing batteries from among people who do not give up their whole time to the study and practice of the science of artillery, the first battle in which these persons are engaged will disabuse him of his belief. Half-trained officers and half-trained men have no business to touch these guns. They will not get half the results obtained by the trained hands, they will get no useful result at Better far to arm them with ancient smoothbores and the simple contrivances of museum artillery, for then, at least, their efforts would not be wholly wasted."
Well, my Lords, I have been told that I am in the great army of the inconsistent authorities upon these subjects, and I have been told that when I had the honour of being connected with the military administration I too had contemplated the idea of placing modern weapons in the hands of these auxiliary troops. Let me remind the House what the then Government did do. We found that a number of Volunteer batteries—batteries to which had been assigned certain defensive positions under the scheme of defence which then found favour with the military authorities—were armed with old-fashioned, obsolete guns of position, and we put in their hands a certain number of modern 4·7 guns. But these were not field artillery and still less horse artillery, but guns of position, to be used as such. In regard to the remainder of the Volunteer artillery, to whom we gave a certain number of the 15-pounder guns, I may say that these guns were given, not for use with mobile troops in the field, but for use as guns of position, for which, I am told, they were equally serviceable. Well, so much for my consistency in the matter. The noble and gallant Field Marshal, on the cross-benches, has given a very good account of his consistency, and I am not going to hold a brief for him, for he has made his own defence, and a very triumphant one it was. My noble friend behind me has shown that when he included a certain number of Volunteer batteries in his Army Corps organisation, he did so by allowing two batteries of Regular artillery alongside of each battery of Volunteer artillery, thereby giving them not only a stiffening, but a great deal more. It was a very moderate dilution of Regular artillery by the addition of some of the best of these

1581
Volunteer batteries, and that, he reminds me, was the very proportion recommended by the gallant Field Marshal who spoke on the second bench, Lord Grenfell, whom we were so glad to hear for the first time.
Then we have heard a great deal also in regard to the inconsistency of the military advisers of the Government, and I still maintain, as I have maintained before in this House, that, particularly if we were allowed freely to quote from documents which are not public property, we should be able to show that the high military authorities who have at various times served the War Office, have recorded opinions extremely adverse to Volunteer artillery as an adjunct to Regular troops in the field. But I think we sometimes do too scant justice to the gallant soldiers who advise the military authorities at the War Office; after all, their advice is given subject to limitations which are notorious and which we all of us understand. The military advisers of the War Office are perfectly aware that, whatever they may think as to the military measures which might really be advisable if you are to place this country in a position of entire safety, that they have to reckon with the Secretary of State; he has to reckon with the Cabinet, and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a very formidable obstacle; and so it comes to this, that you give the military advisers of the day something notoriously a great deal less than they would like to have, and they have to make the best of it. And when I am told that in this case the military advisers of His Majesty's present Government are satisfied with what is now being done, I bear these circumstances in mind; indeed, I find in the letter quoted by Mr. Haldane in the House of Commons, from Sir John French, a perfectly clear and explicit statement, comprised in four lines, to that effect. Here is what Sir John French said—
"Of course, all soldiers would prefer the highest trained artillery they could get, but the country insists on economy, and I assume no regular artillery is available."
That is the position of the military advisers of the Government. It is under these conditions that the great experi-
1582
ment which Mr. Haldane is engaged in trying is to be conducted, and what we have to say in regard to it is that in our opinion that experiment ought to be tried with the utmost caution. We think there is a great risk in trying it for the sake of symmetry. Until you have some knowledge of the extent to which it is likely to succeed, you commit a great mistake when you weaken the forces of the Regular artillery which remains to you.
Now, I do not think there is anything unreasonable or anything unpatriotic in putting forward these considerations; and I venture to maintain that the discussion which has taken place shows that we have been entirely reasonable in taking up this view. For, after all, it has been admitted—frankly admitted—that you cannot expect these Territorial Associations to, produce Volunteer artillery fit to take its place alongside of Regular artillery. There may be exceptional cases, such as the ease with which my noble friend, Lord Denbigh, is connected.
LORD LUCAS: We only attempt that on the outbreak of war.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Quite right, I will come to that in a moment. I was saying that there are, no doubt, exceptional cases, such as the battery, and the batteries of the Lancashire and the Honourable Artillery Companies; but nobody can contend that these are typical of the class of field artillery which you could raise indiscriminately all over the country; the conditions are entirely different. What the Under-Secretary of State said a moment ago is perfectly true. You admit that it must be a work of time to convert the raw material into the manufactured article, and you say, roughly speaking, you think you can do it in six months. Well, my Lords, I own that I am filled with apprehension when I hear it confidently stated that this period of six months will be sufficient for the purpose. In the first place, are you quite sure you are always going to get six months? I think that point has been dealt with by my noble friend, (Lord Midleton) and I will not labour

1583
it any more. But look at what was said by the noble Lord who represents the War Office. He said—I hope I do not do him an injustice—that while in this intermediate period, the period during which the hardening process was to take place, he anticipated that only three-fifths of the expeditionary force would be absent from these shores. If that is true, or if it is anywhere near true, what becomes of the scheme of the Government to be able to send away from this country, at a moment's notice, a larger and better equipped force than any Government has ever been able to command? If that is really to be expected, that the departure of the full expeditionary force is to be contingent upon the successful conversion of the raw material in these county batteries into the fully developed field and horse artillery, then I must say it does seem to me that a very serious weakness has been disclosed in the scheme of the Government. The noble Lord spoke of the achievements which would be possible while the war fever prevailed. He spoke of the race against time which would take place while that fever was burning. My Lords, those are ominous words. We have had some experience of a war fever, and of a race against time, and those who recollect the events of that day will not be found very ready to expose themselves to a repetition of the occurrences which then took place.
LORD LUCAS: You had no training machinery to speak of.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The Lord President of the Council said it was a gamble. Is he prepared to get up and announce, on any platform in this country, that the Government are prepared to gamble with the safety of the country? I hope not.
Therefore, I submit to your Lordships that what I venture to call the prudent policy recommended by my noble friend, Lord Denbigh, is an eminently reasonable one. He does not suggest that you should give up your scheme. He is quite ready, and so, for the matter of that, am I, to believe that you may, in time, be able to form a
1584
number of very valuable batteries in the country, but we suggest that in common prudence you should carry out this great experiment where the circumstances are most favourable, that you 'should not lay so much stress, as you do at present, upon mere circumstances of symmetry, and above all, that while you are doing this, you should do nothing to weaken the strength of the Regular artillery.
My Lords, the Secretary of State for War has admitted more than once that he is engaged upon a great experiment. Let him try it as an experiment, and let him regulate his position by the success of the experiment as it proceeds. I hope that he, and noble Lords opposite, will remember that it is an experiment which may involve the safety of the very heart of the Empire.

MILITIA OFFICERS.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I beg to ask the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State for War, the following questions: (1) If Militia officers belonging to Militia battalions who are not to train this year are allowed to transfer or to be attached as Militia officers to Militia battalions which are to train this year; (2) to state the number of Special Reserve recruits, engineers, artillery, and infantry of the United Kingdom enlisted up to 2nd May, 1908, who on the date of first enlistment were up to and above army standard both as regards age and physical development?
*LORD LUCAS: Has the noble Lord anything to say first as to the questions?
*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: They do not want any explanation, if the noble Lord will give the figures asked for.
*LORD LUCAS: The answer to the first question is that, so far as we know, all militia battalions, except the twenty-three disbanded battalions, are to train this year. In the case of the battalions other than those disbanded therefore, presumably, all the officers will train with them. In the case of the others, they will be dealt with under Section 72, of the Army

1585
Order, of 23rd December, in which all the officers other than lieutenant-colonels may be brought out for training.
*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: But have not Militia officers of disbanded battalions to train as Special Reserve officers? That is the point.
LORD LUCAS: Of course, they have to enter the Special Reserve of officers and have to carry out this year the regular Militia training.
*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Will the noble Lord say if they may train with the Militia, but only as Special Reserve officers?
LORD LUCAS: Yes. As regards the second question, the Return which the noble Duke asks for will involve I am sorry to say, an enormous amount of clerical labour on the Record Office, which, at the present moment is striving to deal with all these questions of permanent staff, the Territorial Army, etc., and will mean extremely hard work. I am going to appeal to the noble Duke, unless he is very anxious to have the information, which, of course, we will get if he insists——
*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Oh, no, I do not wish to give any extra work.
LORD LUCAS: If the noble Duke will not mind, at the present time, we shall be very much obliged, and it will relieve the pressure a great deal.

VOLUNTEER OFFICERS.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of Volunteer officers who have resigned their commissions between the 1st January and 16th May, 1908, and the number of officers who have joined the Volunteer force between the 1st January, and 16th May, 1908.
LORD LUCAS: The number of combatant Volunteer officers who resigned their commissions, between 1st January and 16th May, is 323, and the number of those who joined during the same period is 204. All these resignations and appointments bear date prior to
1586
the 1st April, 1908, and we have not got, since that date, the correct figures for the rest of that time. I can only give it up to the 1st April.

COST OF ARTILLERY TRAINING.
LORD WYNFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will explain the apparent discrepancy between the statement of his predecessor on 1st April last as to the annual cost of the Territorial Field Artillery and the cost of the same as shown on page 5 of the "Approximate Estimate of the Proposed Territorial Force" [Cd. 3296.] I should explain that the annual cost, as stated in the Answer to your Lordships'. House, was £350,000, whereas the Approxmate Estimate shows it to be something over £600,000.
LORD LUCAS: The reason of that is, in the first place, that since the first Estimate, contained in Command Paper 3,296, was made, the establishment of the battalions of the Territorial Army have been reduced, from 6-gun to 4-gun, and that alone accounts for a considerable reduction. In the second place, there was issued subsequently, another paper dealing with the same question, and headed "Additional Estimate of the cost of the Territorial Force," Command Paper, 3369. In that there was a Memorandum by Mr. Haldane, in which he states that the Estimate was made on the war establishments. His intention in framing that Estimate was to let Members of Parliament know quite clearly exactly what was the maximum amount of expenditure which the country might be called on to incur in regard to the Territorial Force; and he, himself, in this Memorandum says that the number of horses provided for in the original Estimate is largely in excess of any possible requirements in peace time, even on manœuvre scale. That was estimated on the war establishment of 6-gun batteries, whereas now the actual establishment for training batteries is on a lower scale altogether, and is included in the Army Order of 18th March.
House adjourned at five minute s before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.