Sitting of 19 May 1908

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table, Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the

  49
  case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.,:—Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  Rhymney Railway Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Garw and Ogmore Gas (re-committed Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill; St. Marylebone Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Divorce Bills.—Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Sir John Kennaway, Sir Joseph Leese, Mr. Solicitor General, Sir D. Brynmor Jones, Sir Edward Carson, Mr. G. Cave, and Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland were nominated Members of the Select Committee on Divorce Bills.—(Secretary Sir Edward Grey.)
  Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.—Read a second time, and committed.
  Standing Orders—Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:—1. "That, in the case of the Sligo and Arigna Railway Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert the additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit." 2."That, in the case of the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (No. 2), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
  Resolutions agreed to.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP F).
  Mr. NUSSEYreported from the Committee on Group F. of Private Bills; That the parties promoting the Pontypridd Water Bill [Lords] had stated that the evidence of Frank Treharne James, Solicitor, of Merthyr Tydfil, was essential
  50
  to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Frank Treharne James do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  Ordered, That Frank Treharne James do attend the Committee on Group F of Private Bills To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend The Thames River Steamboat Service Act, 1904, with respect to the tolls, rates, and charges at the piers and landing-places of the London County Council on the River Thames; and for other purposes," [Thames River Steamboat Service Act, 1904 (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]
  Thames River Steamboat Service Act, 1904 (Amendment) Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Lowestoft, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Abercrave; Ansley; Bolton; Buckley; Charity; Coxlodge; Elm; Glascote; Gosforth; Highleys Jane Pit Walker; Kinlet; Nuneaton; Peel; Phœnix; Pinxton; South Benwell; and Stockingford; to lie upon the Table.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Aikton (seven); Burnfield; Bylands; Carlisle; Fringeland; Kirkbampton; Orton (two); Oulton; Westward; and Wigton (two); to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Stalybridge, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Shepton Mallet, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions for alteration: From Clun; Dumfries; Idle; and Wibsey; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Aston Manor; Boreham Wood; Bristol; Brymbo; Burnishead Bridge; Cadeleigh; Carshalton; Cefnpant; Cheltenham; Cheriton Fitzpaine; Croydon (two); Cruwys Morchard; Cwmamman; Cynghardy; Dorchester; Dukestown; Dunkeld; Dyserth; Farbrase; Farn-borough (seven); Ffynnon Groew; Glasbury; Halifax (three); Hayle; Hazelrigg; Henstridge; Holywell; Islington, N. (three); Ledbury; Liskeard; Llananno; Llandilo; Llanwda; Ludlow; Mortlake; New Barnet; Newport (Mon.) (two); Pembsey; Queensbury; Rhyl; Ehymney Bridge; St. Albans (two); Shipley (two); Shoscombe; Shrewsbury; Southsea; Stalybridge; Sunnybrow; Waddington; Walker-on-Tyne; Wallsend-on-Tyne; Willington Quay; Wincanton; Wood-side; Wordsley; and Workington; to lie upon the Table.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Annan; Avoch; Bishopbriggs; Cambusbarron; Coalburn; Cromarty; Crookham; Dumfries (two); Dumfries and Maxwell-town; Dunkeld; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Inverness; Patrick; Stewarton; and Wishaw; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition of the Regent's Canal and Dock Company against, praying to be heard by counsel; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
  PUBLIC-HOUSES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Ayr, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Street, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAY RETURNS (PRELIMINARY STATEMENT).
  Copy presented, of Return relating to the Railways of the United Kingdom for the year 1907 (Preliminary Statement) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AN BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
  Copy presented, of Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1907. Volume I. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ALIENS ACT, 1905.
  Copy presented, of Second Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector under the Aliens Act (Part I.), and a Statement with regard to the Expulsion of Aliens Part II.), in respect of the year 1907 by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 7th May; Mr. Lloyd Morgan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 147.]
  NAVY (HYDROGRAPHER'S REPORT).
  Copy presented, of Report on Admiralty Surveys for the year 1907 by the Hydrographer [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3996 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA LOANS [RAILWAY AND IRRIGATION WORKS].
  Committee to consider of authorising the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise money in the United Kingdom, on the security of the Revenues of India, for the construction, extension, and equipment of Railways in India by State agency or through the agency of companies, and for the construction of Irrigation Works (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Secretary Sir Edward Grey.)
  NAVAL CASUALTIES.
  Return ordered, "specifying, for each year from 1901 to 1907, both inclusive, every Accident and Casualty occurring to any of His Majesty's ships and vessels during manœuvres or tactical exercises ordered by the Admiralty, under the following heads: date of casualty, station, ship, tonnage, complement, nature of casualty, number of lives lost."—(Mr. Bowles.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Duty on Irish-Grown Tobacco.
  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.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means on the 7th instant provides for an Excise Duty on Irish-grown tobacco unmanufactured, at the rate of 2s. 10d. the pound, as compared with 3s. the pound charged on imported tobacco. The difference of 2d. is intended to compensate the Irish producer for the cost entailed upon him by Excise restrictions. The Government could not agree to any differentiation in the rates of duty for the purpose of affording an artificial stimulus to the production of tobacco in Ireland.

  Death Duties and the Transfer of Consols.
  Mr. B. S. STRAUS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would favourably consider the desirability of making arrangements by which, in case of the payment of death duties, it would be permissable for executors to transfer Consols which were held by the estate at the middle price at which they closed on the day of decease, or if a holiday the
  54
  day previous, in satisfaction of such payment, as this would be a boon to those paying duties owing to the saving of realisation charges.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I do not think that it would, be practicable to carry out my hon. friend's suggestion.

  Irish Land Purchase Finance.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a Committee of the Irish Parliamentary Party has been appointed to consider the finance of the Irish Land Purchase Act in connection with the Report of the Treasury Committee on this subject; and whether, under these circumstances, he will take care that no decision is come to by the Treasury on the matter until they have had an opportunity of considering the views of this Committee.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I shall be very glad to consider the views of the Committee to which the hon. Member refers, provided that they are submitted to me in time; but I would remind him that, though I am unable to fix a date, I regard the settlement of this question as urgent.

  Rebate of Sugar Duty on Stock in Store.
  Mr. SMEATON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many jam manufacturers who make their jam from fresh fruit have already paid the full duty of 4s. 2d. per cwt. on their stocks of sugar; that their sugar is specially prepared and is not suitable for re-sale to the grocery trade, and must therefore remain in stock till the beginning of the strawberry season in July; that meanwhile the competing manufacturers who make their jam from pulped fruit are now able to buy their sugar with the 1s. 10d. duty and are advertising a reduction of 1s. per cwt. on all jam and marmalade; and that thus the manufacturers of fresh-fruit jam are placed at a disadvantage in the market with the makers of pulped-fruit jam; and whether under the circumstances he can see his way to grant a rebate on their stocks of sugar to these jam manufacturers.
  Mr. ALEXANDER CROSS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to allow a rebate of duty upon stocks of foreign fruit and preserves in store at the prescribed date, in public warehouses as well as in private warehouses, upon which the Sugar Duty has been paid at the existing rate, in view of the effect of the reduction upon persons left with stocks.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question and that of the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow together. I have nothing to add to the statement which I made to the House on this subject on Thursday last.

  Consols.
  Mr. ALEXANDER CROSS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if there is any Return of the number of the holdings in Consols classified in respect of the amounts, and, if not, will he grant such Return; will he state what is the amount of Consols issued in bearer certificates and the dates of issue; and if he will consider what further facilities can be granted to small investors to encourage them to invest in Consols.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) No Return is published of the number of holdings in Consols. I will consider with the authorities of the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland how far it would be practicable to prepare such a Return. I am informed that the amount of Consols held in the form of certificates to bearer on the 16th instant was £48,158,700; but I am unable to give the dates of issue of the respective certificates. Special facilities for investment in Consols are already afforded to depositors in the Savings Banks, on whose behalf Consols and other Government securities are now held in the investment account to the amount of, approximately, £23,000,000. The accumulative dividend account at the Bank of England, which was also instituted for the encouragement of small investors now comprises holdings amounting to £1,541,000. I shall be glad to consider any practicable scheme for further extending facilities in this direction.

  Income Tax on Co-operative Stores.
  Mr. REES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to take such action in respect of levying of income-tax as will place individual traders in no inferior position to the Co-operative Stores.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I beg to refer my hon. friend to the Report of Lord Ritchie's Departmental Committee on Income-tax [Cd. 2575, of 1905], pages xxiii. to xxv. of which contain a full discussion of this subject, and the tenth appendix of which furnishes a very clear statement of the legal position, which is, I fear, subject to much misapprehension. I see no reason to dissent from the conclusions of the Committee.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. ROGERS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the net cost to the Old-Age Pension Fund if aged persons in receipt of outdoor relief were included in the scheme and a payment equivalent to the cost to the rates of their maintenance was paid by the guardians into the Pension Fund instead of being distributed to the persons concerned.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The total additional cost involved by giving pensions to persons over seventy who are in receipt of outdoor relief is estimated at £2,250,000 per annum. The value of the outdoor relief given to such persons is estimated at £1,470,000. Consequently the net additional cost to the Exchequer involved by my hon. friend's suggestion would be about £780,000. My hon. friend will bear in mind that these figures must be regarded as approximate estimates only, and not as precise calculations.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the fact that many aged persons will feel keenly their present exclusion from the Old-Age Pension Fund, and that in many cases sons and daughters would gladly provide their aged parents with a home provided they had the necessary

  57
  sustenance for them; and if he will consider if something could be done for such persons without unduly pressing on I national finance.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) If, as I infer, my hon. friend desires that the benefits of the present scheme should be extended to certain classes of persons under the age of seventy, I am afraid that the suggestion is not practicable.

  Relief of Rates by Granting Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask; Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the extension of the Pension Fund to aged persons actually in receipt of Poor Law relief (approximately) would be £3,000,000, and that the local rates would be relieved: to this extent, some deduction could, in the meantime, be made from national contributions to local rates in respect of such relief.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) As I informed my hon. friend in answer to a Question which he put to me in the House on Thursday last, the case of persons at present in receipt of Poor Law relief cannot be dealt with to any advantage before the Report of the Poor Law Commission has been received and considered.

  Suggested Tax on High-Speed Motor Cars.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Legislature only passed The Motor Act, 1903, under the express provision that in no case should the speed exceed 20 miles an hour, and that that provision is entirely ignored by owners, drivers, and manufacturers, and cars are built to travel up to 100 miles an hour for use on the public roads, he will consider the advisability of taxing such cars at a prohibitive rate next year and give the firms who manufacture such cars ample notice of his intention.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The taxation of motor-cars is a subject to which I am giving careful attention; but I may remind my hon. friend that
  58
  the policy of His Majesty's Government is not to impose taxes for purposes other than that of raising revenue, and this object is not conveniently attained by imposing taxes which are prohibitory.

  Income-Tax Deduction on Charitable Endowment at Kilfenora.
  Mr. LONSDALE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the income-tax authorities have deducted a sum of 7s. from an annual charitable endowment fund of £7, which is devoted to the upkeep of Kilfenora Cathedral Church, County Clare; and whether he will consider the desirability of relieving such funds from the payment of income-tax.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am informed that there is no specific charitable endowment fund devoted to the upkeep of Kilfenora Cathedral Church. The payment in question was made by the Representative Body of the Church of Ireland out of the diocesan general fund of Killaloe and Kilfenora diocese on the requisition of that diocese. As there was nothing on the requisition to show that the payment was not remuneration the amount was departmentally assessed to income-tax under Schedule E. by the assessor of the representative body. If the diocesan authorities, when requiring similar payments to be made in future, will enter in their requisitions the object to which the money is to be applied, care will be taken by the assessor to make the payment in full without, deduction of income-tax.

  Compulsory Retirement in the Postal Telegraph Service.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of officers of the postal" telegraph service who were scheduled under The Superannuation (Post Office and War Office) Act, 1876, and are still in the service; and whether he has come to a decision as to whether he will give effect to the clause of the Act providing for compulsory retirement at sixty years of age.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The labour which would be involved in obtaining the information asked for

  59
  in the first portion of the hon. Member's inquiry would be very great, and would be out of all proportion to any useful purpose it would serve; I regret that in the circumstances I do not feel justified in sanctioning it. As I explained on Friday last, in reply to the hon. Member for South-West Manchester, 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.

  Construction of Tugs for the Navy.
  Mr. HOLT: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many small tugs it is proposed to build for £30,651 (see pp. 230–31, Navy Estimates); and what are the dimensions of hull and machinery of these tugs, of what material they are to be constructed, and at what places they will be stationed.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) One such tug has been purchased and paid for. She is now named "Harlequin," and is stationed at Portsmouth. The vessel is built of steel, and is of about 800 i.h.p.; she is a paddle boat, 200 feet long by 24 feet broad. No decision has yet been reached with respect to the remaining tugs.

  School Allowance for Territorial Soldiers.
  Mr. GRETTON: To ask the Postmaster-General if, in view of the fact that the War Office allowance for Territorial soldiers attending the schools of instruction has been reduced from 4s. to 2s. per diem, he will grant to Post Office employees who are Territorial soldiers, and who attend these schools, such proportion of their wages as will indemnify them from the loss they would otherwise sustain; and if he is aware that many private employers have already adopted this course.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) As I informed the hon. Member in reply to previous Question on the 30th ultimo, Post Office servants are allowed special leave without pay to attend military
  60
  schools if the exigencies of the service admit. This leave is in addition to the special leave prescribed by the Treasury for attendance at the annual camp; and, while I sympathise with the efforts of Territorial soldiers to extend their knowledge of military matters, I do not think that I could justify a further charge on the Post Office Votes by reason of any alteration which may have been made in military pay or allowances during attendance at these schools. I may add that I am in communication with the Treasury as regards the conditions of special leave for camp purposes.

  Foreign Import Duties on Indian Goods.
  Mr. REMNANT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now able to lay upon the Table the information promised by the Secretary of State on 7th March, 1907, regarding import duties in certain foreign countries on Indian goods.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Secretary of State has received from the Government of India a revised edition of the Return appended to their fiscal despatch of 22nd October, 1902, showing the approximate percentages of import duties levied in various countries on the principal articles exported from India. It will be laid upon the Table if the hon. Member will move for it. I would, however, remark that the Government of India have expressed a doubt as to the accuracy of the figures entered in it, though they have been compiled with all the care from the figures at their command.

  Indian Trade Statistics.
  Mr. REMNANT: To ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether he will cause the statistical tables annexed to Cd. 1931 on India trade to be brought up to date.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) Of the five tables, the table showing the percentages of import duties levied in different countries on the principal articles exported from India has been revised for 1906–7 by the Government of India and will be laid if moved for. The statistics of imports and exports contained in the other four tables are

  61
  given for the year 1906–1907 and four preceding years in the "Tables relating to the Trade of British India with British Possessions and foreign countries," presented in March last, Cd. 3969. No later figures are at present available.

  Pay of Turret Gun Layers and Sight Setters.
  Mr. BRAMSDON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will explain why different scales of pay are given to turret gun-layers and turret sight-setters in the Navy, Royal Marine Light Infantry, and Royal Marine Artillery, respectively, that is to say, for the Navy 1s. and l0d. per day, the Royal Marine Light Infantry 9d. and 7d. per day, and the Royal Marine Artillery 8d.

  Seamen.

  Marines.

  R.M.A.

  R.M.L.I

  Old system:

  Turret gun-layer

  …

  1s.

  8d.

  8d.

  Turret sight-setter

  …

  10 d.

  6d..

  6d.

  Ratings Committee system:

  Gun-layer first class

  …

  8d.

  8d.

  8d.

  Gun-layer second class

  …

  6d.

  6d.

  6d.

  So far as pay for higher shooting rates is concerned, the rates for seamen, Royal Marine Artillery, and Royal Marine Light Infantry are now the same, and a gun-layer first class (corresponding to the old rating of turret gun-layer) will receive 8d. a day, whether in his substantive rank he is a seaman, a blue marine, or a red marine. Similarly, a gun-layer second class will receive 6d. a day. My hon. friend's figures for the gunnery pay of the Royal Marine Light Infantry are not quite correct, as they include the 1d. T.M. He has evidently taken the combined pay as shown in Appendix XV. a, as being for turret gun-layers and turret sight-setters alone, and has not noticed that it includes 1d. a day for T.M.
  and 6d. per day; and whether their Lordships can see their way clear to put both marine corps on the same basis as the Navy.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The terms used in this Question, namely, turret gun-layer and turret sight-setter, are moribund as far as the Royal Navy is concerned, being those in force prior to the changes introduced by Circular Letter No. 96 of 16th August, 1907, which followed the recommendations of the Ratings Committee. The two gunnery ratings which correspond, as far as the difference of system admits, are gun-layer first class and gun-layer second class, and these terms will be applied to Marines also. The rates of pay compare as follows:—

  Dockyard Employment.
  Mr. E. H. LAMB: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that has been created in dockyard towns by the delay in reopening the establishment; and. if so, whether he can give any information as to how soon His Majesty's Government will take steps to restore a system which has been held out as a special inducement to hired men when entering the royal dockyards.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The question is now engaging the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government, but, pending the decision on the whole

  63
  case, the filling of vacancies in the establishment has been suspended.

  Queen Anne's Bounty and the Endowment of Bishoprics.
  Mr. ROBINSON (Brecknock): To ask the hon. Member for the Crewe Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether the capital sum of £34,000 raised by royalties on minerals in virtue of leases granted by certain Queen Anne's Bounty farms, such farms being the endowment of the perpetual curacy of Capel Nantddu, County of Brecon, and now held by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, are being in whole or in part, or are intended to be, applied to provide a salary for the bishop suffragan of Swansea, who is now rector of Cantriff, the mother church of Capel Nantddu; whether such sum could be utilised for increasing the income of many of the poor beneficed clergy in the County of Brecon who have now much less than £200 a year, and to benefit whom Queen Anne's Bounty was first formed; and whether he is aware that Queen Anne's Bounty farms, lands, and money are by law intended for the use of the poor clergy or benefices, and not for the establishment of bishops, suffragan or otherwise.
  (Answered by Mr. Tomkinson.) The fund mentioned in the Question has arisen from leases of minerals under lands formerly belonging to the perpetual curacy of Nantddu, and now to the united benefice of Cantreff with Nantddu, the perpetual curacy having been legally united to the rectory of Cantreff in 1867. The lands were bought with moneys allotted by Queen Anne's Bounty for the augmentation of Nantddu before its union with Cantreff, but from the date of such allotment the Bounty Board retained no interest present or reversionary in the property to the purchase of which the moneys had been appropriated. The fund is held by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on behalf of the united benefice subject to the provisions of the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts, under the authority of which the leases were granted. No part of the fund has been or could be applied for the endowment of a bishop suffragan or otherwise, but, the living being in private patronage,
  64
  the private patrons have recently presented thereto the clergyman who since 1890 has been the Suffragan Bishop of Swansea, and he has been duly instituted. By a scheme of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, ratified by His Majesty in Council, so much of the fund as produces an income of £300 per annum has been diverted from the united benefice for the purpose of augmenting necessitous benefices, particularly in the district where the lands and minerals are situate, and further portions of the income may hereafter from time to time be appropriated to the like purposes under the same authority.

  Scale of Pay in Winchester Post Office.
  Mr. GUY BARING: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state the units of work and Board of Trade index number which governed the classification of Winchester Post Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The classification of Winchester has not yet been decided. It is one of the offices in suspense.

  Classification of Country Post Offices.
  Mr. GUY BARING: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the classification of country post offices is completed; and from what date the classification takes effect.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The re-classification of country post offices is not yet completed. It will take effect from 1st January, 1908.

  Bellshill School, Lanarkshire—Building Tender.
  Mr. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that a new school under the Department is being built at Bellshill, Lanarkshire, and that the school board of that district, instead of accepting the lowest offer from approved builders, have accepted one £300 above the lowest; whether his Department will sanction this extra payment; and, if so, will he explain to the House why it should be so sanctioned.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) Plans for a new school at Bellshill were approved

  65
  and a loan for the erection of the buildings, in terms of Section 45 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, was sanctioned by the Department in August last. The Department has no knowledge of the alleged fact that an offer other than the lowest was accepted by the board. The settling of contracts is a matter which is entirely within the discretion of the board, and it does not rest with the Department either to give or withhold sanction of the board's action.

  Income-Tax Assessments.
  MR. SCOTT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Board of Inland Revenue, in order to arrive at the proper amount of assessment of profits due under Schedule D, are entitled to a statement of income and expenditure for three years in order to arrive at the average payable; whether, during the last year or two, the practice has come into vogue of surveyors of taxes asking for the production of balance sheets involving the disclosure of the financial position of traders in addition to the above; if he is aware that, when objection has been made to the production of these balance sheets, surveyors of taxes and special commissioners have admitted that they have no right to the production of the same, and that, notwithstanding this admission of no right on the part of surveyors and commissioners, they are refusing to allow for depreciation or wear and tear unless these balance sheets are produced, and that they are making supplementary assessments in order to drive income-tax payers to appeal and to produced balance sheets; that the before-mentioned practice varies in different parts of the country, and that in London, whilst balance sheets are frequently asked for by surveyors of taxes and special commissioners, they are not insisted upon when objection to their production is made, and yet in Lancashire and Yorkshire the balance sheets are insisted upon: and that this method of seeking and enforcing what admittedly the Inland Revenue are not entitled to is causing friction and indignation at this enforced disclosure of a man's financial position.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The district commissioners of taxes and the
  66
  commissioners for special purposes, and not the Board of Inland Revenue, are the authorities in whom is vested the power of assessing and determining the liabilities of taxpayers under Schedule D, and who alone are entitled to statements of accounts. All returns under the Income-Tax Acts are subject to examination and objection by the surveyors of taxes prior to the consideration of the same by the Commissioners, and in order that they may be in a position to certify that they are satisfied with such returns, and thus obviate the possibility of appeals, it is their practice in certain cases to ask for accounts. It is only the commissioners who are empowered (by Section 120 of the Income-Tax Act of 1842) to demand the production of "all particulars required by them" for the purposes of the Income-Tax Acts, and this only for purposes of appeal. The special commissioners, I am informed, have not, as is suggested in the hon. Member's Question, admitted that they have no right to call for the production of balance sheets; and they consider that in many cases the information contained in balance sheets is essential in arriving at the correct liability. For protecting the revenue supplementary assessments are frequently necessary in the case of taxpayers claiming allowances, for, e.g., wear and tear; and the Board are not aware of any cases in which surveyors have exceeded their powers in this connection.

  Sale of the Estate of Mr. H. J. B. Clements, at Leitrim.
  MR. F. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have sanctioned the sale of the estate of Mr. H. J. B. Clements, situated at Manorhamilton, County Leitrim; whether an inspector had been sent on the estate; and, if so, whether the town of Manorhamilton and the lands adjoining will be included, to complete the sale of the entire estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The town of Manorhamilton and the lands adjoining it are not included in the estate of Mr. H. J. B. Clements for which purchase agreements have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners. The advances

  67
  have not yet been sanctioned, and, having regard to the date (June, 1906) at which proceedings were instituted, the estate will not be inspected for a considerable time. The exclusion from the sale of the town and lands referred to may be the subject of inquiry when the inspection takes place.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Casualties.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many casualties to ships in the Navy List were subsequently found to have been omitted from the Annual Return issued last year for the year 1906.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,: One causalty of importance was subsequently found to have been omitted from the Return in question. Every endeavour is made to give an accurate and comprehensive report for the Return, but it is found to be very difficult in practice to compile it satisfactorily in its present form. If the issue of the Return is to be continued in future, an amendment in the form of the Return will be asked for.
    MR. BELLAIRS (Lynn Regis): Do I understand that only one casualty was reported? I have drawn attention to eight.
    MR. MCKENNA: Only one of any importance. There were some of minor importance.
    MR. ASHLEY: How does the right hon. Gentleman define the word "importance" in this connection?
    MR. MCKENNA: A case which would require serious repairs.
    MR. BELLAIRS: But if this House asks for a Return of casualties is not the Admiralty bound to give every case?
    MR. MCKENNA: The Admiralty are anxious that the House should have the fullest information.
    MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: Are we to understand that where no damage is caused, it is not regarded as a casualty.
    MR. MCKENNA: We do not include cases where no material damage is done. As I have said, one case of serious damage was omitted by inadvertence.

    Elswick Works Contracts.
    MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now say whether inquiries have been made respecting the wages paid by Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company to employees on H.M.S. "Lord Nelson" at Jarrow and H.M.S. "Invincible" at the Elswick works, Newcastle; and why the standard rate was departed from in the latter case.
    MR. MCKENNA: Inquiry is being made, but the Admiralty is not yet in possession of all the facts of the case.
    MR. REES: Can the rate of wages paid on the construction of battleships matter if the expenditure on the Navy is unproductive?
    MR. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the matter has been under consideration for a considerable time?
    MR. MCKNENA: Yes, and we are not yet in possession of all the facts. As soon as we are I will communicate with the hon. Member. I never said the expenditure was unproductive.
    MR. REES: I am glad to hear it.

    The Victualling Vote.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state when the Victualling Vote will be taken.
    MR. MCKENNA: I am unable at present to name a date; but it will not be before Whitsuntide.

    H.M.S. "Tiger."
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the hon. Member for King's Lynn may

    69
    have permission to inspect the log of H.M.S. "Tiger" in order to ascertain what opportunities of night practice were accorded to her nucleus crew prior to her loss when she was manœuvring without lights at a speed of 20 knots.
    MR. MCKENNA: No, Sir.

    The "Tiger" Court Martial.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the captain of H.M.S. "Berwick" was a member of the court martial inquiry into the collision of H.M.S. "Berwick" with H.M.S. "Tiger," by which the latter vessel was lost.
    MR. MCKENNA: The Answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration how undesirable it is for a captain of one ship in a collision to be a member of the Court which tries the officer commanding the other ship?
    MR. MCKENNA: I agree. But it is the rule that all captains shall serve, and unless objection was taken, the captain in question was bound to serve. The misfortune was that no objection was taken.
    EARL WINTERTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman could give an undertaking that in future this should not occur again.
    MR. MCKENNA: I hope so. I hope that in future cases objection will always be taken.

    Naval Lieutenants.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state how many lieutenants and supplementary lieutenants of the Royal Navy were on half-pay on 1st May, 1908; and how many of these were unavailable through illness.
    MR. MCKENNA: The numbers asked for are approximately as follows:—
    Lieutenants, R.N. (entered as cadets):—

    On half-pay for private affairs, or waiting appointment; for long or short periods

    64

    Sick and on half-pay

    18

    Total

    82

    Lieutenants, R.N. (supplementary list):—

    On half-pay, at own request in every case

    6

    Sick and on half-pay

    —

    Total

    6

    Grand Total (both lists) 88

    There are in addition eight lieutenants at present on full pay sick leave.

    Boy Workers in Government Factories.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that boys are being discharged from the Woolwich, Enfield, and Waltham Abbey factories upon reaching the age of twenty-one; whether there is sufficient work in hand to justify the retention of these employees; and, if so, whether, in view of his promise that the staffs would be reduced to the minimum of wastage, he will have these discharges stopped.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND,: I regret that it is not at present possible to re engage boys who reach the age of twenty-one, as men; for the reason that there is not sufficient work to justify such engagement. As soon as it becomes possible to make fresh engagements of men those who have been trained in the factory as boys will naturally have a first claim on reaching the age of twenty-one.

    Mr. Luxenburg's Arrest.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make any statement as to Mr. Nicholas Luxenburg's claim against the Russian Government for his illegal arrest and 'incarceration at Odessa in March last.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday on this subject to the hon. Member for Hammersmith.

    Mulai Hafid.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Moorish delegates from Mulai Hafid, now in Europe, solicited an audience at the Foreign Office; and, if so, what reply was given to them.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative.
    MR. ASHLEY: Did not a single delegate approach the right hon. Gentleman?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: No, Sir.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that Mulai Hafid is already in possession of Marakesh, the capital of Southern Morocco, and is now advancing on Fez, the northern capital, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to recognise him as Sultan should he succeed in capturing the latter city.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not aware that anything has occurred which would justify His Majesty's Government in forming any such intention.
    MR. ASHLEY: With whom will the right hon. Gentleman negotiate in the event of requiring to negotiate with the Government of Morocca, if he does not negotiate with Mulai Hafid?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: We cannot recognise more than one Sovereign at once.

    Macedonian Reform-
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the progress of the negotiations now being carried on between the British and Russian Governments on the subject of Macedonian reforms.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Various points are still under discussion, but I cannot add at present to the information contained in the Papers laid before the House.

    Old Age Pensions.
    MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state approximately the number of persons in Great Britain and Ireland of over 70 years of age who at present are earning wages of over 10s. a week but under 15s. a week; and what the additional annual cost of old-age pensions would be if all these persons were to reduce their wages to 10s. in order to participate in the scheme of old-age pensions?
    MR. GOULDING: At the same time may I ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any estimate of the number of persons in the United Kingdom aged 70 years and over who are in receipt of incomes varying from 10s. to 15s. a week; and what would be the estimated cost of enlarging the scheme outlined by the Prime Minister in his Budget speech, so that a pension equal to the difference between such income and 15s. a week might be given to all such persons.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden; for Mr. LLOYD GEORGE): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer these Questions. He has no information at his disposal which would enable him to answer either Question.
    MR. GOULDING: On what estimates did the Government frame their Old-Age Pensions Bill?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. GOULDING: Are we not entitled to an answer regarding this very important Question?
    MR. SPEAKER: If the Question is so important, then I think the hon. Member might have given himself the trouble to put it down.
    MR. GOULDING: With all respect, Sir, the Question is down.
    MR. SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member has had an Answer.

    Sugar Duty.
    MR. MCARTHUR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his refusal to sanction a rebate on duty-paid sugar applies to eases where it can be proved that the importer only paid the duty under compulsion because it was impossible to obtain bonded space, and that he was unable to sell the sugar before 18th May without having himself to allow a rebate in price equal to the reduction in the duty announced in the Budget speech.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: The information at my right hon. friend's disposal convinces me that the bonded accommodation for sugar at ports has been sufficient to meet all requirements No applications for approval of temporary bonding facilities over the period 7th to 18th instant have been refused; on the contrary, satisfaction has been expressed in several quarters at the extra facilities afforded by the Board of Customs in this juncture.
    In reply to a further Question by Mr. MCARTHUR, Mr. J. A. PEASE said his right hon. friend would no doubt consider any further representations that might be made to him.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Is it not the fact that the importer of the duty-paid sugar if he desires to export cannot get a drawback, whereas the sugar refiners who desire to export can get one?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put that Question down.

    Arrests for Drunkenness in London and Wales.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of arrests for drunkenness on Sunday last in London, Swansea, and Cardiff respectively.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,: I am unable to give the figures for the county of London, but in the Metropolitan Police District, which covers a larger area, there were 172 arrests for drunkenness on Sunday, the 10th inst. On the same day there were, in Swansea, four arrests, in Cardiff and the City of London none.

    Dangers of the Colour Industry.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to an inquest recently held on Charles Davey, a labourer, lately in the employ of Messrs. Lewis Berger & Sons, colour manufacturers of Hackney, who was poisoned by arsenite of copper in the course of his employment; whether he is aware that it was brought out in evidence that the deceased had been working overtime on green paint for some time, that he got the green dust all round his eyes and about his nails, that his boots were also covered with green dust, and that the green was seen about his hands and face even after he had washed; if he is aware that it was stated in evidence that since Christmas ten or twelve men in the same employ had been invalided off through working on this same material; if he will state how many times during the past and the present year these works were visited by His Majesty's inspector of factories, and what report, if any, was made upon them; and if he can give any assurance that this is an exceptional case of negligence in connection with a most dangerous employment.
    MR. GLADSTONE: My attention has been called to the inquest on this case, and the facts disclosed in the evidence. The man was employed in the grinding mills during the ordinary period of employment, but about a month before his death he commenced to work overtime in the emerald green department. The actual cause of death, however, does not appear to have been clearly ascertained. The factory at which the man was employed has been frequently inspected by the factory department; nine visits were paid last year, and four this year. The "regulations for paints and colours containing lead," which were made by me last year, are in force in the factory, but do not apply to the emerald green department. I am informed, however, that similar precautions to those required by the regulations are voluntarily observed, and also that the firm, which has only recently taken over the works, and has been engaged in re-modelling the whole place, intends entirely to reorganise the work in the green department. The case is one of interest and importance, and my inquiries into it are not yet concluded.

    Tailoring Trade and the Factory Act.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now lay before the House of Commons the result of the investigations as to the complaints he has received respecting the non-observance in the tailoring trade of the provisions of the particulars clause of the Factory Act.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed that the firms referred to in my reply to the previous Question of the hon. Member are now complying with the provisions of the Particulars Order. The question of the observance of the Order in the tailoring trade will continue to receive the attention of the inspectors.

    Shrewsbury Railway Disaster.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet received any explanation from the railway company concerned on the subject of Colonel Yorke's Report on the Shrewsbury railway disaster; and whether the attention of other railway companies has been directed to Colonel Yorke's recommendations as to securing proper rest for the drivers of express trains.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,: I am awaiting the observations of the London and North Western Railway Company on this Report; and upon receiving them will consider the question of communicating with the railway companies generally. I have, however, no doubt that the companies are aware of the nature of Colonel Yorke's recommendations.

    Inspection of Weights and Measures in Yorkshire.
    MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether complaint has been made to the Board by the West Riding County Council of the impracticability of the regulations of 1907, made under the Weights and Measures Act, 1904, which requires that local authorities' inspectors shall inspect the weights and measures of all traders on their premises once a year; whether on the request of the council, the Board have relaxed that rule to the extent of a biennial instead of an annual inspection;
    76
    and whether the Board will use the power reserved to them in the regulations to grant further relaxation, in view of the complaint of the West Riding Council as to the inconvenience and expense of its administration in its present form, especially in rural districts.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Complaint has been made by the West Riding County Council of the requirement of the Weights and Measures Regulations, 1907, that all traders' premises shall be inspected once a year, and the Board of Trade have informed the council that they are prepared to extend the period to two years, but that they have no power under the present regulations to extend the period further.
    MR. LANE-FOX: But under the regulations is not dispensing power given to the Board?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am advised that that power is only for a limited period of years.

    Unemployment Statistics.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the numbers and percentages of the unemployed in this country in the months of March and April, 1906, compared with the same months in 1908, so far as can be ascertained from the figures in his possession.
    MR. CHURCHILL: In the trade unions making returns to the Department the percentage returned as unemployed at the end of each of the months referred to by the hon. Member was as follows:—

    Percentage.

    March, 1906

    …

    …

    3·9

    April, 1906

    …

    …

    3·7

    March, 1908

    …

    …

    6·9

    April, 1908

    …

    …

    7·5

    In March and April, 1908, employment was considerably affected by the disputes in the engineering and shipbuilding trades, which rendered idle a large number of workpeople not directly concerned in the disputes.
    MR. FELL: I suppose these figures do not include the men out of work on account of the strikes and lock-outs?
    MR. CHURCHILL: They do not.

    London Post Office Telephones—Clerical Staff.
    MR. WILES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can now state when the scheme for placing on the establishment the male clerical staff of the general manager of the London Post Office telephone department will come into force, so that the male portion of the staff may secure the same advantages which are already enjoyed by the female portion of the telephone service.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,: I have received a communication on this subject from the representatives of the staff in question. The matter has been under consideration with the Treasury.

    Postmen's Wages and Re-classification.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General in connection with the re-classification of post offices for the purpose of postmen's wages, whether the new classification involving a lower scale of pay has been fixed for any office without first ascertaining through the Board of Trade the cost of living; and, if so, whether such a practice is a violation of the Select Committee's recommendations.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Select Committee recommended that the new classification should be based upon the volume of work as ascertained by the post office, plus the cost of living of the locality as a whole, as ascertained by the Board of Trade. I have not yet received from the Board of Trade all the information necessary to determine this factor. The classification is therefore in many cases provisional until fuller information is available. At most of the offices thus provisionally classified the new scales of pay are higher than those previously in force.

    Post Office Territorials—Allowance for attending Schools of Instruction.
    MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if, in view of the fact that the War Office allowance for Territorial soldiers attending the school of instruction has been reduced from 4s. to 2s. per diem, he will grant to Post Office employees who are Territorial soldiers, and who attend those schools,
    78
    such proportion of their wages as will indemnify them from the loss they would otherwise sustain; and if he is aware that many private employers have already adopted this course.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to a previous Question on the 30th ultimo, post office servants are allowed special leave without pay to attend military schools if the exigencies of the service admit. This leave is in addition to the special leave prescribed by the Treasury for attendance at the annual camp, and while I sympathise with the efforts of Territorial soldiers to extend their knowledge of military matters I do not think that I could justify a further charge on the Post Office Votes by reason of any alteration which may have been made in military pay of allowances during attendance at these schools. I may add that I am in communication with the Treasury as regards the conditions of special leave for camp purposes.

    Norwich Mail Cart Drivers.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that mail cart and van drivers and county mail cart drivers employed at the Norwich office are working sixty to seventy hours, and in some cases more, per week for wages varying from 15s. to 17s., and that these men receive no extra pay for Sunday labour nor allowance for holidays or sickness; if so, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conditions thus prevailing with a view to hours and wages being adjusted to a fairer standard.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will have inquiry made in the matter.
    MR. CROOKS: Is it the fact that this firm are known as "Messrs. Never Done"?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Missing Registered Letters.
    MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a London firm recently had two £5 notes stolen from a registered letter, and that the claim of the firm for compensation was refused, on the ground that, as the letter as well

    79
    as the money was not stolen, no liability attached to the Department; will he make inquiries into the matter, and can he say whether it is the official view that the Department is not responsible, up to a certain sum, for the safe delivery of notes and coin contained in a registered letter; and, if so, will he take steps to afford some security for the conveyance of money and valuables through the Post Office?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: A case has recently been brought to my notice in which there is reason to believe that two £5 notes were stolen in France from a registered letter from London. Compensation could not be given because under the regulations of the Postal Union none is payable in respect of the loss or damage of the contents of a registered packet which is not insured. It was open to the sender to have insured the contents of the letter by payment of an additional fee of 2d.
    MR. MURNAGHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the common belief that the payment of the registration fee secures safe delivery of the contents of the letter, and will he take steps to disabuse the public mind on that point in order that losses similar to that mentioned in the Question may be avoided in the future?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That is so; but in this matter we are under an International Convention of Postal Unions, and we have no power to grant compensation. This is a question of foreign, and not domestic administration.
    MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: Who gets the registration fee?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That is dealt with under the Convention.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I recently called attention to a case where the contents of a registered letter had been abstracted in this country, and could get no satisfaction?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think that was a case in which the letter was not delivered at all. Where we think the abstraction is due to carelessness in the Post Office, then we pay compensation.
    MR. FLYNNWhat is the advantage of registration over and above ordinary postage if it affords no protection?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: In the great bulk of cases it ensures safe delivery.
    MR. ASHLEY: Is it quite fair that the Post Office should receive money as fees and give no compensation in cases where the registered letter is lost?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have explained we are acting under international regulations, and I have no power to grant compensation in such a case as this. I am, of course, open to criticism in regard to matters which arise in this country.

    Floggings in Public Institutions.
    Mr. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he can state what are the Government institutions that permit the flogging of young men or young women who are over eighteen years of age; the kind of offence for which this flogging is administered; and the number of cases that have happened this year and when.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,: I have no information.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Is it not the fact that the floggings and canings in the ordinary sense in English schools do not involve the degradation which was involved in the case to which this Question refers? Has the right hon. Gentleman no control in such cases?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I have said several times during the last fortnight that I have no intention of interfering with the discretion of the local managers.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not supply the House with the information he led it to believe was in his possession?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I have made no attempt to mislead the House. I cannot answer for other Departments than my own.

    Butter Advertisements.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to an advertisement of milk-blended butter packed in casks, firkins, baskets, and two pound rolls, without printed notice, also in blocks one pound square long, with printed notice as required and approved, in the name of Coopman and Young, 48, St. John Street, Smithfield, London; and whether, in view of Section 9 of the Butter Bill of 1907, he will say whether this firm have ever been proceeded against, and, if so, with what result.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (for Sir EDWARD STRACHEY): Our attention has been called to the advertisement to which my hon. friend refers and the matter is under consideration. We are not aware of any proceedings having been taken under Section 9 of the Butter and Margarine Act, 1907 against the firm mentioned.

    Drunkenness in Glasgow and Edinburgh.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the number of arrests or drunkenness on Sunday last in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, respectively.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,: The arrests for drunkenness on Sunday, 10th May, were in Glasgow thirty-one, in Edinburgh nine.
    MR. WATT: Is the standard of drunkenness in Glasgow and Edinburgh the same? In Glasgow a man is supposed to be drunk, but in Edinburgh it is only a preliminary canter.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Is this drunkenness due to the use of pot still whisky?

    Case of Thomas Flanagan of Glasgow.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the case of a boy, Thomas Flanagan, who was convicted at the Central Police Court, Glasgow, on 2nd April to five years in Slatefield industrial school; whether he is aware that this
    82
    boy is only nine and a half years of age, that the clothes stolen were those of his brother, and taken from his father's house, and that this was his first offence; and whether, in these circumstances, he can see his way to mitigate the sentence.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have caused inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the reports that I have received in regard to the boy's character and antecedents, I think the action taken by the magistrate has been for his advantage, and I am not prepared to interfere.

    Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether the Bill promised in relation to Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) has yet been drafted; and can he say when it will be introduced.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,: My hon. friend is in Ireland, and cannot answer himself. The Bill in question has been drafted, and my hon. friend hopes to introduce it at the earliest opportunity.

    Irish Local Government Audits.
    MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to appoint this year an assistant clerk in charge of accounts under the Local Government Board for Ireland; whether this is a newly created office, and, if so, what is the ground for its creation; for how many years has the Board transacted its business without this office, and what have the disadvantages to its efficiency been in consequence; what are the conditions and qualifications necessary for the office; and who is it proposed to appoint.
    MR. BIRRELL: The position in question is an existing position under a new title. Up till last year the post of assistant to the clerk in charge of accounts was described in the Estimates as a temporary staff post, and the salary was £200 a year. Last year, in consequence of the great increase of work under the Labourers' Act, the scale of salary for the post was fixed at £250 rising to £350 a year, and the title of the post was changed to that of assistant clerk in

    83
    charge of accounts. Mr. C. R. S. Monsell, who had been assistant to the clerk in charge of accounts for seven years, was continued in the post.

    Irish Local Government Appointments.
    MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to appoint this year a temporary assistant engineering inspector under the Local Government Board at a salary of £300; whether this is a new office; and, if so, on what grounds it is considered necessary.
    MR. BIRRELL: The post to which the Question refers is that of temporary assistant engineering inspector (architect), for which provision is made in the current Estimates for the first time. The appointment was made last year after the Estimates for that year had been settled. The creation of this temporary post was absolutely necessary in view of the great increase of work thrown on the engineering staff in the examination of the plans and specifications for labourers cottages under the new Act.
    MR. HAZLETON: How many temporary positions are there under the Local Government Board?
    MR. BIRRELL: A good many. I should have to inquire to say exactly.

    Irish Local Government Accounts.
    MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state who is the clerk in charge of accounts under the Local Government Board for Ireland, and what was the date of his appointment; and for what reason it is proposed to increase his salary this year by £50 contrary to the regulations, which provide only for an increase of £15.
    MR. BIRRELL: The clerk in charge of accounts is Mr. M. Daly, who was appointed to that post on 1st April, 1900, having served under the Local Government Board since 16th September, 1881. The scale of salary for the post was revised in April 1907 in consequence of the great increase of work and responsibility due to the passing of the Labourers Act. The maximum salary of the post was raised from £450 to £500, and Mr.
    84
    Daly, who was on the existing maximum, was at once advanced to the new maximum in recognition of his long and useful services.

    Arrests for Drunkenness in Ireland.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of arrests for drunkenness on Sunday last in Dublin and Belfast respectively.
    MR. BIRRELL: The number of arrests for drunkenness on Sunday, 10th May-was, in the Dublin Metropolitan Police district, five; and in Belfast, three.

    Irish Local Government Auditors.
    MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the reason why provision has been made in the Estimates for 1908–9 for the appointment of an additional auditor under the Local Government Board for Ireland, in view of the fact that no decision to appoint an additional auditor has been arrived at.
    MR. BIRRELL: I find that I was mistaken in supposing that power is being taken in this year's Estimates to appoint another auditor. The additional auditor for whom provision is made in the Estimates was appointed in April 1907, after the Estimates for the past financial year had been presented.
    MR. MOONEY: What is his name?
    MR. BIRRELL: I will tell the hon. Member personally.

    Irish Courthouses.
    MR. KAVANAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that all the courthouses in Ireland are vested in the high sheriffs of each county, and that, whilst the county councils have to maintain and are responsible for the upkeep of them, they have absolutely no control over them, either in giving or refusing leave for the use of them or for the disposal of any space within them; and whether he will take steps to make a change in the present law.
    MR. BIRRELL: The custody and control of county courthouses are vested by statute in the high sheriff of the county. Any change in the matter would require legislation, and the Government cannot undertake to consider the question at present.

    Birr Evicted Tenant.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Mrs. Barry, Annagh, near Birr, county Tipperary, to her former holding; whether the evicted farm is on the landlord's hands; and have the Estates Commissioners approached the landlord with a view to the settlement of this case; and, if so, with what result.
    MR. BIRRELL: Mrs. Barry's application was received by the Estates Commissioners since 1st May, 1907, and consequently the Commissioners have not yet made inquiries into the case.

    Education Act Fines.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received resolutions of protest from Irish public bodies against the suggestion that two-thirds of the fines under the Education Acts should go to the Crown instead of in aid of the rates; whether the ratepayers have to bear the cost of enforcing the compulsory provisions as regards attendance of children at schools; and whether he will direct that the fines should be paid in recoupment of such costs.
    MR. BIRRELL: I would refer to the Answer given by my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland to a Question on this subject put by the hon. Member for the Ossory Division on 17th February. It has been decided by the Superior Courts that under the Statutes governing the matter one-third only of the fines in question may be paid to the prosecutor, that is, the local authority. The Government have no power to direct any other than the statutory disposition of the fines.

    Drainage of the Barrow.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet considered the scheme of Messrs. Glover and white for the drainage of the river Barrow; whether the same was submitted to the Board of Works, and, if so, has it reported thereupon; and is he now in a position to say what the intention of the Government is in respect to the said scheme, or any other, for the purpose of the drainage of the River Barrow.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Report of the Board of Works upon the scheme of Messrs. Glover and White has been received and is under consideration. The matter is one of much complexity, but a decision will be arrived at with as little delay as possible.

    Mr. Hawkes' Kilmichael Estate.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the tenants on the estate of Mr. Richard Hawkes, Kilmichael, county Cork, signed their purchase agreements in May, 1904; whether other estates in the neighbourhood, including that of Sir A. Warren, which were sold at a later date, have been absolutely vested in the tenants for a considerable period; and can he explain the cause of delay in regard to the Hawkes estate, and when the tenants may expect to have the vesting orders made in them.
    MR. BIRRELL: The purchase agreements in the case of the estate of Mr. Richard Hawkes and others were lodged with the Estates Commissioners in December, 1905. The estate will not reach its turn to be dealt with for a considerable time, having regard to the large number of prior cases which are yet undisposed of. The Commissioners cannot trace any proceedings as having come before them for the sale of the estate of Sir A. Warren in County Cork.

    Newtowngore Disturbances.
    MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that on Monday, 13th April, 1908, a number of shots were fired on the

    87
    public road at Newtowngore, county Leitrim, by a party of Orangemen, who were after working on an evicted farm at Tully, near Newtowngore, from which a man named Masterton was evicted, and which is now in the possession of a shopkeeper named Lipsey, who lives in Newtowngore; whether, seeing that the shots were fired by those men to intimidate their Catholic and Nationalist neighbours, who are largely in the majority, proceedings will be instituted against the perpetrators; and will he say if the parties had licences to carry firearms, and, if so, will such licences be revoked, so that the preservation of the peace of the district may be maintained.
    MR. BIRRELL: On the occasion in question a party of labourers who had worked on Mr. Lipsey's farm was returning home, when two or three shots are said to have been fired by one of the party. The police have carefully investigated the case but have been unable to procure evidence of the identity of the offender, and consequently no proceedings can be instituted. For the same reason it cannot be ascertained whether the offender holds an excise licence, which is the only licence now required to carry firearms.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of the Answer to Lord Ashtown?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have no doubt he will see it.

    Empire Day.
    EARL WINTERTON:: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the almost universal recognition of Empire Day by the self-governing communities of His Majesty's Dominions beyond the Seas, he will give instructions for the Union Jack to be flown on the Treasury buildings on Empire Day.
    The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:—
    CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the almost universal recognition of Empire Day by the self-governing communities of His Majesty's Dominions
    88
    beyond the Seas, he will give instructions for the Union Jack to be flown on the India Office buildings on Empire Day.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the almost universal recognition of Empire Day by the self-governing communities of His Majesty's Dominions beyond the Seas, he will give instructions for the Union Jack to be flown on the Colonial Office buildings on Empire Day.
    EARL WINTERTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the almost universal recognition of Empire Day by the self-governing communities of His Majesty's Dominions beyond the Seas, he will give instructions for the Union Jack to be flown on the Home Office buildings on Empire Day.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, having regard to the almost universal recognition of Empire Day by the self-governing communities of His Majesty's Dominions beyond the Seas, he will give instructions for the Union Jack to be flown on the buildings of the Scottish Office on Empire Day.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the almost universal recognition of Empire Day by the self-governing communities of His Majesty's Dominions beyond the Seas, he will give instructions for the Union Jack to be flown on the Board of Trade buildings on Empire Day.
    CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the almost universal recognition of Empire Day by the self-governing communities of His Majesty's Dominions beyond the Seas, he will give instructions for the Union Jack to be flown on the Local Government Board's buildings on Empire Day.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether, having regard to the almost universal recognition of Empire Day by the self-governing communities of His Majesty's

    89
    Dominions beyond the Seas, he will give instructions for the Union Jack to be flown on the Education Board's buildings on Empire Day.
    EARL WINTERTON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the almost universal recognition of Empire Day by the self-governing communities of His Majesty's Dominions beyond the Seas, he will give instructions for the Union Jack to be flown on the Irish Office building on Empire Day.
    EARL WINTERTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the almost universal recognition of Empire Day by the self-governing communities of His Majesty's Dominions beyond the Seas, he will give instructions for the Union Jack to be flown on the War Office buildings on Empire Day.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. Asquith,: My various colleagues to whom similar Questions have been addressed agree with me that no sufficient reason has been shown for departing in this matter from the practice of our predecessors.
    EARL WINTERTON: Arising out of that Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the adjournment of the House.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the past few years, since his predecessors were in office, a very great increase in the feeling in this country and in the Empire beyond the Seas has undoubtedly grown up in favour of celebrating Empire Day, and whether he or any of the other Ministers to whom Questions were put down to-day can give any reason why they should not fly the flag on their respective buildings?
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Will the Prime Minister tell us at the same time what is Empire Day?
    MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid I have nothing to add to the Answer I have already given.

    The Public Trustee.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Public Trustee is still a director of any public company.
    MR. ASQUITH: I have no further information beyond that I have already given.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: Arising out of that somewhat discourteous Answer, may I ask whether it is with the consent of the Government that the Public Trustee combines with the discharge of his official duties those of directorships of public companies, especially of an insurance company?
    MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir. I told the hon. Member the other day that the Public Trustee, having resigned all his other directorships, proposed to resign this one. I do not think it right in the case of a distinguished public servant to ask him whether he has complied with his undertaking.

    FERRIES (IRELAND) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 148.] Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 148.] Bill (as amended in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 231.]
    POLICE FORCES (WEEKLY REST DAY).
    Ordered that Mr. Charles Duncan be discharged from the Select Committee on Police Forces (Weekly Rest-Day). Ordered, that Mr. William Edwin Harvey be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
PUBLIC OFFICES SITES (EXTENSION) BILL.
Mr. Akers-Douglas, Mr. Lewis Harcourt, and Mr. Morton nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Public Offices Sites (Extension) Bill.—(Mr. Whiteley).
COMMONS.
Mr. Carr-Gromm, Mr. Cowan, Mr. Winfrey, Mr. Lardner, Mr. Cecil Harms-worth, Mr. Hicks Beach, and Mr. Arkwright, nominated Members on the Select Committee on Commons.—(Mr. Whiteley).

MONUMENT TO SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN.
Resolution reported: "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 Honourable 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 the expenses attending the same."
Resolution agreed to.
Address to be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of His Majesty's Household.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [18th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Which Amendment was—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Lord Balcarres).
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR J. COMPTON RICKETTsaid that at the interruption of business on the preceding night he was endeavouring to show to the House that it was to the interest of all parties that a settlement of this question should be attained. Party lines at the present time were blurred by questions of religion involving differences of opinion. There were good churchmen on
92
the Liberal side of the House and,a certain number of Nonconformists who in politics were generally attached to the Unionist Party, but who on account of the education dispute supported the Liberal Government at the last election. In the interests of all, therefore, there was good reason for clearing this matter up before the next general election, so that the country should not be confused by an issue that ran quite apart from ordinary political differences. He would like to say at once that hon. Members on that side of the House, and particularly the well-informed Nonconformists of the country, realised to the full, and indeed did not need to be reminded of, the great work that the Church of England had done in the past for education. They were quite aware that when the country had failed in its interest and declined to bear its share of the burden the Church took up that duty. They had no desire to break the continuity of her teaching to the children of her membership. It was of particular importance at the present time that religious teaching for the young should be maintained. For reasons that he need not discuss there was not very much chance of any Church of any denomination securing recruits from the adults of the country. Other experiments, social and otherwise, were being tried to give effect to the philanthropic ideas of the country, and Church methods appeared to have slipped into the background; so the one hope of any denomination lay in their getting hold, as early as possible, of the youth of the land. They were, therefore, not by any means opposing the desire of the Church of England to preserve her time-honoured tradition of teaching religion in the schools. But they must ask her to recognise that in times past a great many more duties were put on her than the State asked at the present time. Once she was sought for miraculous cures, for unction, for poor relief up to the time of the dissolution of the monasteries, and up to a very much later date, for education. Successively she had been relieved of these duties, and certainly her property had not been taken away in proportion to the relief afforded her in the discharge of those duties. They asked now, not in any spirit of hostility, fox

93
the co-operation of the Church in the settlement of the education question The present Bill unified education. Whatever might be said of contracting out, the Bill treated it as an exception and recognised only one class of public elementary schools, and for that class it endeavoured to secure reality of public control. There was, indeed, a half-hearted recognition of the principle in the Act of 1902. Under that Act control was conceded to the extent of one-third of the actual management of the non-provided schools. To that extent it was a recognition of the principle, but it was not effective. He would remind those who viewed the present Bill with suspicion that the management of the schools in the future was not going to be thrown into the hands of secularists or Nonconformists. The Anglicans, and even the Roman Catholics, would have a very large share of the management, and probably in many parts of the country the Anglicans would be in a majority and would provide the machinery through which the law would take effect. This Bill allowed facilities for denominational teaching. It had been suggested that by it such teaching was put in the background and treated as subordinate to the Cowper-Temple teaching, but that need not be so, and it certainly was not the intention of the Bill. There would be no difficulty in putting both classes of teaching—between 9 and 9.30—before the secular work of the school commenced, and they could then run concurrently. They knew that in a large number of Church schools Bible teaching, indistinguishable from that provided in the ordinary elementary schools, was given on four days of the week, and the Catechism was taught on the fifth day. Some wise friends of his told the parents of Nonconformist scholars to keep their children away on the day for that lesson. There would be little need for the Church of England to revise her own method if she would accept Bible instruction for three or four days in the week, and be content to come in and give the lessons of her own Church on the fifth day. With regard to the teachers it was important there should be no subscription to religious creeds imposed on them, and he asked, would it be wise to
94
make a demand on the teachers of the ordinary school—either head or subordinate—for the special purpose of teaching the doctrines of the Church of England or of any other denomination? On the other hand, the teachers selected to give Church of England teaching should be trained members of that Church. The employment of State teachers without some test in the matter of religion did not seem to agree with the standard set up by those who were strong supporters of the denominational system. Moreover, if they agreed that real Bible instruction of a solid and substantial character should be preserved in the ordinary schools of the country then it was essential that the head teacher should see that the teaching was properly given, and to ask that teacher to volunteer to give lessons for any denomination or Church would be to press upon him or her a divided allegiance and perhaps to take him or her away from the proper duties of the school. On every ground the head teacher should be allowed to superintend. The distinction as between the head teacher and the assistant was already recognised in the London continuation schools, where the head teacher did not enjoy the privilege of engaging in evening work conceded to his assistant. It was obviously necessary to guard against any indirect reversal of that decision, because if a head teacher was to be permitted to hire himself out to give lessons in the school there would always be the temptation on the part of the local authority to anticipate the appointments of certain teachers. Any subscription to a religious creed by the teacher was surely now out of the question. He had already said that to create such a test would be difficult at the present time—it would need to be revised almost from year to year. The drafting of a test that would stand for all time would be a task beyond the wit of man. Bible instruction, which he believed most of the House desired should be given, had been tried for nearly forty years. No one was so foolish as to suggest that a teacher did not require some test as to his efficiency in giving even simple Bible teaching. He ought to know something about the mind of the child, the psychology of the child; he ought to have a practical knowledge of the

95
Bible, altogether apart from adhesion to any religious creed. He did not wish to be misunderstood when he said it would be possible to draw from Homer lessons of courage and virtue without requiring the teacher to settle the boundaries of myth and fact in that tradition. The Bible could be taught as literature, and as containing moral lessons and parables of the Unseen. The material of religion could be acquired at the State expense, in the State schools. The spiritual dynamic must be taught in the Church, the Sunday School or the home. Nor was there any real antagonism from the secularists of the country. In some districts it was true that Bible teaching, always optional, had not been adopted, but the cases could be counted on the fingers of the two hands. There was difficulty in the teaching of morals unless it was attached to some historical fact, or given with some religious sanction. Science itself had its hinterland of the Unknown. With religion it looked wistfully and expectantly into the void. The Bill, therefore, continued the rudimentary religious teaching which had proved to work well and was demanded by the people of this country. It was not the Nonconformist form of creed. The Free Churches of this country held strong views on the theory of the Church and the use of the Sacraments, but they said that neither doctrine nor theory should be taught at the public expense. Those who were irreconcilable, those who desired to stand out of the national system had, under the contracting out clause, the opportunity of showing their fidelity to their own views by contributing to their own schools, and taking them into their own hands; at the same time, they would receive a large subvention to assist them in carrying them on. No one regarded the contracting out clause as satisfactory. They looked upon it as an objectionable feature, and if there was a real intention to abandon it no one would be more happy to do so than the Liberals and Nonconformists. They did not desire to see an important section of the schools of this country fall out of the ordinary line of education. The Liberal attitude to contracting out was to regard it as the exception. The objection of the
96
hon. Member for Waterford appeared to be one of terms—if they could agree upon terms his objection practically disappeared. But the hon. Member for Leicester raised a very proper objection when he pointed out that possibly contracting out would lead to a reduction in the salaries of teachers and that the efficiency of the schools would be sacrificed. Both of these objections would, no doubt, be met by a system of grouping of schools, and the securing of greater economy in administration. The Bishop of St. Asaph in his Bill desired that the Church of England should not contract out. As Liberals they would hail the adhesion of the Church schools to the national system, and would listen to proposals for extended facilities in order to avoid separation. Nonconformists only asked that they might have the same standing as the rest of the churches of the country. They had had to win their place in the State first as individuals, then as collectivists in federal action. They had from their meagre resources built their churches, trained their ministry, supported their colleges, crowded their altars with sacrifice, and won, step by step, liberty of worship, and access to opportunities of culture. First they demanded toleration, and at last, they asked for equality not for the purpose of aggression as a means of injuring others, but to use it in the interests of the State and in fellowship and friendship with all other churches.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had made a solid and weighty contribution to the debate, and he believed he was the first speaker in any part of the House who had given unqualified support to the Bill on which the House was about to divide. As far as they on the Opposition side of the House were concerned they were placed in a position of some difficulty by an evident disposition on the other side of the House to accuse them of absolute disinclination to compromise on any terms. It would indeed be a serious indictment if it could be truly said that they had barred and bolted the golden gate of compromise, but in the position that presented itself to them and to the country at the present moment they were bound to reflect that the

97
Second Reading of this Bill represented a definite step in the deliberate and definitely adopted policy of the Government. They had had in the course of the last few years repeated statements of that policy; none of these had made any conciliatory proposal, not even the introductory speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty. It would be within the recollection of the House that the First Lord of the Admiralty introducing his first Bill, said—
"It must not be supposed that this measure is intended in any sense to be a settlement of the education question. After the experience of ray right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, who in his comprehensive and generous measure of last session went to the extreme limit of concession, it is obvious that no legislative settlement can be obtained until the relations between this House and another place have been readjusted."
That was the view of the Government, that the matter must be postponed to a great constitutional settlement. A little later the late Prime Minister said, when the abandonment of the Bill in question had been announced to the House—
"We see our way to propose that we should undertake next session the great task of putting the educational system of the country in order …. It can never have been supposed, I should think by anyone, that we should be content to acquiesce in the position of affairs which was left by the House of Lords at the end of last session, and therefore the announcement that in the very earliest session available to us we will deal with the question on broad lines which will be our own lines—this announcement cannot give rise to any surprise. … With the immediate intention and prospect of full relief by the adoption of a larger measure I think the best thing is not to proceed further with this Bill."
A few weeks ago the present Prime Minister said in the country—
"The Education Bill to be introduced early in the session would be a short Bill, a simple Bill, and a drastic Bill."
That was his idea of compromise. The First Commissioner of Works, speaking in the country so recently as the end of March, said—
"The Government Bill was the last word on denominational compromise, and if it was rejected he saw no solution except a rigid secular system."
Having been told from every authoritative source on the Government side that no compromise of any kind except such as was contained within the four
98
corners of the Bill would be offered by the Government the Opposition was to be arraigned before the bar of the country as making party capital out of a discreditable quarrel if they did not come forward themselves with a constructive programme. So far as the First Lord of the Admiralty was concerned he had said the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill was in its main features identical with his own Bill. Having made that amazing statement the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the two Bills might be amalgamated. The first observation it was necessary to make on that proposal was that the Bishop, of St. Asaph's Bill contained in clear and explicit terms three of the very points insistence on which by the House of Lords rendered the attempted settlement of 1906 impossible. There was, first of all, the point that there should be right of entry into all the council schools. They were told it was impossible to discuss that. The second point was that teachers should be allowed to give the teaching, and the third point was that there should be at least compulsory Cowper-Temple teaching in every elementary school in the country. These being the three points upon which they were told the House of Lords was wrong and unreasonable in insisting, it was a little surprising now to be told that the Bill introduced in another place insisting on every one of them was in substance identical with the proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman. On every occasion when he had ventured to make an observation on the education question he had again and again, as the Member for North-west Manchester had in his maiden speech last night, pointed out the extreme difficulty with which the Government found themselves face to face in the north of England as soon as these proposals were understood, and he was sure the House would be glad to know whether as the result of a fortnight's higgling and wriggling over the education question by the President of the Board of Trade in North-west Manchester the views of the Government as to the reception their proposals were likely to meet with in the country had undergone any modification. He would also venture to ask for a little more explicit information from the President of the Board of Trade on the subject of

99
the special treatment of the Roman Catholics, which he was authorised at a most critical period of his campaign to announce to the constituency on behalf of the Government. It was perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman would not have given those assurances unless he was authorised to do so by the First Lord of the Admiralty on behalf of the Government. On that assumption might he suggest that the right hon. Member would have avoided some Parliamentary embarrassment if he had explained what was the nature of the concession that he proposed to give to Roman Catholics. Would the Minister for Education say even now, in order that he might not inflict upon the House hypothetical figures which might not prove to be based on the facts as they would develop? Was his view now that Catholics were to be treated in an exceptional way by addition to the grant or by continuing to them assistance from the rates? Without prying in any way into domestic secrets he would like to ask the Minister for Education what was the form of the special relief that was going to be given to Roman Catholics. The Opposition had never wavered so far as he knew on the subject of the position of Roman Catholics; they were strongly of opinion that Roman Catholics were entitled to receive aid from the rates, and if he were to state a reason for that he found it in the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland the other day on the proposal to establish a University in Ireland. With the substitution of one single word, "school" for "University," the Government arrived at a principle capable of application to the education controversy—
"I challenge the most confirmed and determined Nonconformist in this House. He will find that if he objects to a school simply because it is set up in a country where most of the people belong to one way of religious faith, and as a consequence that religious faith is freely represented on the governing body—if he objects to that his objection is not to my scheme, but to the religion of those people."
He was asked at the election, as he fancied many Members of the House were, a question in a somewhat epigrammatic form, which was widely circulated on behalf of the Roman Catholic com-
100
munity: Will you vote for Catholic teachers for Catholic children in Catholic schools, first, last, and all the time? The question was not perhaps couched in terms of art, but nobody would be unaware of what the real meaning of that question was, and until the Government told them what was to be the amount of the grant to be given to Roman Catholics it was utterly impossible for anyone who represented many Roman Catholics, as he did, to deviate from that pledge by giving any support at all to the present proposal. How did this work out? He would specially ask the attention of the last speaker who had told them that the one thing which he and his co-religionists desired in this matter was equality of treatment with others—he would specially ask the hon. Member to address his mind to the question of how Roman Catholics and Anglicans, if this Bill passed, and on the lines of comparison which he put before him, would receive that equality. What was the position to-day? In London each council child cost the public funds £6 10s. Each Roman Catholic child cost £3 15s., which under the terms of the present Bill was to be reduced to £2 7s. a child. The average attendance at the London Catholic schools was 30,000 children, so that the total amount saved to the rates was £82,500 a year. How was the proposal of the Government calculated to affect the position of the Catholic children in London at the present moment? Mr. Charles Russell, a well-known Liberal, and, as the House well knew, the son of a distinguished Liberal, had prepared some figures, certainly not couched in any spirit of animus against the present Government, and which he thought the Government would acknowledge to be in all substantiate correct. Taking the two typical dioceses of Westminster and Southwark the number of schools was 178 and the total average attendance 40,822. The total present expenditure was £124,000 or £3 1s. per head per child. The cost of maintenance was £23,000, leaving a total expenditure of £14,823. The proposed new grant of 47s. a child as a maximum would produce as a maximum £95,931. That would reduce the income of the Catholic schools in London by

101
£52,392. If they took the case of Liverpool, he had been supplied with figures by some of the constituents of the Attorney-General for Ireland who gave very definite pledges at the election, which pledges neither by his vote nor by his speeches had he made any attempt to redeem, showing that in Liverpool the increase would be £12,000 a year. He wished the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had found it possible to explain on what principle of equality, which he told them was his object in relation to London, Roman Catholics were to pay £52,391 more than his co-religionists paid for their schools while at the same time they paid every farthing which he paid for the rating of his own schools. The hon. Gentleman found no time to explain how this was to be carried out. He had spoken at some length on Catholic schools because he wished to make it perfectly clear that so far as he was concerned, and he thought as far as Protestant Liverpool was concerned, there was every desire that rate-aid should be continued to Roman Catholic schools, both in the interests of fair and equal treatment and in the interests of educational efficiency. But, of course, they said at the same time that rate aid must equally be given to the Anglican schools of Lancashire. Hon. Gentlemen who represented other parts of the country would speak for them. In Lancashire at the present time in the urban areas the voluntary schools had 350,000 children and the council schools about 215,000. That was to say, the voluntary schools would have to find 30s. a child for 350,000 children. It came to this, that three-fifths of the virile populous and progressive county of Lancashire were to be thrown into an educational 'back-water, and all the rates of all the boroughs were to go to two-fifths of the children. That was the fair and equal treatment which was the ideal of the last speaker. There were 600 voluntary schools in rural areas with 115,287 children in attendance. The local education authorities, taking them in the aggregate, had 85 schools with an attendance of 25,000, and it was put forward as a proposal which Lancashire was likely to accept, that the local education authorities with
102
its 85 schools was going to take over without one penny of payment, the 600 schools which had been built by the exertions of Church people. He hoped the Minister for Education would find time to deal with the case of Mickleham in Surrey, which the noble Lord the Member for Chorley had cited. In that case the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take the school on the appointed day. He proposed to pay nothing and to allow the managers to use the school on two nights a week and heating and lighting. The school was actually completed last year by Church people at a cost of £2,390 with the specific object of avoiding Cowper-Temple teaching, and this school was to be taken over without any compensatory privilege except that they might have Cowper-Temple teaching. He could give many instances of schools built in Lancashire quite recently which came under the same condition. Could the right hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion produce any representative who sat on his own side of the House for an urban centre of population in Lancashire who would get up and say there was any chance of these proposals being accepted in Lancashire? No one who knew the present Secretary to the Local Government Board was unaware that it would be impossible for him, merely because he now held an office he well deserved, to vote for a Bill which in his conscience he thought was a wrong Bill. Therefore they were perhaps entitled to assume—though he did not know what the hon. Gentleman's plans were—that he had received some assurance that the vote he would give in this division, if he did give one, would represent merely an academic expression of opinion. It would be quite impossible for him to support to-day a Bill of which he said only a few weeks ago—
"I hope that nobody else will get the credit of destroying it, let us destroy 'the thing.'"
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. MASTERMAN,: I never said anything of the kind in connection with this Bill. I don't know whether that is important.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid it was very important. If he had misquoted the

103
hon. Member, though he had consulted Hansard, he fully accepted the disclaimer. The hon. Gentleman would not disown the very important statement that he expressed a strong hope, regretting that his vituperative powers were inferior to those of the Secretary to the Admiralty, that the Bill would be destroyed.
MR. MASTERMAN: I had every intention of voting for the Bill when I had not the honour of being a Member of the Government—and said so in my speech.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the hon. Gentleman was not singular on that side of the House in that he was going to vote for a Bill of which he certainly said he disapproved in its most important provisions. The hon. Gentleman would not say that he did not hold the view that contracting-out was of the very essence of the scheme. ["No."] Would anyone explain what the essence of the Bill was? It was understood that a certain line of what was humorously called conciliation having failed in 1906 its place was to be taken by the contracting-out clause. If that was not the essence of the Bill would somebody explain it? In regard to this proposal for contracting-out they had said more than once that they stood exactly where the Secretary to the Admiralty stood when he said it was a disgusting proposal to contract out.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Dr. MACNAMARA,: On that occasion the hon. and learned Member voted for contracting-out.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he was not sure that the hon. Member was right, but in any case it was immaterial.
DR. MACNAMARA: But here is the division list.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he quite accepted the hon. Member's statement, but as an alternative to what had he supported it? At the time the Minister in charge of the Bill expressly pointed out the distinction between the scheme of contracting-out which was described
104
as an exception grafted upon an exception. The reasons which animated him in giving the vote which he gave in favour of contracting-out did not; apply in any way to the contracting-out now proposed. If it was disgusting in the interests of educational efficiency in a case which could only arise five or six times, what were they to say when it was a case which might arise in 50 per cent. of the schools of the country? There was no case for making special terms for the Irish Party. Supposing this Bill or the Bill which took its place was sent to another place with special provisions in favour of Roman Catholics. He professed no knowledge about what would take place in another place except that which was possessed by every ordinary observer. But if it was passed and sent up with special facilities for Roman Catholics, he felt sure it would be sent back with a proviso that the same facilities should be enjoyed by Anglicans. Was that the quarrel on which the Government were going to the country? The First Lord of the Admiralty said the Opposition desired to keep this quarrel alive in order to promote party interests. He believed this charge to be profoundly unjust, but assuming it were true, what did it mean? They could only achieve party interests by keeping a popular cause alive. If their cause was popular in the country on what principle of democratic government should they accept proposals like these which were grossly unjust and had not even the qualifying merit of popularity? A suggestion was made only yesterday which, if it was generally accepted, would point the road along which the goal of compromise might be reached. The hon. Member for the Carnarvon District, who was a very thoughtful and able representative of Welsh Nonconformity, made a speech to which he invited the attention of the House and of those who thought they had no grievance. This admission was made last night by the hon. Member. He said that this Bill would certainly remedy the Nonconformist grievance in single school areas, but, he asked, was it certain that Parliament would not create a grievance as real on the part of Churchmen because a large number of Church schools had been built at great sacrifice whose only

105
object was to secure denominational teaching. Those were courageous words, and if they represented the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government he would be very slow to say that compromise was impossible. The hon. Member also stated that as long as Nonconformists advocated Cowper-Temple teaching, they consistently refused to Roman Catholics and Anglicans the right to say that their form of religion should be taught at the expense of the State and by State-paid teachers. He added that he was amazed that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham were not accepted when the last Education Bill was introduced. Would the right hon. Gentleman opposite tell the House whether he accepted that view or not? If he did the case was not altogether hopeless. The right hon. Gentleman must also recognise that the hon. Member who had spoken was clearly right in saying what they had been saying for years, namely, that they were endowing Nonconformity by this Bill. He would like to call attention to the statement of the hon. Member for Louth that the abandonment of their sectarian schools had tended to reduce the financial burden imposed upon many of the members of his church. Evidently the hon. Member's contribution to a compromise was to make them a present of this financial burden. The only way in which a lasting peace could be obtained was by a recognition of the parents' rights. If that were accepted they must also accept the principle that those who contributed equally to the rates must expect equal treatment. If that were once recognised he was convinced that the administrative difficulties could be dealt with. It was clear that the single-school area came within the range of those difficulties. The hon. Member opposite had quoted two cases where a real grievance was disclosed as far as Nonconformists were concerned. He had quoted a school where the scholars were overwhelmingly Nonconformist as compared with the Church of England, and yet no provision was made for Nonconformist religious teaching. The Bishop of Manchester had expressed his willingness to assist in any arrangement which would make it impossible for this
106
difficulty to be stereotyped in the future. As far as urban areas were concerned, the difficulties were nothing like so serious. In most cases there was a choice of schools and a parent could send his children to whichever school he liked. They were confronted with the problem that the education authority might be embarrassed by demands from Anglicans, Jews, Moravians, or Thugs, asking that they should have a particular kind of religious teaching for their children. Did anybody, who had had any experience in rural districts, believe that such a difficulty would present itself. The hon. Member for Louth had given them two typical cases under the single school area, and they could have been dealt with by the principle of parental right. The late Chief Secretary had pointed out that there were practically only four cases to be met, namely, the Anglicans, the Nonconformists, the Jews, and the Roman Catholics. Did any hon. Member think they would be asked to provide teaching for any other religious community than those four? If that statement were true, then there was no difficulty, and it was idle to say that it was impossible to meet those cases. Let the right hon. Gentleman go to the largest workhouse in London and he would find that the difficulties of administration were the same there as would have to be faced by a large school if it accepted the principle of parental right. In the workhouse they were dealt with simply by the method he was suggesting. The parent of the child in the workhouse or even the child itself said he was a Catholic, an Anglican, a Nonconformist, or a Jew, and that particular religious education was provided for them without friction or difficulty. The administrative difficulties were great, but many of them would begrudge no effort on their part to assist the Government in overcoming them. There were only two real obstacles in the path of the Government's adopting the principle of parental right The first was stated by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and was based upon popular control, and the second was formulated in the cry: No tests for teachers. As far as popular control was concerned there was no objection to conceding what little remnant was

107
withheld under the Act of 1902. In that Act almost complete popular control was given in all respects, except in so far as the simple appointment of the teacher was concerned. What were they to say about the cry of no tests for teachers after the contracting-out proposals contained in this Bill and the speech of the hon. Member for Louth last night? To this cry must be assigned the most conspicuous tombstone in the cemetery of election generalisations. Lord Crewe gave it up in the House of Lords at the time of the Amendments to the 1906 Bill. It was once for all surrendered when an agreement was come to by the Government that no teacher should be appointed who was not acceptable to the parents committee. How was it supposed that the parents committee were going to decide. How were Roman Catholics going to decide whether a teacher would be acceptable to them? Would they inquire into his qualifications to teach cookery? The only way they would be able to determine it would be by finding out whether they were qualified by belief in the doctrine and teaching peculiar to the denominational faith. What did the hon. Member for the Louth Division say? The hon. Gentleman said that no local authority would dream of appointing a Protestant teacher to a Roman Catholic school. Why not? That was what the Opposition wanted to know, if there was no test for teachers. What became of the free play of competition among teachers? What became of every post being open to merit without restriction of creed? The hon. Gentleman said there were methods of ascertaining what the religious opinions of the teachers were. That was his proposal, and that was the Government scheme. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Well, the hon. Gentleman was repudiated. He and his friends were glad to hear that the solution he held up to the Roman Catholics was not well-founded. The hon. Gentleman consoled them that under this Bill they would really get Roman Catholic teaching. The right hon. Gentleman opposite shook his head, and he understood that he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman that they would get Roman Catholic teaching. It was a great pity that that was not explained at Manchester during
108
the recent election, when they were told that concessions were going to be given when this Bill was brought forward again. The Government would substitute for a candid and legitimate inquiry, an inquisition which was private, clandestine, and impossible to answer. When this Bill joined its predecessors, as he feared it must do, he would venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider even now whether it was not possible to formulate a scheme upon a basis accepted by both sides of the House and dependent upon parental right. If the Government would help to reach the final stage of this long drawn controversy on these lines, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman, on whose promotion everybody would congratulate him, would go down to history as the Minister who succeeded where many of his predecessors failed, because he laid his foundations deep and truly upon the basis of universal equality.
MR. ADKINSSlid any Member who addressed the House after the fascinating and eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Member would find himself at a great disadvantage, and he would find himself at a double disadvantage-if he happened to be a Lancashire Member who had survived the various forms of rhetoric which on the First Reading had been launched against them by Members of the Opposition. All through the winter they had been suffering under the excommunication by bill, book, and candle of the Bishop of Manchester, and they were told by the hon. and learned Member on the First Reading that they were sure to be destroyed if they supported the Bill. They were also told that day that no Member on that side of the House representing a. Lancashire constituency dare get up to support the Government. It was not for the hon. and learned Member to prophesy what their fate might be, but before his doom was completed he should like to state why it was not only possible, but as they thought it was in the strictest line of duty for Lancashire Members to support most heartily the Second Reading. After all as they had been told already, this controversy was not new. The hon. and

109
learned Member began his speech by saying that this was but one step in the controversy, and when they met their constituents and faced the electors month after month in that long campaign, when the last moribund Parliament was dragging to its close this question was discussed on the platform in conference in public and in private, and there was no issue in this Parliament which had been so thoroughly thrashed out long before this Parliament met. All these alternatives and all this easy criticism was directed by persons less able and less attractive than the hon. and learned Member, but no less sincere and no less representative. Therefore, they said, having faced this question before and having met before the general election the full force of that clerical crusade of which the hon. and learned Member was the best lay helper, they felt no additional tremors when they heard those arguments used across the floor of the House. What, after all, was the central point of the speech they had just heard, and of the speech delivered yesterday by the hon. Member for North-West Manchester, a speech on which he would like to congratulate the hon. Member both for its great ability and for his happy freedom from nervousness? What was the central position so far as Lancashire was concerned? It was that at present there were a large superiority in numbers of scholars in non-provided schools in urban Lancashire over those in council schools. No doubt that was true, but before they could base on that the argument based upon it yesterday and to-day, one would like to know how many of these scholars in voluntary schools represented people who really wished them to be there and who would still keep them there if there was a provided school within reach of every child. When the hon. and learned Member dealt with that question, and when he had the requisite knowledge, then they would be prepared to meet the highly changed position. At present his figures had this disadvantage as compared with his phrases, that they were no more helpful to the discussion, and much less attractive to listen to. The hon. and learned Gentleman placed in the centre of his speech with great force, what
110
was argued yesterday with much less force, that the provisions for contracting-out were of the essence of the measure. They were told by the noble Lord the Member for the Chorley Division that contracting-out was the backbone of the Bill. They had been told yesterday and to-day that the Bill was founded on contracting-out. He had no gift for anatomical metaphor but he should like to say that in his opinion the real core of the Bill was not contracting-out, but the principle that there should be a council school within the reach of every child. No doubt the adjustment of that principle to the infinitely varying difficulties of different places was a matter well worthy of the consideration of this House, and might well call for help from all parties in the House and men of all varieties of experience, but important and difficult as would be the methods by which that principle could be carried out they could, he thought, consider it in Committee. These matters, though of high, were still of secondary concern. The real principle was the one which he had suggested to the House, and was to be found in that provision of the Bill. If that was the case, he, for one, would wish to support the Bill, because that was its central principle, though he was grateful to the hon. and learned Member for the clearness with which he had analysed the objections which could be taken to that principle, and when has ought to represent to the House how easy it would be to carry out the opposite principle. There were only two other principles on which national education could be dealt with. One which they had
heard mentioned in the debate by nearly every speaker only to be rejected was called the secular solution. In regard to that, as had already been said, when under the existing law they could have secular education in any local government area if a majority of the electors desired it, and when in practice that had never come about, surely the House would do well to consider other solutions rather than that one which would have far more to be said for it in practice as indeed it had much to be said for it in logic and theory if it could be pointed to as in actual and practical working in any part of the country. The other proposal mentioned in vague

111
terms by Members of the Opposition, mentioned in adroit terms by the hon. and learned Member as being the principle of parental rights had been developed with clearness by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone in his speech on the First Reading which he asked the House to consider in dealing with the proposal. The noble Lord said—
"I would not teach the religion of the Thugs, but so long as the religions were moral and in accordance with the law, and I accept this fully, all religions should be taught equally by the State, and there should be no preference, privilege, or advantage given by the State to one religion more than to the others."
The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool interposed the remark "By the teachers?" and the noble Lords replied—
"Certainly, but I cannot go into the details."
He accepted fully the high sincerity of the noble Lord which was the prized possession of members on that side of the House also. But he asked the House to see what this alternative meant when it was put forward in such completeness by the noble Lord. Take an ordinary Midland village such as that where his home was situated. There was a Church of England not too well attended. There was a chapel belonging to the Baptists, there was a small community of Primitive Methodists, and there were a number of persons who, unhappily, did not organise their lines on the principle of denominational loyalty. What were they going to do in a village of 500 people if that was going to be the principle. They must have not one but three or five schools so that everybody might have for their child not only their special faith taught, but taught by people who held that faith in an atmosphere congenial to that faith and free from an influence hostile to the faith throughout the school curriculum. That was the principle acted on under great sacrifices and with the greatest devotion by members of the Roman Catholic Church, and he spoke of the principle and of its application with complete respect. What he would point out with great deference was that if this was to be a guiding principle of national application, a principle held not only by hon. Members on that side of the House but one which it would be well for the whole country to agree to, they were
112
faced with this result, that all national education would become impossible. It would break down because of the expense, because of the inevitable incompetency of the teachers they would get, and it would break down because of the impossible task of giving adequate education in tiny schools removed from wide influences where they could not have enough children to secure proper teaching for each stage in the school life of the child. Therefore, when there was put forward to the House an alternative to the Government proposal, the question was, would this alternative be possible if it became of universal application? He had shown that the noble Lord's principle, much as was to be said for it, would be impossible if it were universally applied, and it was no answer to quote the experience of workhouse schools or the experience of other countries. Why were not Englishmen who chose to sacrifice much that made life worth living in order to be loyal to their own particular religious society, to have as much consideration shown to them as those who belonged to the august communities of Rome or of Canterbury? If they went on the principle laid down by the noble Lord they would reach a state of things absolutely unworkable in practice. He would draw this further conclusion. Non-provided schools in this country were possible under existing Acts of Parliament only because the majority of the people did not want that type, and when they were told that those who supported non-provided schools were paying twice over, he would point out that while in a sense that was true, they were not only paying for the particular kind of religion they wanted, but they were supporting another type which must be there if they were to have their own type at all. If everybody got their own type, the whole scheme would break down. It was a fact that more than half the country were content to do with a form of elementary education which did not foster their own religious societies. By that means only was the continued existence of non-provided schools constitutionally and financially possible. He did not say that the non-provided schools were to be treated unfairly, or that they were not to take cognisance of the fact that Roman

113
Catholics and a large section of Anglicans demanded special treatment. But he submitted to the House that the principle of the council school supported and managed by all, with no form of teaching within it which actually fostered the interests of any particular society, must be the dominant type, and when that was accepted as the dominant type, as it would be under the Government Bill, then and then only were they in a proper position to deal generously and considerately with those who for conscientious reasons, which they all respected, were unable to take full part in a workable national system of education. If that was the case it was only fair to submit to the House that the question of contracting out was not the essence of the Bill, but was really one of the suggested means of dealing with the exceptions that ought not to be ignored, but which could only be dealt with so long as they were exceptions. The noble Lord, the Member for Chorley, had devoted many hours of his valuable life to searching in the columns of Hansard for anything said on the Government side of the House in regard to contracting out. And so zealous was he in his sport that not content with hunting up the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, he even condescended to such small game as himself, and discovered a phrase in which he had said that that which would be a tonic in a few cases might well be poisonous if applied to the whole body politic. He adhered to that. But under this Bill, when the first condition was that there should be a council school within the reach of every child, it could not be possible that contracting out should become universal. It was not denied that contracting out in single-school areas would be impossible under the Bill. But while no one had affection for contracting out, while denominationalism was the ideal of a section of the community, contracting out was absolutely necessary to some extent in any scheme which any Government could proffer. Even in the elaborate provisions of the Bill of 1906, which he supported, there was a loop-hole by which contracting out might be applied. He repeated that contracting out was the inevitable
114
safety valve, but the less extensive it was the better it would be for the education of the country. Lastly, he supported the Bill most heartily because of the provision with regard to the single school area. Complaint had been made of the term "single school area" because it led to confusion with the area of the parish. He would not dispute with the noble Lord's dialectic. They all knew what they meant by a single school area. They all knew that there were parts or the country in which the child had not got a reasonable choice of school. They all knew that that applied to nearly the whole of rural England. Where the child had not got reasonable choice of school on every ground of fair play, religious equality, and educational efficiency, they must have some provision like that set out in the Bill. It was suggested by the noble and learned Member that cases like those mentioned by the hon. Member for Louth, where Nonconformists were in a majority, could be dealt with under the principle of the rights of parents. How could that be? Take any Lincolnshire village where there might be 120 Nonconformists and forty Anglicans. Were they going to have one head teacher for two years and another for the third year? That reminded him of Canning's rhyme—
"When each fair burgh numerically free,
Shall choose its members by the Rule of Three."
Were they going to divide the small school staff by some fractional adaptation of that principle? The Nonconformist minority in a village could not be dealt with under the principle of the rights of parents. This was impossible. It could not be done in single school areas. The only way in which the village problem could be solved was not by putting first the special religious opinions of the people in the village, but by considering the village as a local government unit and the whole village being given the power to manage and control it. If there was nothing in this Bill but the abolition of the dual system in villages of rural England it would be well worth fighting for. They had been told by those who should have known better that there was nothing in this Bill to advance the interests of education. He wondered why anyone

115
who had had experience of rural administration could fail to see that the abolition of the dual system was the first step towards helping the educational needs of those villages which had longed for help and never had it adequately up to the present time. All parties in the House regretted the rural exodus to the towns, and were longing to get more people back to the land. One of the many reasons why parents left the villages for the towns was because they could get a better education for their children. There would never be the education in the villages there ought to be when they were cramped and hampered at every turn by the absurdities and anomalies of the dual system. On the county council of which he was a member a most undue proportion of the time of the education committee was taken up with the eternal adjustment between the powers of the committee and rights of managers and proprietor in the necessary educational usage of the school buildings, and until the whole of the schools in a single-school area were directly under the local authority, they would find money and temper wasted, when they needed them all for the development of education. The great difficulty of rural education was that the number of school children was so small that they could not be properly graded by one or two teachers. The remedy was to have an infant school in every small village and schools for older boys and girls in central villages only. So long as the school buildings were owned by private people and the teacher was appointed by these people, they could not enlarge or reduce the school or combine schools or remove teachers. He hoped he had said nothing that would embitter this controversy, but he desired to support the Government, which proposed to bring to an end the greatest possible obstacle to the educational efficiency of the country. They were told there was a prospect of compromise and conciliation. It was surely possible for everyone who held that the universal system of council schools was essential to hold no less strongly that every effort ought to be made to treat with generosity those unable to come into it, and they ought to be open to any kind of suggestion by which variety might be given in urban
116
districts where possible without destroying national machinery. While there was a tendency to seek a solution of this question by mutual accommodation, he could well understand the desire of some politicians of high degree and some small ones of no importance to keep up the policy of the open sore, and give a new barb to criticism. But he trusted that that temptation would be put away and that in proportion to the extreme difficulties of this most vital question they should all take extreme efforts to bring it to an end.
MR. DILLONsaid that everyone must recognise and be grateful for the conciliatory tone of the last speaker. He only regretted that that conciliatory spirit was not shown by Members on both sides of the House in the early stages of these debates. In listening to the discussion he had been struck by its unreality. It had ranged round ill-defined battlecries, which were used on both sides of the House, but with a different understanding of their meaning. The ear had become accustomed to the expressions "no tests for teachers," "public control," "simple Bible teaching," or "Cowper-Temple teaching." With regard to "tests for teachers" he accepted it ten years ago, and was denounced for doing so. There were to be, it was said, no tests for teachers, and yet the hon. Member for Louth offered Catholics, as an inducement to enter the national educational system, an assurance that every local authority in England would put a test to the teachers for the Catholic schools. Yet the hon. Member used this extraordinary expression—
"He regretted that Catholics could not see their way to come into the national system."
That was exactly what Catholics wanted to do. They had always desired to come into the national system so long as their schools would not be destroyed as Catholic schools. The hon. Member said that no local authority in England would dream of appointing a non-Catholic teacher to Catholic schools. If that was so, why should not the Bill itself give that assurance? It was hard for Catholic representatives to have patience with the strange misinterpretation put upon their attitude by organs

117
of public opinion. Only that morning he read in a great English Nonconformist paper a statement that in any settlement the Roman Catholics and Jews must have separate treatment and that exclusion from public control was a privilege they must expect to pay for. Catholics had not asked for freedom from public control. On the contrary, they welcomed public control, so long as it still left their schools Catholic schools. They were willing under the Bill of 1906 to come into a national system on condition that the assurance given by the hon. Member for Louth was made a reality.
As HON. MEMBER: That floored the Bill.
MR. DILLONsaid it was not that that floored the Bill. It was the action of the narrow and foolish extremists on the Nonconformist side who committed the same offence—and would be sorry for it—which the Conservative Party committed in 1902. The extremists thought they could have it all their own way. Extremists on neither side could have things all their own way, and that they would learn before they had finished with the question. The proposals of the Catholics did not floor the Bill, because they were accepted by the Government. Throughout the whole controversy the Catholics, for whom Nationalist Members were entitled to speak, had desired conciliation, and had been anxious to meet whatever Government was in power to the fullest extent their principles would allow, and to make large concessions for the sake of a permanent settlement. They had always been against contracting out because it would mean a poorer class of schools, and because their schools would be deprived of the incalculable benefit of being part and parcel of the great national machinery. With regard to the Bill of 1906 he declared at the time that its author would have his revenge, and his prophecy was coming true. That Bill was a great constructive measure which aroused the enthusiasm of the country on its educational side. Could anyone say that the present Bill was from the educational point of view worthy of being mentioned
118
in the same breath? The Liberal Party had come fresh from the country, with a new mandate to carry such a measure as the Bill of 1906. Catholics made great concessions, and the Bill was finally sent to the House of Lords with a majority of 320. It was an ideal question on which to fight and quarrel with the House of Lords. Why was not the Bill sent back to the House of Lords in the following session? It was an interesting question. The Government selected rather to fight the House of Lords on a Scottish Land Bill. Why was not the Bill of 1906 sent back to the Lords? It was because the extreme men in the Liberal Party said they would have no more of it, and that too much had been conceded. Did not they now think it was a mistake? Did not they think it would have been better to force through the Bill of 1906? The Bill of 1906 might have been forced through and sent to the House of Lords at the beginning of 1907. He thought they would learn before they were done with this education question that they had made a great mistake in not fighting the battle on that. Therefore it was absurd to charge Catholics with refusing public control. They desired public control, and they had not refused to go into the national system. They wanted to go into the national system if it was only made possible for them. It could be made possible. It had been proved in this House that the problem could be successfully solved so far as the Catholics were concerned. An hon. Member speaking upon the matter the previous night had recounted the efforts which had been made and rejected. Amongst others he said that they had asked for contracting out and that when that was brought forward they rejected it. He replied that they never asked for contracting out and that as a matter of settlement they had always refused it. So far as Catholics were concerned and the people for whom the Nationalist Members spoke in this country, they objected to the principle of contracting out. They objected because, even if the grant were increased, they had no ground for hoping that it would be increased to such an extent as to put them upon a position of equality with other schools in the country, and they knew that whatever increase was

119
given to Catholics, in educational progress they would be left far behind indeed. Another matter had been alluded to; namely, the question of parents' rights. He had the honour to be the father of that in modern times. He invented that principle, and brought down on his head attacks, in those days, from nearly the whole House. But that principle had now become very popular on the Opposition side of the House. He was greatly amused on reading the other day a speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury—a very interesting and remarkable speech which he delivered upon the introduction of the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill. The Archbishop quoted from declarations made by Liberals during the election of 1905 and also in 1900 vindicating the principle of parents' rights. It was a most extraordinary thing that once a Party crossed the floor of the House they seemed to forget the principle of parents' rights altogether. It was a principle only cherished in opposition and not when the Party were in power. In his opinion the time to have settled the whole question on a permanent and lasting basis was in 1902. In that year the Government had a great majority and the question could have been settled. If the Government of the day had shown anything approaching the spirit of compromise which Members were now so anxious to show, a settlement might have been effected which would have safeguarded every possible right or claim of the voluntary schools. It would have been a lasting settlement such as that of 1870, and would have lasted probably another thirty years. But that great opportunity was thrown away. Another opportunity was thrown away in 1906 in his opinion, when the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman who was now Chief Secretary for Ireland was not sent to the House of Lords a. second time, and he was greatly afraid that another opportunity would be thrown away upon the present occasion. The realities of the education question had now passed away from that House, they all knew what was going on behind the scenes, and that there were negotiations in progress. The Irish Members knew nothing about the negotiations except what they saw in the newspapers, and, therefore,
120
as the hon. Member for Waterford said, they had looked forward to this debate with great interest for some glimmer of hope. But up to the present they had seen none. A great deal had been said about the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill, and it was an extraordinary piece of logical legerdemain that the First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech undertook to prove to them that the principle of contracting out, especially for the Catholic schools, was contained in the Bishop's Bill. What he said was that the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill, as explained by the Bishop himself, contained that principle, but there was not a word about it in the Bill. It was a Protestant settlement that was proposed. Here was what occurred in the speech of the Bishop of St. Asaph—
"One matter I desire to refer to briefly, but with all the emphasis I can command. The Church of England will never accept a settlement which does not include an agreement which will meet generously, as they deserve to be met, the claims of the Roman Catholics."
But they wanted to know how they deserved to be met. In this Bill there was no comfort at all for them; all the comfort they got was in the explanation of the Bill. So far as the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill was concerned they did not seem to come in at all. They found themselves without any glimmer of light coming from the pronouncements of the Government. All he could find was this. The First Lord of the Admiralty used a very strange expression which rather appeared to him to bear out the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in Lancashire. He said—
"Up to the present it was not open to the Government to deal with various religious denominations otherwise than on a footing of perfect equality. But when a Bill was introduced by the Bishop of St. Asaph's the Government feel more at liberty to act with regard to certain denominations for whom alone the alternative of contracting out would have to be retained."
That was not a very hopeful prospect, he must confess, particularly after the speech they had heard that day from the Member for Manchester, and from other Gentlemen before him, and from influential men outside the House. He was very sceptical as to the possibility of the Government's passing a special measure for Catholics apart from

121
Anglicans. And, also, there was no indication in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty of any determination to put them on a footing of equality, and no indication of improvement in the grant. As he had said, he objected to the whole principle of contracting-out. But if there was to be force put upon them, let it be clearly understood that they could not for one moment assent to the principle laid down in the Daily News to-day, that it was a privilege for which they were bound to pay. They did not want to contract out, but if they were to be put out, then they must be put on a footing of equality, and hon. Members opposite should see that the poor children of the Roman Catholics of this country were not condemned to an inferior system of education. That was a point he wished strongly to impress upon his fellow - countrymen as well as upon Members of this House. The majority of Members opposite were, he thought, thoroughly sympathetic. Their feeling was, and he thought it was a natural feeling, that there was the greatest possible danger of what might be described as a Protestant settlement leaving the Catholics out altogether. He had always felt—he did not want in the least degree to be offensive to hon. Members above the gangway—that the majority of the Protestants of this country were to a large extent content with an agreement based upon Cowper-Temple teaching. That would be fatal to Catholics. He had been immensely struck by two letters which appeared in The Times, one from the Bishop of Chichester, in which he said that Churchmen should remember that while they claimed to be treated on an equality with Roman Catholics, they were bound to take a wider view of the education question. He wrote—
"We belong, not to a sect, but to the Church of the nation and must do our utmost not only to secure Church education for Church children, but Christian education for all children whose parents will allow them to receive it."
That was the point he wished to dwell upon, and it was backed up by another letter from the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge—
"The short letter of the Bishop of Chichester represents exactly, I believe, the views of the silent majority of the Churchmen as against
122
the well-organised minority who wish to turn the Church of England into a pseudo-Catholic sect, supported as they are at this moment by some Evangelicals who are Tories first and Churchmen afterwards."
If that were true, and if the great silent majority of the people of England were more concerned in maintaining in the schools of this country—in all the schools—that simple Bible teaching as they called it, then it was natural that Catholics should feel alarm lest what he described as a Protestant settlement should be arrived at, leaving them entirely out in the cold. He had never been in the habit of using language such as was adopted in the great debates of 1906 when the system of Cowper-Temple teaching was called a new religion and was eventually termed "Birreligion" and had various other terms of opprobrium applied to it. He felt no sympathy with that line of conduct. All through those debates in 1906, and even to some extent in the debates to-day, there kept running through his mind the two lines of Lever—
"Fightin' like divils for conciliation,
An' hatin' each other for love of God."
In this controversy the question of Cowper-Temple teaching had taken an entirely new aspect. He had pointed out that Cowper-Temple teaching was not a definite thing, that it was a form of religion which was accepted by the opinion of this country, and that it was intensely unacceptable to Catholics, so unacceptable that they would prefer the secular system. They pointed out that under the Cowper-Temple teaching they could teach almost any religion, and therefore it was a vague and indefinite thing. So strongly, apparently, did this argument influence the Government that they dropped the whole Cowper-Temple system and introduced a totally new thing in the present Bill. Now there must be an undertaking to provide religious instruction such as was specified in the London County Council Syllabus. This was substituted for Cowper-Temple teaching. They had now got a syllabus. They were progressing. They undertook to do away with the Cowper-Temple system and to have various Syllabuses. They were trying to do what the Councils of the Catholic Church had been endeavouring to do for 900 years, and had not yet

123
finished—to define all the articles of faith. It took a good deal of time, and a good deal of learning, but it was dealt with offhand by the London County Council. The Daily News that morning described, in the most enthusiastic language, as the future of the country under this new Bill if it was accepted—
"A council school in every parish in which undogmatic Christianity is taught."
There was no such thing as undogmatic Christianity; it was an impossibility. In the very forefront of this syllabus, which was full of dogma from one end to the other, it was stated that they were to teach the life of our Lord. And at the end was this extraordinary "Note."—
"It was found that the syllabus of Jewish instruction was unacceptable to the Jewish children in certain schools of London."
It was too dogmatic for the Jews, although there was no dogma in it at all. What did the County Council do in this syllabus which was now returned to Parliament to guide all the council schools of the country under the new Act? It agreed that there should be a separate syllabus dogmatically prepared to suit the Jewish children, which might be taken up as an alternative syllabus to that for the Christian children. That was undogmatic religion under the new County Council's syllabus. They had no syllabus for the Catholic children. That would be beyond even the limit of the County Council. But really was it not pitiable? In all the schools of the country they were going to have this form of religious teaching endowed and they were going to penalise all the children of the country who required some other form of religion. Let him say, once more assuming the role of a prophet, that he was convinced more deeply than he could find words to express his conviction, that no Bill would ever be accepted or pass through Parliament—and even if it were passed by some impossible process, it would be very speedily repealed by the country—which endowed one form of religious teaching and penalised all the parents of the country who required some other form.
MR. G. GREENWOODsaid he had listened patiently to the
124
speeches which had been made, as he had listened two years ago to what seemed to be the interminable discussion as to how much of doctrine and dogma was to be taught in the national elementary schools, and he had come to the conclusion that it was very difficult, if not impossible for one who held the views he held, and he held them very strongly, to record his vote in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill, although he did not intend to vote against it. For many years he had been profoundly impressed with the conviction that there was only one settlement of the question which could possibly be permanent and which was just, and by which they could avoid doing a great amount of injustice to a large number of their fellow citizens, and that was a settlement which must be based upon State neutrality, upon their common citizenship—the settlement commonly known as the secular solution, not the secularist solution as it had been called on the other side of the House—he thought through inadvertence. But outside the House, simply to arouse prejudice and for purposes of misrepresentation, it was very often described as the secularist solution. One might just as well talk of the secular clergy as the secularist clergy. There was a great distinction, as everybody knew, between the two words. It was admitted that the secular was the only logical solution. He had observed that hon. Members when they wanted to disparage and pour contempt upon this solution always began by saying it was the only logical solution and went on with a fine smile of contempt to say that logic could not be expected in politics. He entirely agreed with that. He had lived long enough to know that it was considered by many as the mark of the higher statesmanship to be as illogical as possible and to call it compromise. Therefore, he would be the last to put this solution before the House on the ground of logic. But he put it before the House on the ground of justice, and of justice alone. He thought this solution was a necessary corollary of making education compulsory. He would appeal to passive resisters in the House. They were bound to support the secular solution. For what principle had they been fighting? The passive resister might say he

125
was fighting for no principle at all, but merely for his own hand. He objected very much to paying for Catholic teaching or Anglican teaching, but so long as he could procure Cowper-Temple teaching he was perfectly satisfied, and if someone else's conscience was offended what was that to him? But a passive resister who said that would put himself beyond the pale of argument. He believed the passive resister was a sensible and an honest man, and the principle for which he had been contending could only be that no man ought to be compelled by law to pay for any religious teaching to which he was conscientiously opposed. That ought to be the fundamental principle of our educational system, and it led at once to this solution of State neutrality, because there were thousands in this country who entertained a conscientious objection to Cowper-Temple teaching. To Catholics, as the hon. Member for Waterford had told them, it was abhorrent. As the hon. Member for Mayo had said, they preferred the secular solution. But there were many others who intensely disliked it, and how could it be just to compel them, by law, to pay for it? He might answer in passing a very superficial objection that some people conscientiously objected to pay income-tax. He could answer that in words published more than thirty years ago in a passionate argument for the secular solution in a work which he held in his hand, viz., "The Struggle for National Education" by Mr. John Morley. He said, contemptuously, in answer to that—
"As if it were not in religious affairs a settled principle of our Government that the majority, however great it may be, and however strenuous its convictions, shall still not force the conscience of the minority."
But then what might be taught? It had been held under Cowper-Temple teaching that the Apostle's Creed might be taught. He had mentioned this recently in speaking at a Congregational Church, and the minister when he came to speak said he did not know that he could say he believed in one single word of the Apostle's Creed. That remark was indicative of the signs of the times. He found other examples in the syllabus. He was taught at school as history of divine inspiration that the
126
walls of Jericho fell down at the sound of the trumpets of Joshua, and that the sun and moon stood still in order that the Israelites might complete the slaughter of their enemies, and that when the prophet Elisha was going up, it did not matter where, when he was assailed by some little children on account of a certain physical infirmity which was shared by a great many of them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord, and Providence sent out she bears which tore many of them. Here he had the authority of a Canon of the Church, and a Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford and editor of the Encyclopædia Biblica, and it was tidings of great joy when he was no longer compelled in any sense of the word to look upon that as history of divine inspiration. But they were going to ask the teachers to teach these things as divinely inspired truth. It was ridiculous to say that this did not operate as a test for teachers if they asked them to give lessons even in Cowper-Temple teaching. And if they only permitted teachers to give such instruction there would be preferential treatment for those who would do so. But more than that, no man could give that teaching unless he believed in it or unless he was a hypocrite. He admitted that they were not going to ask the teachers to subscribe to a formal or written test, but the things he had mentioned must operate as tests, and if they were going to carry out the doctrine that they were not going to have tests for teachers, they must make up their minds that the teacher must not be allowed to give religious teaching. Considering that the State levied rates and taxes from all the citizens without inquiring what their religious belief was, he contended that the modern State ought not to exert its power to take from the pockets of all its citizens money to uphold religious teaching to which some of those who were forced to contribute conscientiously objected. They did not object to religion, but to State-paid religion. That opinion was not merely the opinion of Secularists, it was what was said years ago in the debates by the old Nonconformist leaders, and perhaps the House would pardon him if he made one short quotation from a speech delivered in 1870, by Mr. Henry

127
Richard, a man who was deservedly held in the highest estimation in that House. He said—
"As a Nonconformist, he had in limine an insurmountable objection to such a scheme; if he knew anything of the principles of Nonconformity, one of the most fundamental and universally acknowledged of them was this, that it was not right to take money received from the general taxation of the public and apply it to purposes of religious instruction and worship. That principle appeared to him to lie at the very foundation of all religious liberty. For if they claimed the right to compel one man to pay for the support of another man's religion and to enforce that, as they must, by penalties of the law, they passed at once into the region of religious persecution."
Those were the words of a man who understood his own mind and was not afraid to express it, and he often wondered what Erastian germ had insinuated itself into the vertebrae of the present day leaders of Nonconformity that they walked with such uncertain steps where their forefathers so strongly trod. In 1870 in a letter to John Bright, Mr. Gladstone said—
"The fact is, it seems to me, that the Nonconformists have not yet as a body made up their minds whether they want unsectarian religion or simply secular teaching, so far as the application of the rate is concerned. I have never been strong against the latter of these two. It seems to me impartial and not, if fairly worked in any degree unfriendly to religion."
He could give the House if it were necessary another extract from Mr. Gladstone in 1870 to the same effect. Therefore, Mr. Gladstone had no apprehension in regard to the secular solution, and he did not think it was necessarily an irreligious system. He could also quote the words of the late Prime Minister, whose loss they all so sincerely deplored, and whose memory they would ever cherish. He could quote his words showing that, in his opinion, nine-tenths of the Liberals, if they had their own way, would ask for the secular solution. The book written by the Secretary for India upon this subject was as full of arguments in favour of this solution as an egg was full of meat. Then there was the extremely interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, to which he had listened in 1906, and who said—
"There are only two means of settling this question, one is that the State should pay for
128
no religious teaching, and the other is that the State should pay for all religious teaching."
The right hon. Gentleman also said that in his belief the second means was impracticable, and therefore he had always given his support to the first. Of course all that was entirely compatible with giving ample facilities to all denominations out of school hours at their own expense. Something had been said as to the rights of parents, and they all recognised those rights. Undoubtedly a parent had the right to have his child brought up in the religion and faith which he believed to be true. He had also the right to say that his child should not be taught in any public school any form of religion which he thought was untrue. The parent, however, had no right to come to the State and say: "I insist on you teaching my child at the State's expense any religion that I choose." If they admitted that they could not draw the line anywhere. They would have to allow ethical societies and other sects the same right with the result that the whole thing would become a theological tug-of-war. They had no right to dictate to the State the manner in which the State should apply the funds taken indiscriminately from all ratepayers. All other attempts at the solution of this question had been dismal failures, and he asked the House to consider whether they might not arrive at a solution of this question upon the common ground of citizenship. Mr. John Morley, in his work on "Compromise," said—
"The so-called settlement of national education [in 1870] is the most recent and the most deplorable illustration of refusing to examine ideas alleged to be impracticable."
It was said that if they advocated this solution, none of them would come back again to the House of Commons. He was not greatly impressed with that argument. If this question was boldly faced and put before the constituencies with sincerity; if they put forward their strong conviction that only in this way could they avoid doing great injustice to a great number of their fellow citizens; he believed the country would approve of it. He had done his best to put before his own constituency the justice of the solution he was advocating. All his life he had found himself very

129
much with minorities, but he had lived to find those minorities not unfrequently turned into majorities. If one was sincerely convinced of any proposal of this kind in regard to its justice, all one could do was to labour for it and rest content believing—
"That they are slaves who would not be
In the right with two or three."
LORD R. CECILsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken would not hear from him any objection to his remarks on the score that advocacy was likely to lead him into electoral difficulties, but when he claimed that his solution was the only just one, then he was bound to say that he joined issue with him. What was the great point of his argument? It was to the effect that it was unfair that one set of people should have their children taught completely at the public expense, while another set of children were not so taught. If his solution were adopted the injustice would still remain. The children of the secularists and those who did not desire any religious teaching would receive from the State the full cost of the religious education of their children. An enormous proportion of the people of this country consisted of those who regarded religion not as a part of secular education, but as the foundation on which secular education should rest. They were to be put in the position of having to pay themselves for that foundation. They would not be treated with that absolute equality which the hon. Member desired. The truth was that they could not arrive at any system which was absolutely equal and just except a system which declared that as soon as the State had compelled all children to be sent to the public elementary schools it was bound to give that form of education which was conscientiously insisted on by the parents of all the children. That was the ideal, but whether they could reach it was a different question, and the hon. Gentleman did not get rid of the difficulty when he said, "If you teach no religion you are acting fairly," because by so doing they would be giving a preference to those who desired no religion at all. He said quite frankly that he saw more prospect of a settlement of this question
130
on the lines the hon. Gentleman suggested than he did on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for the Middleton Division. The hon. Member far the Middleton Division had always been quite frank and clear in his advocacy of the solution which he had suggested. The hon. Gentleman said there was a form of religious teaching which all should accept. That was the undenominational system; that was to be the predominant teaching in the schools of the country.
MR. ADKINS: I spoke of the predominant type of school as being under full public control. It was the character of the school government on which I laid stress.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was under complete misapprehension of what the hon. Gentleman said. If he only meant that all the schools ought to be of one type and under the control of the local education authority with reference to the appointment of managers and things of that kind, and that the religious teaching should be under the control of the managers, that would be a proposal coming very near what had been frequently advocated in this House. The hon. Gentleman must mean that the education was to be under the control of the local education authority, and be of the Cowper-Temple kind. If the hon. Gentleman did not mean that, he did not know what he meant. He was perfectly accurate when he said that the hon. Gentleman desired that Cowper-Temple teaching should be predominant throughout all the schools. If the hon. Gentleman listened to the hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. Member for Peterborough, he must have felt that his solution was impossible. That was what he wanted to impress on hon. Members opposite. They could not force undenominational teaching as the predominant and universal teaching in the schools of this country. He left out the people of the unhappy English Church; they, he knew, were not regarded as entitled to much consideration. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"] He would be able to show before he sat down that that was the view held in some quarters. The Roman Catholics and the secularists

131
were two sections of the community who said they would not submit to have that form of religious teaching imposed on their children; they said they did not believe in it, and that they did not think it satisfactory. It seemed to him absolutely impossible for the Liberal Party, who had always gone in for religious equality, in the face of that refusal to adopt such a system as that advocated by the hon. Member for the Middleton Division. There was one observation made by the hon. Member for East Mayo with which he heartily agreed. The hon. Gentleman complained very much of the unreality of this discussion. He himself did not quite know what they were discussing. He had not the slightest conception why it was that the Government desired to continue it. Only two points had emerged clearly from the discussion so far as it had gone. The first was that practically no one was in favour of the Government proposals. He was not very sure about the hon. Member for the Middleton Division of Lancashire, and the hon. Member for the Osgoldcross Division of Yorkshire. With these exceptions there was no one who had taken part in the debate who had not condemned one or other of the principal proposals of the Bill. The second thing which had emerged in the debate was that no one really knew what the Government proposed to do. It was very remarkable when the House of Commons were discussing the Second Reading of one of the principal measures of the Government programme. A few weeks ago they thought that they knew what the policy of the Government was. It appeared to have had two periods. There was first what might be called the sword period, which was begun with the celebrated speech at Pontypool by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the natural outcome of that was the Bill now before the House. That was the sword Bill. It was designed to be of a very ruthless character. He was dealing now with the denominational aspect of the question. It was the kind of Bill they expected when they road the right hon. Gentleman's speech and other speeches that followed. Let the House consider what this Bill really proposed to do. He would not repeat the argu-
132
ments which had been stated as to the effect of the Bill on town denominational schools. It gave them the alternative of inefficiency or extinction. There was no doubt about that. As to country schools its proceedings were even more drastic. It proposed their abolition, coupled with the confiscation of their buildings. The right hon. Gentleman had given a return of all the schools in the single school parishes, and distinguished those which were governed by what he called tight trusts. He found that there were 5,600 Church of England schools which were affected by tight trusts. It was very noticeable that there were only 118 affected by tight trusts which did not belong to the Church of England. It was proposed by this Bill to take without any payment whatever the buildings belonging to those schools and the land on which they were built. It was a very moderate estimate to say that the amount of confiscation in hard cash would be £5,000,000. How was this proposed to be justified? By the grant of so-called facilities. That was to say the schools were to be placed at the disposal of the former owners before and after school hours with a prohibition against any regular teacher entering into a school and taking part in the religious education then given. Everybody admitted that facilities of that description were absolutely ridiculous. The only other proposal was that the trustees should be entitled before the confiscation of their schools to insist on teaching in accordance with the London County Council syllabus. Beyond securing just the fact that there must be some dogmatic teaching that syllabus secured nothing at all. It was absolutely no security either for moderate teaching or for extreme teaching or for any teaching which could be called even Christian by most of those who sat beside him; therefore, to flourish the London County Council syllabus in their faces as some compensation for the confiscation of the Church schools and buildings throughout the country was really a piece of political window-dressing which it was difficult to describe with patience. That was the sword period. But recently there had been a different atmosphere. They had heard a great deal of conciliation, and a different tone seemed to have pervaded Ministerial speeches.

133
He had been rather interested to read the causes to which that change of tone had been assigned. In part of the Press which supported the Government it was attributed to the support given by the bishops and archbishops to the Licensing Bill. He did not pretend to understand the workings of the consciences of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it appeared to him to be a most astounding proposition that because the bishops and archbishops took a view which was more creditable to their hearts than to their heads about another wholly different measure, therefore the Government ought to alter proposals which at any rate it was assumed they had made as those which would properly solve, with due regard to justice and efficiency, the great educational problems of this country. They had heard a great deal about the bishops. He would be the last person in the House to speak with disrespect of the bishops of the Church of England, but he thought somewhat undue importance had been given to certain statements made by some bishops. A bishop and a Member of the House of Lords had his own view about education and the settlement of the education question; but so far as he knew, this Bill had received very small support indeed from any section. He had heard it said that the Archbishop had supported the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill, but he thought it could only be said by those who had not read the Archbishop's speech. It was not for him to say in regard to everything he said that it was right or wrong, but it was perfectly clear that a Bill on the lines of the Bishop of St. Asaph's proposals was not satisfactory to those for whom he professed to be entitled to speak. But there was another circumstance than the action of the Bishops on the Licensing Bill which possibly had had its effect in altering the views of the Government. They had heard of bye-elections. In one after another of these bye-elections which had occurred in England and Wales the Government had either lost the seat or retained it by a very much reduced majority. He thought it had dawned upon them that the meaning of these bye-elections was that their educational policy, coupled with other parts of their policy, was not viewed with favour. He did not complain of the altered attitude of the Government. He thought
134
it was perfectly legitimate for a Liberal Government or any other Government, to change their attitude. They were not bound to proceed on a line of policy of which the country evidently disapproved. He agreed that it was legitimate for a Government to say that the bye-elections showed that the country disapproved of their policy. But he wished they would go further and tell the House why it was that the country disapproved of their policy. He thought the reason was that it was a highly sectarian administration. That was the real defect of the Government. They had never, in dealing with the education question, tried to deal with it on terms that were fair and just to all sections. They had fixed their eyes too exclusively on the amount of Nonconformist support they could secure from their representatives in the House; and they had attempted to construct an educational settlement which would be satisfactory to that very limited section of opinion. He observed that when he said that the Bill was designed out of hostility to the Church of England there were protests from the other side. He remembered making a like observation about the Bill of 1906 and it was received with similar protests. But he had since received very remarkable confirmation of his view. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in October last went down to South Wales and found that some of his supporters were dissatisfied with the attitude he had taken with reference to Welsh disestablishment, and he was asked to explain the attitude he had taken up. In defending himself the right hon. Gentleman said—
"What is the very first great measure introduced by the Government in 1906? An Education Bill which constituted the greatest, and most drastic measure of disestablishment and disendowment of a State Church ever proposed. Its effect would be "—
these were his words—
"to disestablish 13,000 Church mission rooms which 2,500,000 children are largely forced by law to attend; to take away from these denominational seminaries under clerical control without compensation national endowments aggregating £7,000,000 and upwards. That measure was"—
he went on to say, more picturesquely than accurately—
"thrown out by the House of Lords"—

135
and he drew the attention of the House to this phrase—
"and next year the Government would bring in another disestablishment Bill to deal with the same problem."
Now, that was the fundamental defect of the Government policy. They had attempted to use, more particularly in this Bill, the educational question in order to strike a blow at the Church of England; and as long as they pursued that policy he was convinced that it was doomed to failure. They were told that that policy had been altered, and they asked what was the Government's alternative to the Bill. He hoped that the Prime Minister would shortly favour them with an answer. A great deal had been heard of critical comparisons between the nature of this Bill and that of the Bishop of St. Asaph. Were the Government prepared to adopt the Bill of the Bishop of St. Asaph? Were they prepared to adopt the view of the Liberal Churchman who spoke the previous evening? Were they going to adopt the policy of the Archbishop of Canterbury? What was the policy of the Government? Before they were asked to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill they were entitled to know what were the Government's intentions. What did the Government say in answer to that question? They seemed to have adopted a novel means of meeting that kind of difficulty. Not long ago they had a debate on Home Rule, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, being hard pressed, turned to the Irish Members and asked: "What do you propose? What is it you want?" He himself thought that that was not a very successful proceeding at the time.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,: Hear, hear.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was therefore the more surprised that it had been practically repeated on the present occasion. What was the attitude of the Government in this matter? They said "What does the Opposition want?" The question, however, was "What does the Government think they want?" The attitude of the Opposition was simple and well-known. He said that
136
with perfect confidence. It was expressed by the hon. Member for Walton. They had always contended that they could only settle this question by treating everybody with absolute justice. They had always said that in 1906, and the Church of England had said it as early as 1896. They contended in perfectly unmistakable terms that the only way was by admitting the principle that the parents were the people who had the right to settle the kind of education that was to be given to their children. That was the principle always urged from those benches. [MINISTERIAL ironical cries of "Oh!"] He was talking of this Parliament. [Renewed MINISTERIAL ironical cries of "Oh!"] It had always been urged right through the debates in 1906. It was a principle admitted by the late Prime Minister, to which assent had been given by a president of the Free Churches, and to which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had expressed more than once his adherence. He could not conceive of any Nonconformist objection to it. He maintained that no man had ever contested the justice of it. No one could say that it would be an unjust or an improper settlement. The hon. Member who spoke last said that it was logical. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had expressed in the strongest possible words his adhesion to the view that it was logical but impracticable. So said the hon. Member for Middleton. But he could not in the least understand why he put aside, in a lofty way, the fact that it had been in operation in our workhouses, in our Poor Law schools, in our industrial schools, in Germany, in Ireland, and in a number of other countries. He put all that aside as irrelevant and absurd, and said that it was impracticable if there were three or four different Nonconformist sections demanding their own set of teachers to teach the full doctrines which they held. It might fairly be answered to that argument that the Nonconformists were satisfied with Cowper-Temple teaching and that they asked for nothing more. They had said so over and over again. How, then, could they turn round and say "We shall each of us require a separate form of religious instruction suitable to our respective sections?" So far as he

137
was concerned he and his friends withdrew nothing they had said during the last five years. There would be no difficulty in a great majority of cases of providing separate schools and separate teachers, and separate treatment for their children. He was convinced that that was the ideal they should aim at and that they should not force a child in the country into a common Christianity. They should look at the form of teaching which the parents desired, and it was only by a policy of that kind that they could assuage the religious strife they all so much deplored.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,: The noble and learned Lord who has just sat, down always speaks with great force in our educational discussions. I think, however, he was not present during the debates in 1902, when many of the schemes he now advocates were put forward from the Opposition side of the House, and discarded by the Government which was then in power. I observe he says "We have always urged the claim of the parent to have his child educated in the faith he desires." Who did he mean when he said "we"? The Government of 1902 declined to accept the proposal made by the hon. Member for Mayo which did provide for those very rights of the parent which the noble Lord now advocates. The noble Lord says, "We have always urged equality and justice in this matter," but the whole complaint made against the Act of 1902 is that it does not provide equality and justice. I wish to give as my authority for that statement no one on this side of the House, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, who, speaking at Barnstaple, reiterated what we have so often heard here, the fact that the Nonconformist grievance has not been met by the Act of 1902. His words were—
"I am quite ready to admit that the Act of 1902 did not remove all the grievances of which the Nonconformists may justly complain."
The noble and learned Lord, in suggesting that equality and justice had already been provided, has altogether forgotten what took place in 1902 and what has taken
138
place since. I venture to say that there was no question more fully canvassed in the constituencies at the time of the last general election than the education question, and I will undertake to say that no single Liberal could have been returned to these benches who was not pledged to public control and no tests for teachers. We made an attempt in 1906 to deal with the problem. The criticism offered to our Bill from the Liberal side was that it gave away too much. Certainly, considering its career through the House of Lords, there probably was some reason for the belief that we did give away a great deal too much. That Bill had an absolutely unprecedented support. It went up to the House of Lords with a majority, I think, of over 300 behind it. Every Liberal Member, the whole Labour Party, the whole Irish Nationalist Party voted for it. In that Bill we gave as we thought our solution, and a very liberal solution, of this problem. When that Bill reached the House of Lords it was torn to pieces. Some of the most important principles were taken out of it or completely vitiated. The Lords interfered with the principle of local control and impaired popular control, they weakened the conscience clause, they did what was infinitely worse—they left the single-school areas absolutely under denominational control. Now we are met with a new situation. The noble Lord suggests that one reason why what he calls a spirit of conciliation is in the air is that we are influenced in some way by the action of the bishops on the Licensing Bill. We are no such thing. We take up the problem absolutely on its merits, though I am only too glad to have the support of a very large number of the bishops on the Licensing Bill. I think it does them credit. It shows that they, at all events, are not prepared to oppose a Bill merely because it happens to be proposed by a Liberal Government. The noble Lord suggested that the action of the bishops on the Licensing Bill is more creditable to their hearts than their heads. Does he consider it a mark of mental inferiority to express approval of a Bill with a high moral motive when it is proposed by a Liberal Government? So far as the action of the bishops on the Licensing Bill is concerned, it has in no

139
way affected the attitude of the Government towards this problem, nor will it do so. The noble Lord also suggested that the bye-elections have induced an alteration in tone. There has been no alteration in tone. The policy of the Government remains what it was, and if right hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to know what that policy is they will find it is embodied in the Bill introduced by my right hon. friend. We have said from the first that the Bill contains the main principles to which we adhere—popular control, no tests for teachers, and it aims at freeing the single-school district from the domination of one sect. If it is possible within these limits to arrive at any adjustment, then we are prepared to accept Amendments which, while not vitiating the principle, will enable us to arrive at an accommodation. I understand there are people who think the contracting-out clause contains the main principle of the Bill. One of the objects of the Bill is to deal with single-school areas. Those who have any knowledge of rural life know full well what has been the pressure brought to bear on those who live in the villages, and it is all rubbish to say that the conscience clause provides a free outlet for those who have been subjected to this oppression. The case of the hardship of the single-school area has been admitted by very high authority, that of the right hon. Gentleman himself, the Leader of the Opposition, when he said in the discussions in 1902 that his Bill did not remove that hardship, that it was one of the difficulties of the existing system, and it would be one of the difficulties of the system that would be brought into being under his Bill. That is one of the objections we have to the existing system—that it does leave the hardship on the single-school areas. Turning to another side of the question, it is said that there is in this Bill some form of confiscation. Let me take the kinds of trusts dealt with in this Bill. There are the schools under limited trusts, those which are not limited, and schools which are privately owned. The noble Lord suggested that there are 9,600 schools under limited trusts in single-school areas which belong to the Church of England. Where does he get his figures from?
LORD R. CECIL: I have explained that my difficulty was very great owing to the form of the Government Return. I made them up from the Blue-book, but it is possible it is a few hundreds out.
MR. RUNCIMAN: It is a mistake, not of hundreds, but of thousands. The information provided for me by the Board of Education shows that there are only 3,700 schools that come into this category in the single-school areas. Let us see how it is they are treated. In the case of schools under limited trusts the transfer is compulsory, but we are quite prepared to meet that difficulty. The difficulty we are met with is this—these schools have to be used for purely educational purposes, that is the express object provided for in their trusts. The local authority have to keep the school-house in repair. In some cases it may be necessary for them to extend it. Let the House contemplate what complication and difficulty we should get into if we had not the control of the fabric. Indeed in many cases it would be a considerable relief to the managers to have that onus placed on the shoulders of the local authority. Then there is left to the denomination the use of the building on Saturdays and Sundays when they may use the school for the whole of the legitimate educational purposes of the Church. The other schools, under loose trusts, are not transferred compulsorily; privately-owned schools can only be transferred by agreement. Now what are the financial conditions of these transfers? I have referred to the limited trusts and to the loose trusts. In single-school areas, the school shall be transferred and the burden of keeping it in repair and extending it will fall on the local education authority. No rent will be paid for the school, because the local education authority will be carrying out the purpose of the trust. An undertaking will be given by the local education authority that such teaching as comes within the limits of the syllabus named in the Bill will be given regularly five days a week if demanded by the trustees. Facilities, real facilities and not illusory ones, will be given on five days a week, and on Saturdays and Sundays the whole use of the fabric. In the case of loose trusts—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: How many of them are there?
MR. RUNCIMAN: It is very difficult to say, but I doubt if there are more than 295 Church of England schools. In them rent becomes a matter of bargain, and also, when the transfer is made, whether Cowper-Temple teaching shall be given. In the privately-owned schools—there are about 2,000 Church of England schools—rent becomes a matter of bargain, and also the question of Cowper-Temple teaching, and Saturday and Sunday facilities and facilities during the week. We provide in the case of the whole of these transfers for the whole of these very privileges which are said to solve the problem of the parents' rights. When we are asked to extend parents' rights beyond what is stated in this Bill I should like to know what those rights are. The inalienable rights of the parents have been largely referred to in these debates, and what I want to know is whether it is as the hon. Member for Walton asked—Does it mean that every parent is to secure for his child teaching in his own faith? Does it mean that every Methodist, every Churchman, every Unitarian, every Christian Scientist, every Jew, every Spiritualist is to have teaching for his child—special religious instruction—in every school he is pleased to send his child to?
AN HON. MEMBER: So far as is practical.
MR. RUNCIMAN: Oh, then the parents' right is to be not as a right but a matter of expediency. Who is to appoint the teacher? The hon. Member for Walton says that he is the apostle of this principle. ["No."] Then he is the last apostle. If we granted to every one of the religious denominations the right of the parent to special religious instruction for his child, to whatever school he sent it, this means the consideration of the point as to the teacher. Is this to apply to every school? That is another pertinent question. Is it to be applied by every child having a religious teacher of his own denomination in the school? The Bishop of Manchester says "No." Is it to be provided for by erecting an
142
enormous number of small denominational schools—a proposal which is often made? No proposal that has ever been made could be more harmful to the educational system. Hon. Members familiar with Ireland know that one of the curses of Irish elementary education is the fact that in a very large number of towns in Ireland, especially in the north of Ireland, you have quite an uncommon number of little schools with thirty and forty children, which cannot be properly staffed and taught, which are vastly expensive, and which do not even solve the religious difficulty. We may ask, how many children are required to justify the demand of a separate teacher or a separate school? I understand that the limit is put at thirty. But why limit the number to thirty if it is the inalienable right of the parent? Is there to be no inalienable right for twenty-nine when there are are only twenty-nine children? If it is to be done by a separate teacher for each denomination, where is the supply of your teachers to come from? If teachers teach their own sect, why should not all have an equal privilege? Does it mean that the trusts are to be subordinated to the wishes of the parents? That question has produced several replies, sometimes from the same person. Apparently the inalienable right of the parent to have his child brought up in his own faith is a right to be exercised in his private capacity and at the expense of the State. We have never denied the right of any parent to bring up his child under what observances he pleases provided he pays for it. He has a right to see that the State does not insist on teaching his child that in which he does not believe, and that right we are prepared to concede. He has no right to require at the public expense instruction in his own particular faith. The parents who really concern themselves about the religious faith of their children do not rely only on the instruction they may receive at the elementary school. The parents who do not trouble are not likely to make any private effort to instil religious feeling in their children and they will not be made to concern themselves by talk about inalienable rights or by multiplying denominational schools. This subject has played a large part in

143
the educational campaign in Lancashire. The hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool and the Bishop of Manchester have undertaken to speak for Lancashire on this subject; but on it Lancashire has not always the same voice. I find that the Bishop of Manchester and the hon. Member for Walton stated in the famous letter to The Times that in the elementary schools of the country the right of the parents to determine the character of the religious education which shall be given to their children—
"Is one of the points on which it is certain that an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of Lancashire will insist."
They were challenged by my hon. friend the Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool and others. They were asked: "Do you mean that the parents' right shall override the trust?" The hon. Member for Walton said of course it did, but the Bishop of Manchester took up a different position. Only a few days later, at a public meeting in Manchester, the Bishop said that he was prepared to grant this right, not if it overrode the trust, but without impairing the trusts; so that there you have a conflict between the parents' rights and the rights of property. The position we are now left in with regard to parents' rights is more than ever confused. The "parental rights" as advocated do not mean the unfettered rights of parents, who constitute the great mass of the public, to control the public elementary schools for which they pay. Parental rights are to be the rights of the parents to agree with the trust deeds. If they do not agree with the trust deeds the trust deeds are to prevail. I have no unkindly feeling towards the Bishop of Manchester, but as I read his proposals in the Press and elsewhere I gather that they are these—
"Let the parental right prevail universally, but when I say 'universally' I mean (on second thoughts) where the trusts do not forbid them to prevail. We agree for the sake of peace to the establishment of absolute educational equality, but I mean the equality which will preserve to us all our existing privileges at the public expense."
I would ask, then, what it is the Church of England itself has to consider. I hear men talk about the strength of the Church's position. I do not know exactly to what they refer, but if they mean
144
that they will be able to hang on to their present attitude for a couple of years, and then that there must be a change of Government, they are taking a very shortsighted view of the public movement. Some of their wisest counsellors believe that also. I find that the Bishop of Wakefield gave a solemn warning at the Representative Church Council last week when he said that—
"Churchmen were giving the impression that they cared more for their internal differences than for the general educational progress of the country… the spectacle of Christian people, not without much bitterness in many cases, continuing this controversy over many years had become a scandal and a stumbling block."
And—
"They were not so strong in regard to their Church schools as they were."
One thing that the Act of 1902 has done is that it has opened the floodgates; and, furthermore, the preponderance of the Church schools has largely diminished. One of my hon. friends asked me a question, I think on Friday or Monday, as to the number of children in attendance in the Church schools in 1897 and 1907, showing the increase or decrease in the decennial period. During these ten years the number of children in the Church schools in average attendance increased by 28,000; the number in the Roman Catholic schools increased by 45,000, while the number in the council and other schools increased by 729,145. That is an indication of which, I think, Churchmen will do well to take note. It means an enormous change in the numbers of children who are passing into the publicly controlled schools. There is another consideration which Churchmen should bear in mind—and that is the onward march of local government. You have given the local authorities some taste of what they may do since 1902 and there is some indication of what they intend to do. They are to keep the schools in good repair, and in consenting to the control of these schools being in their hands they are not likely to lie quiet, even if this Government went out of power, with a control which gave them only one-third of the managers. They are not going to agree, in regard to inspection to part with control so long as the schools may dip their hands into the pockets of the ratepayers. Furthermore, in reference to veto on the appointment

145
or dismissal of teachers, I would point out that really the most important element in the educational controversy is: "Who is to pay for and to control the teacher?" I turn to the proposals made from the opposite side, and I find a unanimity that, whatever may happen, the teachers are to be selected for a denominational purpose. I agree that in some instances this selection may be absolutely vital. In the Roman Catholic schools it would be an outrage on the feelings of the parents to have' a child taught by Protestant teachers. Roman Catholics disagree with Protestants in matters of history, and they could not have in the Roman Catholic schools the same teaching, for example, of the Reformation as in the Protestant schools. We have provided for that special case in the only way which fairly meets the requirements of the case. I know that strong objection is taken to contracting-out on both sides of the House. I wish it were not necessary; I wish that all our schools could come into the State system. Contracting-out is not a new proposal. The hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities and the hon. Member for Preston proposed contracting-out in 1906. Curiously, the proposal made by the hon. Member for Preston was almost exactly the proposal you now find in this Bill—contracting-out on the widest possible scale, not contracting-out in special cases, not contracting-out for the four-fifths schools, but contracting-out on a wholesale basis; yet the hon. Member for the Walton Division was found in the lobby supporting that proposal which he now thinks good enough to beat our backs with. Then there was the Archbishop of Canterbury's proposal in the House of Lords, suggesting that there should be contracting-out under certain conditions with regard to the teachers. If you are to have contracting-out, you must consider on what terms the contracting-out schools are to stand. The, noble Lord the Member for Chorley suggested that our proposal would drive these schools back to the nineties. Up to 1897 the grant was 31s.; from 1897 to 1902 it was roughly 36s.; from 1902 to now it is 36s. to 42s. or 43s. plus rate aid. Now we suggest 47s., which is an increase of 5s. 6d. to 6s., and if we are driven back
146
to the nineties there is a difference of something like 16s. between now and then.
LORD BALCARRES: The increased cost would be 35s.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The noble Lord's figures will not bear scrutiny. Yesterday he quoted figures with regard to the schools in Lancashire, but they are not to be found in official documents, and I must regard them as not being reliable.
SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the increase in the council schools during that time?
MR. RUNCIMAN: It has been very large, I agree; and the increase of our grant is very large. We are prepared to devote £1,500,000 as extra grant, and this extra grant will bring a benefit to the constituencies represented by hon. Members opposite. The city of Liverpool alone will, according to the Return, get the advantage of an equivalent of l¾d. in the rate, and every county, borough, and local education authority will receive a benefit from the grants which we are prepared to make under the provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord suggested that the whole thing was abnormal. He took two instances. This is the kind of thing to which we are subjected. He said that in Ebbw Vale we are giving assistance equivalent to an eight-penny rate. I pass over the fact that there is not the same valuation in Ebbw Vale as there is in West Ham. Such is the enthusiasm for education in Ebbw Vale, and such are the requirements of the district, that they are prepared to bear what is equivalent to a half-crown rate, an example that might well be followed in some Lancashire towns. He compares that with West Ham, where the benefit is only one-eighth or one-third of a penny. But in the comparison he made he altogether overlooked the fact that we have provided West Ham, as a necessitous school area, with a grant of £48,000 during the last few years. The benefits which are to be given to Ebbw Vale have been given beforehand to West Ham. Turn to Edmonton. That is another case in

147
point. It has a small benefit, I admit, under this scheme, but it has received £9,000 as a necessitous area during the last few years. You believe the grant should be based on population. We believe it should be based on some system which will bear direct relation to the needs of the neighbourhood. When we come to the discussion of these figures in so far as they affect Catholic schools, I would like to point out a rather startling comparison. I admit that there is a very large margin between the 47s. grant and the total cost per child in Catholic as well as in Church schools. There is meant to be a difference. You cannot be outside the State system and have the advantage of being outside the State system without suffering some of the disadvantages. Mark what happens in Scotland. The grant in Scotland, I think, works out at about 38s. per child in the case of Catholic schools. There is no rate and there is no public control. The subscribers there pay very large sums of money. I do not suggest that 38s. would be enough in England. In Scotland the system works on the 38s. basis, and it can work in England. I am perfectly sure that 47s. is far above the average of the cost in many of the towns, even in Lancashire. I have some figures that have been before me for some time. They show that the cost works out in some towns even under 40s. I admit it is rather rare. In many it works out at 42s. Forty-seven shillings is in many instances a generous allowance. I do not wish the Catholic schools of this country to be unfitted for the work for which they exist. I for one would never be a party to the destruction of the Catholic schools, considering all the circumstances of the case. But let me point out the great difference between those who wish to contract out of the State system and those who are prepared to come in. The whole difference lies round the selection of the teacher. Those denominations who control a very large number of elementary schools in this country have the right to preserve their teacherships for members of their own denominations. They have also an equal right with Nonconformity to such posts as they can secure in open competition in council schools, and they
148
have also preserved to them a number of posts which are closed to Nonconformists and everybody else. That is a marked difference, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he can find no justification for thus treating these schools outside the State system, which wish to have complete control of their teachers and wish to preserve their teacherships for members of their own denomination, he is mistaken altogether as to the basis on which all grants have been made in the past and will be made in the future. There have been many descriptions of the contracting-out system offered in this House. I only offer one of the Bill in so far as it relates to contracting-out. We believe in providing, as far as we can in this Protestant country, for a settlement on a Protestant basis, making an exception and provision for non-Protestant parents. That, I think, sums up the policy of our Bill. Let me turn to the provisions which we hope to incorporate in our Bill that provide for the preservation of Protestant teaching. I know some hard things have been said about Cowper-Temple teaching. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to say hard things about it. I think in 1906 he said in this House that there was a great deal of good in it. His exact words were really rather telling. He said—
"I attach the greatest value to Cowper-Temple teaching. I not only said I attached great value to it, but I said in my speech I would prefer this unjust and one-sided system to a system which excluded religion."
That was one declaration on the subject. I come to the next—
"I believe there is in it a great deal of most admirable religious teaching."
If that be so, I think we have, at all events, disposed of some of the critics on his own side. But what is Cowper-Temple teaching? It is defined in the Bill as being in consonance with the syllabus of the London County Council. I go through that syllabus and I find there the basis of the whole Christian doctrine that is taught in our Churches to-day. You have teaching which covers not only the Old Testament, but the New Testament. Take the First Standard, for instance. The children are to learn the Lord's Prayer, the twenty-third

149
Psalm, simple stories from the Book of Genesis, the leading facts in the life of Our Lord in simple language. I pass over the intermediate standards, and I come to Standard IV., which is a very good example. The children learn the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, St. Matthew, chap. 5, verses 1–12, St. Matthew, chap. 22, verses 35–40, Psalm 121, the 14th chapter of John, 1–15, Psalm 125, studies from the Book of Joshua, a fuller account of the life of Our Lord, with special reference to the events which occurred during the last visit to Jerusalem prior to the final appearance before Pilate. That is the kind of teaching that is given, and it is described in one of the religious papers—I think it was the Church Times—as the religious invention of the County Council. Happily, that is not the opinion either of the people of this country or of the people who send their children to Cowper-Temple schools. There are Members of this House who were trained in schools under this Cowper-Temple teaching, and I do not know that they make any worse Members on that account.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Who are they?
MR. RUNCIMAN: The charge that is made against this system is that it is the teaching which Nonconformists want. We have heard so much of that in these debates that I had imagined it was played out. It is what they do not disapprove of, but it is not all they want. There are some Gentlemen in this House so ignorant of Nonconformity that they do not know there is any difference between Presbyterians and Baptists.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What is the difference?
MR. RUNCIMAN: I do not know that the difference can be better personified than in the cases of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. friend who was president of the Baptist Union last year. I say this teaching is not the teaching that all Nonconformists want. Presbyterians do not ask for the Shorter Catechism; Wesleyans do not ask for the Wesleyan Catechism or for Wesley's
150
Notes on the New Testament; Baptists do not ask for their form of teaching of Baptismal Regeneration. But they find it a very good basis, as, indeed, do all the Christian Churches, on which you can build up afterwards a religious superstructure. I believe the hon. Member for North-West Manchester, who made a glowing speech yesterday—I quite agree, from his point of view, it was a very good one—said that many local authorities did not give Cowper-Temple teaching to-day. What does he mean by many? There are eight out of the thousands of local authorities who do not give Cowper-Temple teaching. He asked: "How would the President of the Board of Education propose to deal with the cases of Devonshire, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire, which had no scheme of religious instruction?" I was rather impressed with that point, and I have taken the trouble to look at what takes place in the case of Devonshire. The question was asked of the Devon County Council:—
"Can you give any information now in the possession of your authority as to the religious instruction, other than that in its regulations or syllabus, given in individual council schools?"
To that there is the reply—
"When preparing their regulations the authority decided not to interfere with the discretion of the managers in regard to religious instruction. Speaking generally, religious instruction in the council schools is given on the same lines as under the syllabus of the school boards before the appointed day. The authority has made no special inquiries as to the nature of the instruction given."
On the strength of that information it is insinuated in this House that in Devonshire no religious instruction is given in the county council schools. The next question is—
"Are any council schools in the authority s area known to give no religious instruction, and, if so, how many?"
The answer is—
"No council schools are known to give no religious instruction."
The same thing applies to Warwickshire and Worcestershire. If the instruction is to be left to the managers or the teachers, I say it is unfair, therefore, to stigmatise the teaching as irreligious. I quite agree that the teacher can only teach well that which he believes, but he cannot teach all that he believes;

151
he cannot teach the mature conception and refined distinction of a highly sensitive intelligence. But the syllabus adopted in the council schools offers, if well done, a simple basis for religious and moral instruction. It is the sort of teaching given on most days in Church schools, and it is suitable for children of tender years. If taught with sincerity by a good man, it is valued by all those whose first consideration is the welfare of the children. To Churchmen I would say, let them recognise frankly what they do get under the Bill of my right hon. friend. The first thing they have got is that the Bill recognises the essential difference between the problem in the single-school parishes and in the other parishes where there is a choice of schools. It also recognises the necessity of a positive definition of Cowper-Temple teaching. The Cowper-Temple clause is a purely negative clause. In this Bill we provide a positive definition of Cowper-Temple teaching. It also recognises what Churchmen care for most—that if they hand over their schools there shall be some security that Christian teaching shall continue to be provided in them. Now I turn, and it is my last point, to the teacher. We are now providing that the teachers shall receive equal treatment, and if this principle is applied to the teacherships, the closing of teacherships in Church schools against Nonconformists must break down. The hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division said they gave full control with the simple exception of the teacher under the previous Act, but that simple exception of the teacher was the most important of all. The hardships
under which Nonconformist teachers suffered in the past were eased in some slight degree by the Act of 1902, but the headmastership is still closed against them. Is it any wonder that Nonconformists have declared that that cannot go on? They have had to fight for their rights in the past, and are not likely to lie quiet under existing disabilities. Nonconformists have not been reared under the kindly patronage of the nobility and gentry. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] For generations they have suffered persecution, and now, as men's views are widening, as the numbers of the Nonconformists grow, persecution is passing away and is passing into some-
152
thing known as toleration. We believe that toleration ought to be succeeded by equality. May I, then, take it that whenever a teachership is provided by the local authority with the whole salary paid out of the public fund absolute equality is to prevail in all schools? No, Sir; this claim to tests and exclusion cannot continue. The position of the Established Church has been modified in recent years. Nonconformity has grown with increasing rapidity all over the country, and even at this time, for the first time, but not for the last, the Established Church finds itself in a minority. That is a remarkable fact which those who have the interests of the Established Church at heart would do well to remember. The demand for teachers is exceeding the supply, and we do an educational injustice when we prevent a good man from being appointed to a school where he might well carry on educational work, merely because he is a Presbyterian, a Wesleyan, or a Baptist, I do not think it is any wonder that the agitation for free teacherships and freedom from tests should have continued from year to year. I desire, as far as possible, that the teaching of children should be in the hands of men and women of religious spirit, but you cannot foster religious spirit by test and exclusion. Members of the Established Church will not for a single moment imagine that in claiming for Nonconformists equal rights with Churchmen I mean any harm to the Established Church—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh"]—perhaps hon. Gentlemen will give me credit for some sincerity, but these sectarian struggles injure education in its religious as well as its secular aspect and break the patience of all sensible men. Those who hope for a conciliatory spirit do it as much for the sake of the spiritual life as for the educational efficiency of the schools. We appeal to Churchmen as well as Nonconformists to take a broad view. This world is not so good that we can afford to dissipate religious forces by squabbles and jealousies. The Church of England may have to give up some privileges. It is hard to give up privileges and hard to share with others what we have always regarded as our exclusive rights; but for the Church the sacrifice will be worth while, and she must recognise those who belong to other religious

153
bodies as allies and not subordinates in the long war between right and wrong.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech compared unfavourably with that of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The House was now left in still further doubt as to the intentions and proposals of the Government if they were to attach any importance to the words of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading. He had commended the Bill of the Bishop of St. Asaph and had endeavoured to show that the two measures, the Bishop's Bill and his own, were so alike as to be almost indistinguishable. But the Bill of the Bishop of St. Asaph and that of the Government were in essential parts incompatible and repugnant documents, and the latter measure only was before the House. What they had before them was the Second Reading of the Government Bill, and the merits of that Bill had been pressed upon them with the utmost vehemence in all its most repulsive provisions by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. What was the principle of the Bill? That every public elementary school was to be
undenominational. This was emphatically an undenominational Bill, and the parent of every child who wanted undenominational teaching was to have such a school within reach of him. The Government in laying down that principle had ignored a large factor in the educational provision of the country, namely, that about half the children in the elementary schools were brought up in voluntary schools where denominational religious teaching was given, that that teaching went on with the goodwill of the parents, without violence to conscience, without any pressure on the teacher, and without detriment to the peace of the locality. He did not dispute the fact that there were areas where there were a considerable number of Nonconformists who had only one school to attend and in which there were only Church teachers. He was not prepared to say that because no complaints was made no grievance was felt, or that if there were a choice of schools the parents would not avail themselves
154
of it. He had had strange experiences of the way in which Nonconformist children went to denominational and even Roman Catholic schools where there was a full choice of schools, but he had never denied that the single-school area difficulty was inadequately dealt with in 1902. That grievance, however, might be dealt with without hardship to the existing voluntary schools, but the Government did not propose to take any such course, but were creating a grievance which, compared to that now existing, was simply intolerable. They proposed to confiscate the rural schools and to take other people's property, built and maintained for a particular purpose, and to use it for purposes for which it was not intended. The right hon. Gentleman said there were only 3,700 schools under trusts or limited trusts which would be confiscated.
MR. RUNCIMAN: I never said confiscated.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid it was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman did not use the word confiscated, but where they definitely proposed to take other people's property, built and maintained for a particular purpose, and appropriate it to themselves, and use it for purposes for which it was not intended he called that confiscation. When the right hon. Gentleman limited the figures to 3,700 he could not precisely contradict his figures, although he had some doubts as to their accuracy. Exception had been taken to the use of the word "confiscation," but cases had already been given of schools built for a particular purpose held under trusts to give education in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England, and these would be taken over, the freehold would be assigned to the local authority, and the teaching which would be given in those schools would be precisely that sort of teaching which the schools were built to avoid. Besides this the parents of the children were to have no choice if they disliked that teaching. Under what conditions was this done? These schools were held under trusts to give education in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England. The Board of Education said,

155
"We are Charity Commissioners. We can and we will, interpret your trusts. So far as secular education is concerned, the local authority will carry them out. So far as the doctrines of the Church of England are concerned, we will allow you, as a favour, the use of the schools for the purposes of catechism on Saturdays and Sundays, and on one or two days after school hours if you can get the children to come in." That seemed to him to add legal chicanery to robbery, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was, as he said, only dealing with 3,700 schools was no extenuation of his offence. But, with all this, they did not get a uniform system, because they left to denominationalists the poor consolation of contracting-out. He had not heard any one say a good word for contracting-out. The right hon. Gentleman himself, he thought, regarded it as a painful necessity if the Bill was to have any chance of getting through. In fact, it was put in because he did not wish, as he said, immediately to destroy the Catholic schools. He would only say this of contracting-out—that it was educationally retrograde and bad, financially impossible, and essentially unjust. The sum named as the payment for each child, 47s., was impossible. But the schools were not secure even of that, and there was no assurance that, when the circumstances of the time were, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, favourable to the destruction of Roman Catholic and other voluntary schools, he might not reduce the 47s. to a point at which existence was practically impossible. The right hon. Gentleman had said the thing could be easily done for that money. If he would study the Return for 1907 on the incidence of rates and the cost of maintenance in the various schools, he would find that in counties where education was cheaper the cost of maintenance alone, the payment of teachers and provision of books and appliances came to 8s. 6d. a child more than the 47s., and that in almost every borough and urban district it came to 15s. 6d. more. In London, it came to a great deal more than that. He would like to ask whether this solution of the question met any one of the requirements which a solu-
156
tion of the education question ought to meet? Did it promote religious equality? Could any settlement be said to carry with it the quality of even treatment or religious equality if half the nation got the education of their children free, and if a considerable portion had to pay, not only a contribution towards the education of the rest, but also for the teaching of their own children and the maintenance of their school buildings in addition? He had heard exhortations from hon. Gentlemen on the other side to accept a national solution. What they meant by a national solution was a universal system of council schools. But was that a national solution? It was a solution which gratified Nonconformists, but Nonconformists were not the nation. He would not wish to speak with any disrespect of the Nonconformist conscience, but that extremely wayward and somewhat tyrannous creature was, happily, not the conscience of the nation, and a solution which gratified a section of the community, narrow-minded and tyrannous in religious matters, and which left a very large proportion of the population dissatisfied, labouring under a keen sense of hardship, was in no sense a national solution. Was it educationally good? He did not see how they could call any solution which imposed the contracting-out principle an educational solution. A contracted-out school would be starved: it would be outside local control, and it would be subject merely to the inspection of the Department. They all knew very well about the old system of inspection of voluntary schools. The inspectors necessarily took a more lenient view of the voluntary schools, knowing as they did that they were constantly labouring under financial difficulties, and that the board schools had command of the rates. The same thing would inevitably occur until the right hon. Gentleman said: "Now circumstances admit of my destroying all the voluntary schools in the kingdom." The solution which involved contracting-out did not carry out the mandate which hon. Members opposite claimed to have received from the country—the mandate of complete popular control and no tests for teachers. Popular control disappeared in the

157
contracted-out school; and what security was there that there would not be tests for teachers? The scheme of the Government did not make for religious equality; it was not a national solution; and it was not educationally good. What was the educational policy i of the Government? It was not the same in England as in Ireland; it was not the same in the House of Lords as in the House of Commons. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had proposed an Irish Universities Bill which created a denominational atmosphere for higher education in Ireland. Under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme there was not the slightest chance of a Protestant being appointed to any post in the Roman Catholic University, or of a Roman Catholic being appointed to any post in the Presbyterian University. In England the same right hon. Gentleman had introduced and carried through the House what he constantly and proudly described as an undenominational Bill. So much for the consistency of the Government in different parts of the United Kingdom. Now he came to the consistency of the Government in the two Houses of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had defended his Bill in the tone of a "whole-hogger." He was for the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill—a Bill which was essentially undenominational. But what was the Bishop of St. Asaph's Bill, which the representative of the Government in the House of Lords entreated the Lords to read a second time, and to which the First Lord of the Admiralty besought the House of Commons to give the most friendly consideration? It was a Bill which admitted denominational teaching on two days at least in the week, not merely in the transferred voluntary schools, but also in every council school in the kingdom, and which allowed that teaching to be given by the regular teachers. He should like very much to know what the position of the Government really was. He supposed they would know when the Prime Minister closed the debate. There was no doubt that although the President of the Board of Education had made a most unconciliatory speech in which the possibility of settlement was compromised if not destroyed, the tone of the First Lord of the Admiralty was dis-
158
tinctly conciliatory, and for his own part he would not say a word which would make an amicable settlement of this painful question more difficult than it was. The First Lord of the Admiralty invited the Opposition to offer suggestions. It was not their business to offer suggestions. It was not they who had brought in the Education Bill, and it was not they who had unsettled the educational system. The Act of 1902 was working well over the greater part of the Kingdom. It was only working with difficulty where an effort had been made by some of the right hon. Gentleman's distinguished colleagues to make it work badly. He could not think that the whole scheme of elementary education wanted such complete reconstruction as was now proposed by the Government. They were told that terrible things would happen if the House of Lords declined to pass the Education Bill of 1906. Things had gone on pretty well since then, in spite of the somewhat partial administration by the Education Office of the provisions affecting the relationship of the voluntary schools and the local authorities. What they hoped for was something of a somewhat more conciliatory character than had been heard that night from the President of the Board of Education. He was not one of those who was alarmed by the secular bogey with which they were threatened in the national schools and the council schools, and which had been raised in this debate as it was raised in the debate of 1906. Secular education had been urged upon them from the benches below the gangway in a very earnest and powerful speech by a distinguished Member of the Labour Party, by whom the case could not have been better stated in the interest of education. It was also urged by certain eminent ecclesiastics, partly because it was popular, and partly because they thought that it would give more complete and full control of religious teaching than could be obtained under any other system. But whatever might be said or felt by the Labour Members, he was convinced that the working classes of the country did not want secular education, and would not have it, and that no Government which desired to prolong its existence for any reasonable term

159
would go to the country and say: "We are for secular education." For his own part, he hoped that as these debates went on they would hear something which would tend more to a settlement of the undoubtedly open questions left by the Act of 1902, than what they had heard that night. For his own part, he would accept no settlement which would not make for religious equality and provide for the parent the religious education which he desired for his children.
MR. YOXALLsaid he remembered many debates on Education Bills, but he thought that the characteristic of the present, as compared with its predecessors, was that on the present occasion they had listened to each others' views more quietly and patiently than they used to do, and they seemed to understand each others' views better than before. That, in itself, was a hopeful sign. If they could reduce this burning question in temperature to such a degree that they might handle it without blistering their fingers, they might come to a system which they might all more or less accept; but he doubted whether the seeds of a compromise had yet been successfully sown. At any rate, they had not yet germinated in this House. He was not certain that they ought to have germinated in the suggestions made in the first speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty; because, if he understood that speech aright, it meant that they were to import into the Bill before the House the very objectionable non-educational provision of contracting-out, and add to that another objectionable and non-educational provision known as the right of entry. As long as an Education Bill contained them he believed it would not pass this House, or if it did pass this House it certainly would not become law. The dangers of contracting-out were not lessened, but greatly increased, by any proposal to add the objectionable feature known as the right of entry. The Act of 1902 did good to education, at the cost of doing violence to conscience and to the well-known political principle, of long application in this country, of the public control of public money. Violence to
160
conscience consisted, as explained in this debate, in compelling persons to pay for the teaching of religious tenets; the teachers, who were public servants, were wholly remunerated for their work, including religious teaching, out of public funds. That was an evil in the existing law which would have to be removed, and would be removed sooner or later. Therefore, the Act which did good educationally did violence to the great political principle of public control of public money. He had tried to discover some other example in this country in which public money was spent, managed, controlled, guided, and administered by private persons privately appointed. He was speaking of money drawn from the taxpayers and ratepayers of the country, and he knew of no other case in this country in which the expenditure of public money was not accompanied by public control, or by persons appointed by the public. He was anxious both on public grounds and on the grounds of conscience that these anomalies in the Act of 1902 should be remedied. But he would not remedy those anomalies by a Bill which would do violence to education. If it was wrong to do violence to conscience and to political principles, it was wrong to do violence to education; and he was sure that it would do violence to education if contracting-out were carried into effect. He had heard claims made on behalf of the parents. He did not believe that the parents of the children in any of the schools made the claim which hon. Members supposed they did. What they did ask for was not denominational teaching in the faith which they themselves believed, nor for the appointment of teachers who held the faith which they themselves held. The real demand by parents was for good schooling and a good school. He believed that if they were to take the parents of the children in council schools, voluntary schools, or any other schools, and consulted them one by one, not 5 per cent. would raise this question of religious teaching or management by persons belonging to a single religious community in the country. The Roman Catholics and Jews were in a different category; but he believed that if the parents of children

161
in council schools, Church of England schools, and Wesleyan schools were consulted one by one, not 5 per cent. of them would desire special religious instruction in their faith. What did the parent want? He wanted for his child education. He was conscious that he had himself missed that boon, and how much he had missed by that lack. He saw more thoroughly than he had ever done before that the race of life for the future was to the educated, and what he demanded for his child was good teaching and a good school. It did not matter very much to him whether that good teaching was accompanied by the learning of certain catechisms associated with certain Churches or not. If it was said that a parent sent his children to a school because the teacher was an ecclesiastical person, and that the school should remain under ecclesiastical control, the parent would reply that that was not what he wanted—he wanted good teaching and a good school. If they asked the parent whether he was anxious that religion should be taught in the schools, he believed that in a great majority of cases the parent would say "Yes." Some parents might not be either for church or chapel, but they wanted their children to have some religious teaching in the schools. They would find many parents throughout the country who were not teetotalers in practice, who were not averse to entering public-houses, or taking a glass of beer, but who liked their children to receive instruction in temperance. Similarly, there were parents who might not be persons of religious mind, but who were desirous that their children should receive some teaching in religion, but he did not be-live that there was anything like a majority of parents, or even a large minority of parents, who desired their children to receive a particular kind of teaching provided by persons belonging to a particular denomination. The parent did not care for the Church or the Catholic, or even the Nonconformist view; he cared for the school. If he wanted a compromise, it must be a compromise which would produce good schools. He did not want right of entry, or contracting-out in this or any other Bill, and it was clear that there was no party in the House prepared to accept contracting-out, and no party con-
162
tent with the right of entry as the other ground of compromise. Compromise in things far more difficult than this had been arranged. Quite recently a compromise had been arranged in a most bitter controversy in a non-party way, and if he might make a suggestion to the Government on this matter he would suggest that they should withdraw this Bill and set up the round table conference, to which so much reference had been made, so that it might be possible in the next year to bring in an agreed Bill. If, however, an agreed Bill could not be arrived at, then they should bring in a Bill of principles in this matter. It was no Bill of Liberal principles that included in it the principle of contracting out, the removal from public control, as it now existed, of a large number of the schools of this country. It was not a Bill of Liberal principles that said that tests were not to be applied to teachers, and yet provided that in all these schools that contracted-out teachers should have tests riveted on them more closely than ever. Let the Government affirm wholly and solely public control of education paid by public money. Let thorn also affirm that there should be no theological tests for teachers. Let them carry the Bill through the House, and then if that Bill met in another place the fate which other Education Bills had met it would at least meet its full honourably and bravely. It would not be a weak compromise based on a policy which would damage education. If a Bill of Liberal principles, framed on the great Liberal principles for which the Liberal Party had fought for so many years, was disregarded and thrown out by the House of Lords, then let the Government take the opinion of the country upon it. This question might not be settled by one, two, or three general elections. He could not agree to the Second Reading of this Bill.
MR. H. GOOCHsaid they had heard chiefly, in the present debates of the religious question, but the religious question very rarely troubled them in practice, because in most cases there was a choice of schools, and a choice of religious instruction, and consequently no difficulty. In single-school areas of

163
course, a difficulty might arise, but in that case it would arise through the parents belonging to more than one denomination. The solution of that difficulty lay in providing in the school sufficient types of religious instruction to meet the various types of religion of the parents outside. The House must recognise that the people who paid rates and taxes in a given area had different religious views and had (within reasonable limits) a right to have their views met. It was contended by hon. Gentlemen opposite that if that principle was conceeded every sort and kind of opinion would demand facilities. In practice that was not found to be the case. How many classes had to be provided for Cowper-Temple teaching was taken as the mean, and he thought that teaching extraordinarily good, and hoped he would never see anything done to remove it from the schools, but it had one great defect. It did not meet the views of everybody. They had to deal with two other 'classes, one which wanted more definite dogmatic religious teaching than was given in the County Council syllabus, and the other which wanted less. Those who wanted less had their point met by the conscience clause. That clause also met the difficulty of those who desired secular education and no religious teaching at all. Now, as this class had an option under the conscience clause it was only fair and reasonable that a pers in who wanted more definite and dogmatic teaching for his child should also have the same option. The London County Council in East London, where the population was largely Jewish, bad made special arrangements for the schools. They had specially rearranged the schools in order to meet the question of the Jewish holidays. But when a member of the Church of England desired to have his children taken to Church on Ash Wednesday, or any other day which fell in school term, there were considerable difficulties in his way. The right of entry had been recognised by statute for many years in the industrial schools supported with public money. Not only for the past forty years had they had denominational teaching, but the minister went to the industrial school to give that teaching to the particular
164
child whose parents desired it. This facility had worked very smoothly and happily. Section 18 of the Industrial Schools Act, said—
"In determining on the school the justice and magistrates shall endeavour to ascertain the religious persuasion to which the child belongs, and shall, if possible select a school of such religious persuasion and the order shall specify such religious persuasion."
This principle was recognised even in the Children Bill, because Clause 62 of that Bill was to the same effect. Therefore, it was absurd to say that the same principle could not be observed in the elementary school. The Act of 1902 did make for a national system by providing that there should be only one class of school; but this Bill would undo that provision. This Bill would set up two kinds of schools, and gravitate distinctly away from the goal and make a national system perfectly impossible. The Government offered contracting out. He held contracting out on the Government terms to be unjust in principle and perfectly disastrous in practice. No one could accept contracting-out who knew how it would work out in practice in the schools. Take the case of London, with which he was fairly conversant. The education of a child in a non-provided school in London cost 76s. 8d.—in round figures say 77s. There were 150,000 children in the non-provided schools of London. The Government only offered 47s., and the cost was 77s. at the present moment. The cost of education, as everyone knew, would increase, if upon nothing else upon the salaries of the teachers, who had been placed on a rising scale of pay. If the contracting out school child cost 77s., what money would the managers have to provide? First of all, he was offered the grant of 47s. if he got it. The grant was not to exceed 47s. The provision of the Bill was in an absolutely negative form. There was no guarantee whatever for the continuous payment of the grant. There was nothing to prevent the Education Department from adding by Departmental Minute as many regulations as they pleased as conditions of payment of the Parliamentary grant, and when once the school had contracted-out, by the repeal of Section 7 of the Act of

165
1902, the local authority was relieved of all the responsibility. If it was difficult before the Act of 1902 for the voluntary schools to make up a deficit, it would be far more difficult at the present time. The schools had been reorganised, their classes had been cut down, their buildings remodelled, and their teachers were properly paid, being on a rising scale. To offer contracting-out on the present terms to such schools was a mockery and a farce. There was no guarantee whatever under the financial proposals as at present framed that a single farthing of any sort or kind would be paid from public moneys to these schools. The schools that had contracted-out would be left without rates, and with a grant which could be withdrawn or reduced and was in no way secure. At any rate they were told that the present financial arrangements would not last longer than 1911, and the whole thing might be recast when the school had already contracted-out, and there was no responsibility on the local education authority to maintain it. Even assuming the most favourable aspect of this case, every non-provided school in London which contracted-out would be at least 30s. short per annum, with the certainty of a greater deficit hereafter. Meanwhile, what about the school, the children, and the teachers of London? After an immense amount of labour and expense, the non-provided schools had been brought very nearly, if not quite, up to the level of the provided schools. The result of contracting - out in London would mean that the whole of these would begin to go back. First of all, the teachers who had been put on the same scale as the teachers in the council schools, and also upon a rising scale, would begin to leave, and would be replaced by inferior teachers of poor qualifications. The second thing that would happen would be that the contracted-out schools would lose the help of the Council's central machinery, its inspectors, its organisers, and all its central expert staff, and the result would be that the school would gravitate towards the minimum of efficiency. The plant of the school, the books, maps, desks, furniture and so forth, all of which
166
within the last four years they had brought up very nearly if not quite to the standard of the council school, would all go back too, and probably the buildings also. Did the Government seriously require that the supporters of contracted-out schools should be called upon to find 30s. in addition to the rates and taxes which they paid for the provided and non-provided schools? Surely it was perfectly unreasonable to ask them to do so simply because they happened to hold strong religious convictions. The result of contracting-out would be that they would go back to the bad old days before 1902, and the parent would be placed in the cruel dilemma of having either to give up his religious convictions or send his child to a school where that child's future welfare would be sacrificed and he would be handicapped for life. He wanted to take one or two practical points. They had heard a great deal about religious questions, but nobody he had heard in that House had dealt with the question as to how contracting-out would actually work in the schools even were there no religious question. Let them take the very necessary and practical work of the attendance officer. If the contracted-out school was outside the national system, how would the attendance officer deal with the children? Would he be able to enter the schools as he did now, and as he was able to do before 1902 in both provided and non-provided schools, and see that the children attended, or would he only be able to take the child as far as the gates and trust to luck for the rest? If he was unable to enter the school, if he had no jurisdiction, the inevitable result would be that many parents would try to withdraw their children from school, and would play off one school against the other, and the children would not attend ten times in the week as they wanted them to do, but only six times, or whatever was just enough to escape punishment by the magistrate when the parents were brought up. What about the accommodation? Would the contracted-out schools be recognised by the local authority? In London, very often they had a non-provided school and provided school in the same street,

167
sometimes two or three. At the present time they were all recognised as providing school places for the elementary school population. If the non-provided school did not provide accommodation, on what basis would the local authority draw up its accommodation for the neighbourhood? Then there was the question of scholarships. Would the contracted-out school children be eligible for scholarships? As long as scholarships were simply given on the result of examinations, anybody could compete in those examinations; but many were firmly opposed to the system of examination, and would like to choose scholars from our elementary schools by other means, and in that case where did the contracted-out child come in? Was he to be eligible for these scholarships? If not, why had the parents to pay for them out of the rates? A great deal of the child's school life was passed outside the school building altogether. There was wood-work and metal-work, instruction in which was given at nearly all the best elementary schools. At the present time there were 11,500 children out of the non-provided schools who were learning metal and manual work in the Council's centres. What was going to happen to those children if they were in a contracted-out school? Were they to be turned out? The parents of these children paid the rates and taxes, and had every right to send their children to those centres. Then there were 8,500 girls from non-provided schools who attended the centres. If those schools were contracted-out, were th'3 Government going to turn the girls out, and, if so, upon what ground? If, on the other hand, they allowed them to come in they would have another difficulty. Part of the education would be paid for out of the rates and part out of the taxes. If the children were allowed to go into the centre, half of the subjects taught would be paid out of the taxes, and the other half out of the taxes and rates. Before the debate closed tomorrow he looked to somebody on the Government Bench bending his mind to these matters, in order to tell them exactly how this contracting-out was going to work in the schools. There was one other curious aspect of this Bill.
168
If there was one thing which Liberals proposed on every possible occasion, it was that the schools should come under public control and be free from clerical control. If this Bill did anything it simply reversed the whole of that process. It took the schools away from public control, and put them under clerical control, which everybody regarded, he believed, Church people included, as one of the worst features of the old system. The Bill, if passed in its present shape, would offend against one of the chief canons of the Liberal Party. He need not add that there had been a crushing condemnation of the contracting-out principle by the National Union of Teachers. Anybody who knew how a school was and must be worked knew that contracting-out was a farce and a mockery, and that the whole thing would lead to absolute confusion and dislocation. The London education authority, on the advice of its expert officers, had had this matter under consideration for a considerable time, and it was discussed by the committees and sub-committees, and eventually by the Council, who passed the following resolution without a division—and he commended this especially to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who was one of the ornaments of the County Council. This was the resolution of the Council—
"That in the opinion of the Council the statutory control as given by the Education Acts of 1902–3 to the Council over the non-provided schools, coupled with compulsory rate-aid, has very greatly increased their educational efficiency by: (1) Procuring the improvement of their buildings; (2) increasing the number and improving tae qualifications of the staff; (3) supplying improved apparatus, books and furniture; (4) providing instruction for adult unqualified teachers; (5) providing additional instruction in domestic subjects and manual training; (6) reorganising and combining small departments; (7) improving average attendance. That neither the proposed financial assistance nor the proposed supervision as set out in the Bill now before Parliament affords a sufficient guarantee of their continued efficiency. That it is undesirable that the education of children in the elementary State-aided schools should be withdrawn from the control of the directly elected representatives of London."
To offer contracting-out on the present terms, in any shape or form, to London was a farce and a mockery. It was perfectly useless to offer them 47s.,

169
57s., 67s., or even 77s. unless they had some permanent arrangement for the elementary school children in the non-provided schools in London; that was to say, if the Government desired that the children in the two types of schools should have the same chances and the same education. They had heard a good deal about compromises and conferences, and he could say truthfully that any compromise would be
welcomed most earnestly by all those who were administering education up and down England. For at least twelve years past they had had an Education Bill brought into the House of Commons nearly every year. These Bills had excited the greatest animosity, and some of them, as in the case of 1906, had been debated very nearly from January to Christmas, and the work of the education authorities was immensely hampered and inconvenienced by the discussion of these Bills in Parliament If anybody could come forward with a compromise they would be only too glad to meet it. It was far more important to those who were administering this subject to get the matter settled, once and for all, than to secure any party advantage. But to offer contracting-out on the present terms for London simply meant that the educational machinery of London would be absolutely dislocated, and he asked the House not to accept contracting-out in principle till they knew how it was going to work out in practice.
SIR GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONsaid that after hearing the speech of the Minister for Education he felt bound to say how disappointed and depressed he was at certain remarks which he had made. He was, unfortunately, unable to hear the speech of the late Minister, and was still unable fully to appreciate the impression it made upon the House, for while he was informed that he was most conciliatory and amiable in his utterances, the view of The Times was that he was hardened and might be described as defiant. Now he supposed the Opposition would rather apply those epithets to the Minister for Education himself, and he was himself disappointed, at the terms in which he had spoken of the Catholic schools and the contracting-out
170
clause, and the arrangements which would be made in accordance with Clause 2 of the Bill. He represented a constituency which had a small but important number of Catholics, and having gone carefully into the subject, and into the amount of compensation which would be just and equitable to them if the Bill came into force, he had come to the conclusion that the maximum in Clause 2 was utterly inadequate for their wants, and that they would be placed in a position of decided inferiority to the other schools in the city. The Roman Catholic community in Bradford was extremely poor—one might almost say the word poverty derived a new significance to anyone who had visited the homes of these people. Another very remarkable characteristic was their devotion to their Church. A friend of his was a porter, and some time ago, owing to the heavy debts of the different schools, and an extension being necessary, the Catholic authorities thought it advisable to arrange to have all the money subscribed before they went into further expenditure. This porter paid 5s. a week for two years. That was one instance out of many of the devotion and sacrifice which the Catholics of Bradford continually exhibited. He had been shown pictures in Churches subscribed by mill-hands and a pulpit subscribed by a woman who sold cabbages in the street. The Church was to them their religion. They recognised themselves as members of a spiritual community which was so closely intimate with then-social life that it became a home, and more than a home, to every person there. But, important as their Church was to them, their schools were far more important. In the solemn exhortation which married couples received at the altar they gathered how important it was in this world and the next that the children should be brought up in the only religion which they professed to be a final and satisfactory one. He knew the schools of two churches quite well. Some years ago it was necessary to build new schools, and they incurred the enormous responsibility of spending £20,000 on their erection. To meet that sum the Catholics had to find £600 a year, or £12 a week. Every Saturday at twelve o'clock, whether it was the depth

171
of winter, whether it was raining heavily, or whether there was intense fatigue from heat, from twelve o'clock to five, the parish priest, nearly seventy years of age, and his poor curates, went about from door to door, collecting money to meet this charge. Not only that, but on the Sunday, after the prolonged successive services from seven in the morning till one, the same priests on the same occupation wandered forth from one o'clock till three, when the children's service began. At four o'clock they had a rest for meals—which was thoroughly well-earned—preparation of sermon and so on, until evening service at half-past six. This went on all the year round without intermission, because it was absolutely essential to collect this £12 a week. What was the position, supposing this Bill were to pass to-morrow? An additional charge would be laid on these two churches of £1,000 a year. That was another £20 a week. So that instead of £12 a week they would have to collect £32. The response of the people to the clergy was extraordinary and admirable. He was speaking of particular schools in Bradford and of instances which he actually knew and understood. This Bill would be a terrible hardship on them. Let the House consider the anger which would animate all those poor people who had to contribute to this extraordinary tax if they were obliged to provide this excessive sum every week. He did not know how the supporters of the Government could reconcile such a proposal with the Liberal principles of religious intolerance and equality of opportunity. He was very disappointed when he heard the Minister for Education speak as if it was right that a certain class of schools should be penalised because they contracted out. That was not just, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would most carefully consider this point. He was sure that, as a reasonable man, the right hon. Gentleman would give this very important matter the consideration it deserved. Many people must be tired of the tedium of these religious controversies. The only point he wished to make was that if people did not like contracting-out and having to pay this maximum sum let them maintain their position. Let the supporters of this Bill
172
say: "Our opponents are wrong, but let us try to convince them and alter their views by reasonable arguments and by every persuasive measure we can adopt, but we will not do anything which may be interpreted as resembling, however remotely, anything approaching persecution."
MR. BOLANDsaid that after the admirable speech to which they had just listened it was not necessary for an Irish Catholic to lay additional stress upon the position of Catholics in this country. He was deeply indebted to the hon. Gentleman for having put forward the specific instance of Bradford. Catholic children were always to be found in large numbers in the great populous centres, and it was there where hardships were bound to be experienced under this Bill. The Minister for Education had emphasised the position of Catholic schools. During the last ten years the increase in the average attendance in the Catholic schools of this country amounted to 40,000, whereas the increase in the case of Church schools had only been about 20,000. This great increase in the average attendance of Catholic children during a period of ten years was a proof of the remarkable way in which the Catholics of this country had determined to carry on the maintenance of Catholic schools. The views of the Irish Party and of the Irish Catholics in this country had been put forward so clearly by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and the hon. Member for East Mayo that it was hardly necessary for him to dwell upon these points. He thought, however, that it was necessary again to tell the House that they were opposed to the system of contracting-out, and if they had to accept that, then it must be done under such a system as they could look at. The hon. Member for Peckham had shown that as regarded the non-provided schools the 47s. limit in the Bill was absolutely impossible. The President of the Board of Education had stated that in the case of one or two schools it was possible at the present moment to carry on at under 40s. per child, but he did not contest the figures of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, who showed conclusively

173
that under this Bill an additional burden of £150,000 a year would be placed upon the Catholics of England to keep their schools up to a proper standard of efficiency. In some country districts where the rents were not high and expenses were low probably some Catholic schools could be carried on under 47s., but in such places as Lancashire and Bradford that was impossible. What was going to happen in future under a system of contracting-out if those schools wished to avail themselves of opportunities of co-ordination which they were anxious to establish throughout the country? If Catholic children wished to find their way into the Universities, and to avail themselves of the advantages of county scholarships, how could they do it under the contracting - out system? Surely they could not do one thing in Ireland and another in England. In a purely democratic way they were trying to meet the claim of the Irish people by giving them University education. He noticed that a valuable Amendment had been put down by the Chief Secretary for Ireland by which he was going to allow county councils in Ireland to strike rates in order that the clever boys might be able to avail themselves of University training in Ireland. He was very much afraid that, under this Bill, similar facilities would not be given to Catholic children in England. It might well happen that when the new Universities were established in Ireland the children of Irish parents in England would desire, with the aid of these scholarships, to go to Ireland for a University training more in harmony with their views than they could find in this country. However anxious the Government were to meet the Catholic case—and he welcomed the speech of the Minister for Education as showing his recognition of the sacrifices made by the Catholic parents of this country—he hoped nothing would be done to interfere in the future with the proper and efficient teaching of the Catholic children of this country.
MR. GEORGE ROBERTSsaid that almost every speaker had expressed a desire to have religious equality for every citizen, and in nearly every case they had argued in favour
174
of some particular section with which they had been associated. At the last election the supporters of the Government pledged themselves to two principles as the basis for a settlement of this question: (1) The popular control of all publicly supported schools; and (2) the abolition of religious tests for teachers. He promised himself to support those principles and naturally he approached the consideration of this Bill from that standpoint. He thought it was generally agreed that this Bill did not fulfil those promises which were made at the last election. He was firmly convinced that no solution of the question would be obtained upon the lines laid down in this Bill. In his opinion there were only two solutions of the education difficulty—either to teach all forms of religious belief in the schools or to teach none at all; and as the teaching of all forms was impracticable, he was forced to the conclusion that the only possible solution was the secular solution. The debate seemed to be charged with an air of unreality, and judging from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading they were not supposed to apply themselves to the consideration of the Bill at all. Some sort of a conference, they were told, was contemplated by which it was hoped a compromise would be effected. He thought that before now some information on that point would have been vouchsafed, but as that had not been done he wished to put one or two questions to the Government. If it were true that a conference was contemplated, what would the scope of that conference be? If it was going to represent a certain number of well-organised sections he was not prepared to give his adhesion to it. He would like to know whether the whole question was to be open for consideration at the conference. Would it be in the power of those who favoured a secular solution to advance their views, and to show that it offered the only abiding settlement of the question? It seemed to him that so long as they endeavoured to teach a transcendental subject like religion in the schools of the nation at the nation's expense, so long would they find that the nation was sharply divided upon this matter.

175
It should be clearly understood that the great mass of the people were neither Churchmen, Nonconformists, Catholics, nor Jews. The great mass of the people were not associated with any of these sects. They who advocated the secular solution were in no way opposed to religion, but merely to the State regulation of religion. They were as profoundly religious as any of those who were attached to any of the sects which had loomed large in the debate. He had never yet met any person who was proud of the name of being irreligious; he believed that all were imbued with the desire to get nearer to the Godlike and to live better lives. If they realised that the great mass of the people were not associated with any particular sect, they must find that the difficulties in the way of the solution of this question were accentuated. Furthermore, they had the fact that religious thought in the community was undergoing great changes. In these days of the higher criticism, of comparative mythology, and of the new theology, religious thought was in a state of fluidity, and it was a dangerous task for anybody to undertake to impart any specific form of religious instruction to children. That was a point which ought to have great consideration at the hands of the Government, because it was now seriously proposed that all these sects should have the opportunity of having their particular form of religious instruction imparted at the national expense. If they were logical in this matter, they would have to concede the same right to non-religious sects also. He did not think that those who had been advocating what they called the right of the parent in this matter would be willing to concede the right of the parent to freethinkers and atheists to have their particular doctrines taught at the expense of the State. He felt that those who were attached to the Nonconformist churches were in a very peculiar position when they opposed the secular solution. It seemed to him that if it was wrong to teach adults religion at the expense of the State, it was equally wrong to teach little children dogmatic religion at the expense of the State. Nonconformists were in favour of disestablishment, and if they would
176
be logical they must also favour the secular solution of the education question. It might be said that the simple Bible teaching with which they were satisfied was not dogmatic religion, but a considerable number of people were convinced that it was dogmatic instruction. In fact it had been designated: "Nonconformity on the rates." This was another proof of the utter impossibility of reconciling the conflicting elements concerned in this question. One factor that had never been properly considered was the child itself. After all, education was a question which materially affected the children of the country, although it would not appear to be so regarded from these debates. Some consideration must be had for the powers of a child's mind to understand the things imparted to it. They were assured that religion could only be taught dogmatically. Modern education sought to induce the child to have an intelligent reason for everything it believed, but when they attempted to teach children religion they were forcing them to accept a thing that they who gave the instruction in all probability could not themselves comprehend or understand. In fact it simply meant that children in the schools were taught by rote, and they came to believe a thing because it had been constantly repeated to them. That was not a proper state of affairs. They were told also that in dealing with this question they must have regard to the exaggerated rights of parents. Sometimes he asked himself which parent was meant. In the whole of this discussion the parent was simply regarded as the man. He claimed that the woman had a right to consideration in these matters. Where a woman belonged to a different religion from the father, she has as much right to be considered as the man, and until women had the same electoral power as men he was not prepared to take the responsibility of determining which parent the child should follow in the matter of religion. The position of the Labour Party in regard to the contracting-out part of the Bill had already been clearly stated. They were strongly opposed to those proposals, and they would be compelled to give them their opposition. They hoped the proposals would not be

177
passed into law. One virtue attaching to the Act of 1902 was that it certainly removed the conditions which starved education prior to the passing of that measure. What was good in that Act ought to be conserved. It co-ordinated education and found adequate funds for providing education, and the Labour Party were not prepared to give their adhesion to anything that would go back on that matter. It was quite true that there were grievances arising out of that measure which should be removed, and therefore they hailed with great satisfaction the Government proposals for dealing with the single school areas. If the contracting-out proposals were insisted upon the Labour Party would go with the denominationalists who demanded that the grant should be sufficient. They asked for equal grants and equal rate-aid for those schools, not because they desired to see denominationalism on the rates, but because they desired to see education regarded as a national matter, and they held that children should not be made to suffer simply because of the faith of their parents. There was nothing illogical in that, because, after all, they were claiming that the child should be taught the faith of its parents. The child was not responsible for the faith of its parents. He and his friends did not think that the child should be handicapped because of a thing of that sort. They had been told by the Leader of the Irish Party that the provisions of this Bill would place a liability estimated at £150,000 upon the Catholics of the community. The House knew full well that those Catholics who were able were not willing, and that those who were willing were unable to find that money. Therefore they knew from the outset that the money would not be forthcoming, and that in consequence the efficiency of education in the contracted-out schools must inevitably suffer. He hoped in the interest of the teachers that the contracting-out proposals would not pass into law. The Labour Party were prepared to support the Second Beading of the Bill, but he hoped that the criticism which had been passed on the contracting-out proposals would induce the Government to reconsider them. He hoped
178
the Government would accept the advice of one of their supporters, withdraw the Bill, and redraft it without the contracting-out proposals in it. If in the end they found the solution which they proposed impossible, he trusted they would turn to the secular solution. They were told that the country would by no means accept the secular solution. He was firmly convinced that more people were turning to that solution as a matter of conviction and as a policy of despair, recognising as they did the utter impossibility of reconciling the sectarian elements in this quarrel. They knew that certain proposals in the Licensing Bill were not popular, and the Government never knew whether the country would support them in it. But the Labour Party were prepared to associate themselves with the Prime Minister in educating the people in regard to the just principles of that Bill. If the Government agreed with the Labour Party that the secular solution was the only natural solution of the education difficulty, the Labour Party asked them to go to the country, and tell the people that they were convinced that this was the only abiding solution, and the people would cast their votes in a way that would at least set the nation on the path by which peace and a permanent solution of the question would be found. They no longer wanted a continuance of sectarian squabbles, but to concentrate their endeavours on obtaining educational efficiency.
MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he was very much impressed with the unreality of this debate, and he should think that a sufficient number of speeches had been delivered in every quarter of the House to convince the Government how little support this Bill really commanded. They had wasted three days of valuable Parliamentary time in discussing a Bill of which everybody disapproved. He had hoped that they would come to some satisfactory result, but that hope had been dissipated by the speeches of the President of the Board of Education and of the First Lord of the Admiralty, because neither of them attempted to defend the Bill, or to tell the House what they proposed to take its place. They

179
on that side of the House had hoped that some compromise, some arrangement which would suit all denominations, would be foreshadowed in those speeches; but in that they had been woefully disappointed. There had been not a shadow of an insinuation of what the Government desired, and they were no nearer a settlement than before. Any attempt at agreement which had been shown at all, had come entirely from the back benches opposite, especially from the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs. But, if there was to be conciliation, why were they told that contracting-out was not of the essence of the Bill? He himself was not enamoured of contracting-out; but as the Bill stood it was the only attempt to meet the requirements of the denominations. If contracting-out was to be withdrawn, he did not see where the conciliation came in. The Government were deliberately throwing down the gauntlet and denominationalists would draw the sword, and do their best to wreck the Bill with contracting-out left out, as it would be devoid of any attempt whatever to meet their just claims. He agreed that a national system would be the best; but one was inclined to ask, what was a national system? Did it mean the endowment of Cowper-Temple teaching at the expense of all other denominations? If it did, then it would not be satisfactory. The Government had not indicated in the least what they meant. The First Lord of the Admiralty had said that there was no change in the policy of the Government. They knew that the policy of the Government had been stated to be a sort of a compromise, but there was no indication as to what that compromise was. The right hon. Gentleman had repeated the old shibboleths—no tests for teachers and complete public control. As to tests for teachers, they were much interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Louth, for they learned from himself and from those for whom he spoke that they were prepared to admit tests. The hon. Gentleman had said that no Roman Catholic was to be appointed to be a teacher in a Protestant school, and that no Protestant teacher was to be appointed in a Roman Catholic school. It was clear, therefore, that he contemplated tests, and he was not, inten-
180
tionally or unintentionally, sincere in saying that he did not advocate tests for teachers. Then, if contracting-out continued, public control disappeared, so that the leading characteristics of the Bill were already condemned. Under these circumstances he could not imagine that the Government seriously contemplated pressing on this Bill in its present form, or indeed with its framework much changed. They were next met with the threat of the secular settlement. He did not believe in that, because he thought there were far too many people in the country—and he hoped it would always be so—who valued religious teaching too much. In his opinion, if they insisted on the exclusive endowment of Cowper-Temple teaching, that would really be the first step towards secularism, and they were likely to go on the downhill grade to secularism by excluding all denominational beliefs other than Cowper-Templarism.
MR. EDMUND LAMBcalled attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.
House counted; and forty Members being found present—
MR. EVELYN CECILsaid that his objection to secularism was that it meant to many of the children no religious teaching at all; and that was a point which could not be too strongly impressed on the House. If the State ignored all religious teaching the homes of many who needed religious teaching most, would be entirely destitute of it. These children who did not get it at school, would not get it anywhere else, and he shuddered to think what would be the future of the nation where the children of the poorer classes get no religious teaching, and what their morals were likely to be. He trusted they would never reach an entirely secular solution. Why should they uproot the whole law and re-model the educational system of the country in order to remedy the one grievance which the Nonconformists rightly felt—the single-school areas? Why not bring in a short Bill to remedy that difficulty? The educational system of the country had admittedly been improved by the passing of the Act

181
of 1902. It had been largely unified, and the Act was working extremely well throughout the country. Let them begin afresh and meet this grievance of the Nonconformists—which he candidly admitted—in the single-school areas. That would be better than upsetting the whole educational system once more. The grievance could be remedied; the question was how. But if the denominational schools were to be abolished altogether, as was sometimes threatened, denominationalists would claim denominational facilities in school hours for all denominations in every school in England where the parents of a sufficient number of children, say ten, desired it. It would be absolutely necessary that they should have some safeguards to obtain the right of entry which they claimed. They were told that if they allowed facilities and the right of entry in schools the plan would be found unworkable. He did not think so, and there was much evidence to prove the contrary. He believed that it was perfectly possible to bring it about; at any rate, why not give it a trial? It worked well in Ireland, it worked well in Switzerland, where they had tried other systems first. In 1883 there was an attempt to enforce universal undenominationalism, but it was rejected by a large majority. Each canton made its own arrangements, but the religious education given in the schools must be given in accordance with the wishes of the parents and guardians, and the utmost care was taken of the religious education of the children. The same system existed in Belgium, Holland, Austria, Greece, Norway, and he believed Denmark. With all this evidence before them, was not it absurd to maintain a non possumus attitude and say that nothing could be done? In Canada and New South Wales facilities were given for denominational teaching.
AN HON. MEMBER: They have no State Church there.
MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he did not desire to put the State Church into a different position from any other. Let all churches have a right to denominational teaching in a single school area if there were enough children to justify
182
it. Provision, he thought, might be made by the local education
authority for denominational teachers in single-school areas or general facilities should be granted in those areas. If that were tried, he ventured to prophecy it would be found to work in a perfectly satisfactory way and the grievances of Nonconformists might thereby be got over. There was another proposal which had not been sufficiently considered in the House and to which he would like to call attention. It was noteworthy that under the County Education Committee in East Suffolk a rule had been drawn up in favour of religious instruction in accordance with the spirit of the Apostles' Creed. The committee which drew up the rule consisted of three clergymen of the Church of England, two Nonconformist ministers, two Nonconformist laymen, and one Roman Catholic. In that case it was clear that a great deal of mutual good understanding had been brought about. They had been told by the Government that there was to be a conference upon this matter. The Government were not justified in asking the House to read this Bill a second time merely on the strength of a vague assertion that there might be a conference afterwards. He desired more information about the conference, if a conference there was to be—who were to compose it, what the scope of its inquiry was to be, and what the proposals were that the Government intended to bring before it, The hon. Gentleman suggested there were two matters, would they be brought before the conference? Would the Government consider the advisability of laying down in statutory form the East Suffolk County Education Committee's rule? That would go far to meet the objections even of so strong a denominationalist as himself. Would the Government discuss the granting of facilities in single-school areas—possibly a solution of the whole difficulty? If this Bill was to be forced through the House, hon. Members must be perfectly aware of the bitter grievances under which the denominationalists would suffer. When it was realised how this Bill disregarded the work of those who for thirty-five years had been giving large sums for denominational education, and that it left the voluntary schools

183
to languish and die and destroyed their educational efficiency, had they not good reason for complaint? The Church of England owned most of the schools in single-school areas, and therefore it was the Church that would be the most severely hit. Where was the equal treatment under the Bill? Where was the freedom of conscience? He hoped the Bill might be withdrawn, for it could not be a settlement of this controversy.
MR. W. PEARCEsaid that as a London Member he did not propose to support this Bill. His difficulty arose from the fact that education in London cost so much more than it did elsewhere. For instance, for the whole of England and Wales it cost £3 5s. 9d. per child, but in London it cost £5 15s. 6d. Looking at it from the London point of view, and with all the good will in the world, he was unable to find many redeeming features in the Bill. There were 146,000 children in non-provided schools, and to-day the cost per child was 30s. in excess of the 47s. provided by the Bill. Prior to 1904, the cost was much less, and the difference of 30s. was entirely due to the handling of those schools by the County Council. In his constituency there were three or four large denominational schools, and the figures of one were so striking that he would like to give them. There were 600 children in the school, and it had been established for nearly 200 years. It was a Church of England school in the East end of London. Nobody imagined that the managers would be able to find £3,000 to put it in order to meet the demands of the London County Council, but they had done so. Since 1904, when they gave up entire control, the expenses of the school had been raised nearly £1 per head, 16s. 9d. being entirely due to the salaries, of the teachers, which were over £3 per child. Besides that there were £800 worth of London County Council fixtures in the school. They, of course, were not the property of the managers, and, in case they contracted-out, they would have to be refunded to the London County Council. He had three or four of that kind of schools in his constituency, and he asked the Government how it
184
was posible for him to tell his constituents that the proposals in the Bill were fair and reasonable so far as they were concerned? He ought to tell the House how London had been treated ever since the Parliamentary grant was made. The cost of education in London must, for obvious reasons, very much exceed the cost in any other district. The exceptional cost in London arose in three ways—the salaries of teachers, the cost of maintenance, and the provision of buildings. Something might be said as to extravagance in the cost of maintenance, but as to salaries of teachers and cost of land and building, London was in a position in which excess cost could not be avoided. One would, therefore, have thought that it would have been recognised that London had special difficulties, and that some special terms would have been made for it; but, as a matter of fact, whereas the average grant per head for the whole country was £2 0s. 6d., the grant for London was only £1 18s. 6d. per head. Was this because the system of education in London was worse than it was in the rest of the country? Nothing of the sort. The system of education in London was, if anything, better, and it was certainly more expensive. He had been a school manager in London for thirty-five years, and the education system there was by no means inferior to that in any other part of the country. He had set to work, therefore, to find out why London was getting so much less of the Exchequer Grant than the rest of the country. The grant was made up in three ways. There war, the Annual Grant, the Fee Grant, and the Aid Grant. London got the worst of it in the Aid Grant. He did not know who introduced it, but he was a very astute Minister, and he had manipulated the grant to the detriment of London. He had based the grant on the produce of a penny rate. The higher the assessment of a district, therefore, the less money it received. The grant was based on 1½d. for every 2d. short of 10s. produced by a penny rate. The London Members must either have been asleep or the astute Minister of that day must have obscured the issue by the words in which he wrapped his proposal. The produce of a penny rate in London being higher than

185
in any other, part of the country, it received 2s. per child less under the grant, and it was perfectly plain that during the last sixteen or seventeen years London had been jerrymandered out of a sum of £65,000 per annum. He did not think anyone could give any reason why London should receive a less grant per school child than the remainder of England and Wales. London was treated badly. The Aid Grant was a bad precedent, and he was sorry to say it had been
followed by the First Lord of the Admiralty, who introduced this Bill. He recognised that something ought to be allowed for the extra expense of education, and he proceeded to set up a system based on 2s. for the average numbers and one third for the loan charge. It was not, however, to exceed 6s. per child. As in the case of the Aid Grant, the situation had again been manipulated against London. Except for the 6s. limitation, London would have been entitled to a grant of 9s. 6d. per child, and the 6s. limitation reduced the fund payable to London by about £115,000. As a London Member and seeing how it was proposed to treat London, he was obliged to sink his natural desire to vote for a Government measure; and, although he might be excused of parochialism, he felt that London had such a large interest at strike that he would only be doing his duty in pointing oat how it was proposed to make London suffer. It would be said, in reply, that in spite of all this London would receive a grant of £200,000 and that the rates would be relieved to that amount. That was quite true, but where did the £200,000 come from? It had to be raised by taxation. London took its share in the taxation, and its share in the taxation which produced the £1,500,000 was £350,000. London therefore would pay £350,000 and get £200,000 back. Still, they were told to rest and be thankful. He was a new Member of the House but he had felt obliged to get up and make some protest with regard to the C3se of London. He had had a great deal to do with the administration of education in London, and he agreed with the hon. Member for Peckham, who had made a non-party speech, with regard to the administrative difficulties of the Bill. So far as London was con-
186
cerned, the Bill seemed to him to have been devised without any knowledge of or regard to the educational position. He felt obliged therefore with great regret to declare that on the present occasion he could not support the Government in the Second Reading of their Bill.
MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member who. has just addressed the House has expressed his opposition to the Bill we are supposed to be discussing. He spoke with obvious knowledge of the condition of the educational problem in London, and I think he proved, from an administrative point of view, that this Bill is impossible. If we except the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, every single speaker who has taken part in the two days debate has, from one point of view or another, expressed his dissatisfaction with the Bill. Almost every hon. Member has accompanied that expression of dissatisfaction with an expression of expectation that the Government did not really mean it, and that they proposed, if not to-day, then tomorrow, and if not to-morrow, then upon some future occasion, either to withdraw this Bill or to go very far beyond the four corners within which it is at present contained. That expectation may be described as having been on tip-too when the President of the Board of Education rose to speak. My hon. friend the Member for Marylebone wanted to know what the position of the Government was. We fully thought the President of the Board of Education would give us in a more detailed and convincing manner a statement of that position. The statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty was not detailed, but it was somewhat more convincing than the speech of the President of the Board of Education. The First Lord did not declare, as the President of the Board of Education did, that there has been no alteration in tone; the policy of the Government remains what it was; it is embodied in the Bill. That was not what the First Lord of the Admiralty said. He said that although he had quitted the Board of Education he was speaking because there was some change. He was not very precise as to what the charge was, but he told us that something had happened, notably that

187
a Bill had been introduced in another place which had not yet reached the Second Reading stage, and he intimated, less clearly, that proposals for a compromise were in the air. He ended with a threat. He said that unless some body, or some bodies, also unspecified, failed to approach the question in a proper spirit, then this Bill would be taken up and proceeded with through all its stages. The threat of yesterday is the policy of to-day. It makes it very hard for any of us to take part in the discussion with any hope of usefully contributing to it. If I had believed that the President of the Board of Education had stated the policy of the Government when he said, "There is no alteration; the policy of the Government remains the same and is embodied in the Bill," I certainly should not have ventured to waste the time of the House as every speaker must be wasting it if that indeed be the policy of the Government. I suppose everyone who remembers past debates of this character feels a good deal of diffidence in approaching the subject at all. In my case, it amounts to doubt whether I can say anything of any useful purpose and almost to disgust. The difficulty is that we are discussing a question under conditions which make it hard for us either to fight our opponents, if we are opposed in this question, or to make peace with them if peace is to be made. It is hard to conduct war or to make peace in a fog. We do not know where we are, because the Government decline to tell the House where they are. Even if there were reason to believe that the President of the Board of Education had told us their policy to-day, we know that it was not the policy stated by the First Lord of the Admiralty yesterday, and we do not believe it will be the policy stated by the Prime Minister to-morrow, and even if all three of the Ministers enunciated the same policy on three days running, which would be a record in consistency, we should still remember that members of the Government have up to now contemplated five different methods of dealing with this admittedly difficult question. Before he was a member of the Government the Chief Secretary for Ireland had a very benevolent regard for
188
what used to be called facilities all round. When a member of the Government, bringing in an Education Bill, he again and again used language which entitled us to believe that he regretted the practical difficulties of making that ideal the basis of a compromise. Then we had the Bill of 1906 adopted by the Government after contemplation and dropped. Then we had the Bill of 1907 contemplated by the Government and dropped. Then we have the Bill which we are supposed to be discussing, contemplated by the Government—we do not know whether it is going to be dropped or not; and then we have the Bill introduced in another place, contemplated by the Government, and we are not told whether they are going to adopt it or reject it. Yesterday the spokesman of the Front Bench hung up his sword and extended to us the olive branch. If you hang up a sword that is suspended over the head of the person to whom you offer the olive branch you are likely to produce an atmosphere of constraint. A proceeding, otherwise graceful, may become awkward, and it has become more awkward when this evening the next spokesman for the Government takes down the sword again and flourishes it in our face. These conditions are unusual even in a House familiar with having the rights of discussion somewhat summarily curtailed. We are quite familiar with the practice of suddenly imposing the collective mind of the Government on the House. We know that the Government in the privacy of the Cabinet have been discussing two or three alternative schemes for months, but they may have decided on the one they produced by a majority of one for all we know, and they come to the House and say: "You shall have three or six days under the guillotine, and you must accept our collective wisdom." Now they have gone a step further. They are asking the House to make up their mind for them. I very much doubt whether we can do so. Personally, I can only speak for those whom I represent, for my constituents in Dover, and those whose opinion on this matter I have had opportunities of collecting, for I have made many speeches on this subject in the country. These views were stated

189
admirably in the brilliant maiden speech the hon. Member for North-West Manchester, and again to-day with the great force and brilliancy to which we are accustomed by the hon. and learned Member for Walton. Those whom I represent want to keep the educational advantages which accrued under the Act of 1902. They do not want to enjoy what the President of the Board of Education called the advantages of being outside the national scheme of education; they have no leanings in that direction. But while they wish to keep these advantages, they hold that the State ought to be able to adjust the enjoyment of them to the religious needs and scruples of all persons who in this country pay taxes and rates in order that the children should receive these advantages. So it is held by a number of people in this country, far in excess of any estimate of which the Government has yet thought. There is a lull in the controversy, but no one believes that the whole policy of the Government is contained in this Bill. Perhaps we should not be wasting time if, in the lull, we reflected that what we are discussing is not education at all but the relation of the State to the various sections of the community who desire the same opportunities of secular education for their children, but wish to have those opportunities without sacrificing their religious' convictions or paying more for them than other people pay for theirs. I do not think anyone would imperil the chances of ultimate peace if he were to say, as I am prepared to say, that we are making a great mistake in this matter in not consulting the views of what are called extremists extremists in questions of this kind are often those who have oared enough about the subject to be quite clear as to what they want, and even sometimes to know what it is that] their opponents want, and you are far more likely to arrive at a lasting peace if you understand clearly the views of extremists than if you muffle them up in the amiable hopes of moderate men who have not cared about the matters in dispute. I believe there are three sets of extremists. There are those who favour the secular solution. I will call them "so-called extremists," not using the word in an offensive sense.
190
With all respect it is not practical politics to hope that a lasting settlement can be based upon a secular solution. They are missionaries, and they will continue their propaganda, but for the moment we cannot look to their solution as the possible basis of any lasting compromise. There are only two other sets of extremists. One is that to which I belong, denominational extremists. Is own position very extreme? Our position quite briefly is that in this matter the State ought to be neutral towards all forms of religious instruction given in our schools. The position of the Nonconformists or undenominational extremists is that the State ought not to impose, but to affirm, foster, prefer, some neutral type of religious instruction which all parents ought to like even if they are so benighted as not to like it. There is a real opposition between those two views. Each may be honourably held, and what we ought to consider in this Bill is the ancient and horrid controversy as the Chief Secretary called it. Which of these views supplies the best foundation upon which an edifice of compromise could be erected? Naturally, I prefer the denominational view. I have no doubt that those who are in favour of undenominational education prefer the undenominational view. But, taking the view that the State ought to be neutral towards all forms of religious instruction in our primary schools—if you make that the foundation of your compromise, you will not be driven into contracting out. The other view is to have a sort of neutral religion as the affirmed type, and then you are driven to contracting out. The President of the Board of Education objected to some of my hon. friends saying that contracting out was the essence of this Bill. It certainly is the necessary corollary. Then, again, if this Bill passes, a large number of schools will not be satisfied with the neutral form of religious instruction, and so the co-ordinated system of education established by the Act of 1902 would be torn up again. That Act, also, for the first time in history, brought men of every religious belief into closer civic community than they had enjoyed before Civic life in all the towns of England was quickened and vivified indirectly as a

191
consequence of the Act of 1902, and every institution outside the Government Department was brought into the collective system of the country. Such advantages as those ought not to be imperilled for a point of honour. If you take up the extreme position that there is to be one type of religous instruction fostered and preferred by the State you will have contracting out, and then you will pluck out of the civic life many of its most important members in our towns. Then, by universal admission, the view that the State should be neutral to all kinds of religious instruction is theoretically fair; and it is a great advantage to have as the basis a plan that is theoretically fair. This is only criticised upon the ground that it is hard to carry out in practice. Everybody admits that the neutrality of the State or facilities all round is theoretically a fair solution, and I think you will obtain a great advantage by taking as your basis a plan on which you will have to erect many concessions, but which is theoretically fair. Everybody has admitted that the religious difficulty exists a great deal more outside the schools than inside. I have heard the Secretary to the Admiralty assert more than once that he has entered schools and been quite unaware that there was any religious difficulty. The religious difficulty is outside the schools, and if you start as the basis of compromise with a view theoretically fair, you get the advantage that it will be harder for people outside with strong religious convictions to find a fulcrum on which they can place a lever to overturn the edifice of compromise. If you make the plan fair in its basis parents and teachers and children, by generous facilities, can have all their needs met and all their scruples properly regarded. Let the Government start their edifice of compromise on a basis theoretically fair, which does not drive them to contracting out, and then, in a spirit of charity and generosity, they will find no difficulty at any rate with the extremists with whom I venture to associate myself. I think we are more likely to arrive at a peaceable solution if we recognise that there are two classes, those who believe that the State can foster and prefer a neutral type of religion, and those who hold that the State should be neutral
192
in its attitude to all forms of religious instruction. If we accept the fact that those two views are held—and I very much doubt whether either party will ever surrender the view which it holds—then the only hope for a lasting peace is by a treaty between those two parties, with, of course, generous facilities to minorities. The Opposition has always held that the Act of 1902 enshrined the principles of justice and equality—a very rough justice, if you like, but it could not be claimed that the State was giving its help and assistance to one party, rather than to another. In the single-school areas we found that the Nonconformist parent and teacher had to put up with difficulties which we should have preferred to remove, but we found equally that in many large towns parents did not get for their children the education they desired. The justice is rough. Well, then, let the Government make it even, but it will cease to be justice unless they base their plan on a foundation which is just and theoretically fair.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKINNON WOOD,said he thought the right hon. Gentleman must have found it difficult to draw a distinction between rough justice and positive injustice, because he made the admission that the settlement of 1902 left the Nonconformist in rural districts under conditions which even the authors of the Act regretted and would like to see removed. Ore of the most important features of the Bill before the House was the removal of those; conditions, and if there were no other reason for voting for the Second Reading he could not help thinking that was a sufficient reason, because the grievance in the rural districts was much more acute than anything experienced in large towns. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had used words which for a long time he found a difficulty in understanding; he had said there were three sets of extremists, and he defined the denominational extremist as a person who thought that the State ought to be neutral. At last he found the right hon. Gentleman meant something quite different from neutral; he meant leaving things as they were. That was not neutrality. He could

193
have wished that his first speech since he took office had been on a less controversial subject than this. Ho approached this question rather from the point of view of an administrator. He saw on the other side of the House a distinguished educationist in the hon. Member for the University of London. He recalled the days when they worked as colleagues on the committee which started the system of public technical education in the metropolis. In regard to that work they had a free hand, and they had no party strife. They never inquired as to the religious denomination of anyone, and the result was that they were only limited in the development of education by the possibilities of the circumstances connected with the workmen and others whom they desired to benefit, and by the money at their disposal. When the administration of elementary education was put into the same hands, the question was surrounded by the religious controversy, and the same free co-operation became impossible. Although he desired to approach the question as an administrator, he would be misunderstood if it was supposed that he desired to minimise the questions of conscience involved in this controversy, or that he took up a position of indifference in regard to those questions. He was convinced by his experience in the administration of education that the present position rendered it very difficult, and in some cases impossible, for a person who merely desired without regard to other considerations to deal out even-handed justice to those engaged in the administration of education to do that fairly to all the people concerned. He did not desire to go into details in this matter, but the question of the promotion of teachers on a fair basis as between Nonconformists and members of the Church of England raised insuperable difficulties in our great towns, because not only had they many schools confined to the teachers of one denomination while all the other schools were open, but the initial selection gave the teachers who had that advantage a further advantage in the case of other schools which were free to all. It was
194
very unsatisfactory that these difficulties should be allowed to continue, and the present position stood in the way of the development of education itself. Neither the member of the public authority nor the official was able to give his mind freely to educational interests without: being trammelled by all sorts of other considerations. In fact, the educationist was very much in the position of the Jews, when they rebuilt Jerusalem; he had to build his educational Jerusalem with a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other. That difficulty was by no means confined to this House. It cropped up in every council and in every education committee room. He did not object to these matters of controversy being fought out in Parliament, but what he did object to was that the administrator was constantly hampered by questions of religious and party strife in carrying out the work of looking after the interests of the children. Everybody admitted that the case was much more serious in the rural districts. The more they appreciated the growing desire of the great religious denominations to work together harmoniously in certain matters, the more they must desire the removal of this controversy, which was the cause of difference and division; and the leaders of the Church and of Nonconformity, who had recently been making efforts to bring about a peaceful solution of this question, seemed to him to deserve the thanks of the country and of that House. He could not help expressing deep regret at remarks made in the debate in a tone which he could only describe as one of contemptuous reproach. The tone of the First Lord of the Admiralty, in opening the debate was conciliatory, he did not think that was denied, but the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill ignored the conciliatory spirit of his right hon. friend. The noble Lord made two remarks which ought naturally to have led up to the consideration of an amicable settlement of this question. He admitted the grievance of the single school areas, and he said that the sectarian trouble existed rather on the platform than in the schools. If those two things were true,

195
they were strong reasons for putting an end to this controversy. Yet he contented himself with criticism of the Bill exactly as it stood. In regard to the criticism of the contracting out clause he had to point out that the principle had been supported by the Party opposite. The right hon. Member for Dover criticised it, but his name appeared in the division list as supporting it in 1906. It was on a Motion by the hon. Member for Preston which proposed a very wide scheme of contracting out. But the speech of the noble Lord was "sweet reasonableness" itself compared with that of the new Member for North-West Manchester, a speech so much approved by hon. Members opposite that they had scarcely ceased to cheer it yet. Every reference to it called forth approving cheers, and therefore he took it that that speech represented the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member claimed to represent the whole of Lancashire, but there were many thousands who would repudiate the claim. He used one curious phrase. He said he represented the parents, and since then he had been wondering whom the hon. Member thought that Members on the Government side of the House represented. The conclusion of the hon. Member's speech—the most significant part of it—he delivered in the true Cambyses vein, calling on his Party, as if he were leader, to postpone and hinder a settlement until they were in power and able to dictate terms from the Treasury Bench. Well, neither party could settle this question by dictating terms. The right hon. Gentleman opposite tried to settle it in this way in 1902, but the Government now were taking a more excellent way and trying to bring about a reasonable and amicable settlement. Ho could only regret that they had not received encouragement from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As a Bill it led to a settlement.
MR. MCKINNON WOODsaid that the First Lord of the Admiralty stated quite clearly yesterday that the Government were pledged to certain root principles within which they were perfectly willing to discuss terms of accommodation. What had impressed him most in the debate had been that, with few exceptions, they had heard little of purely educational interests in the matter. There were exceptions—his hon. friend the Member for Peckham, his hon. friend the Member for Leicester, and the hon. Member for the Middleton Division of Lancashire—but as a rule they had heard discussion of everything but education, and the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last justified this and said they were discussing not education but the duty of the State in regard to religious opinions. In his view, that was a great misfortune. The hon. Member for Leicester had criticised the Bill with great reasonableness from his own point of view, put had accepted the Bill as a basis for a settlement. The secular proposal might cut certain awkward knots, but he thought the hon. Member was mistaken in thinking it would be generally accepted as a solution. It had been tried in the Colonies for years, but there was revolt against it, and the Parliament of Queensland had recently passed an Act for referring to the people by way of referendum the question of admitting the Bible into the schools of the Colony. Out of this long controversy some points of general agreement had emerged. He did not say universal agreement after the speech of the hon. Member for North-West Manchester, but general agreement. Distinguished leaders of the Party opposite and of the Church admitted the grievances of Nonconformists in rural districts; and he would appeal to hon. Members on the Government side who differed from some of the provisions of the Bill to remember that one of its most important objects was the removal of these very grievances in the rural districts. An hon. Member

197
opposite said they did not desire peace at any price. Nor did the Government. There were certain root principles which had been authoritatively stated by the Prime Minister to which the Government firmly adhered; but they had shown a very open mind in regard to questions of machinery not only in dealing with this Bill but in the Bill of 1906. His right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had made concessions in regard to machinery in the 1906 Bill of which he thought hon. Members opposite did not quite appreciate the value until the chance of accepting them was gone. He thought the speech of his right hon. friend in regard to this Bill showed that the Government was
animated by the same spirit. They did not desire a truce; but they did desire an enduring peace. They did not desire to approach the question in a spirit of bargaining; but they thought it their duty to seek peace and ensue it in the interests of education; and, if that spirit were met with contempt as he thought it had largely been met in the course of the debate, the responsibility of failure would not be upon them, but upon those who refused the offer of compromise. He believed that outside the House there were thousands of men belonging to all Churches and both parties who would support the Government in any endeavour to bring about a settlement of the question which would enable them all, to whatever sect or party they might belong, to join together to establish and build up a system of education which they were all agreed was one of the most vital of national interests.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he felt very considerable difficulty in appearing in the debate, for it was almost impossible for anyone who desired a settlement of the question to say anything in the way of improving the present situation. The hon. Gentle-
198
man who spoke last and who said he represented the Government, had stated that they were not prepared to approach this question in a spirit of bargain. If that was the case, how did they ask hon. Members to support a spirit of compromise? How could there be a compromise if there was to be no spirit of bargaining? The hon. Gentleman had also praised the efforts made by the people outside—the leaders of the Church and of Nonconformity to reach a compromise. What efforts had the Government made to-night to bring about peace? The attitude of the Government had been this: directly any attempt was made by the Opposition to discuss this Bill they were told they wore refusing a compromise. But many others held the views that he did, that it was impossible to arrive at a fair settlement on these lines. If it was admitted that it was right that they should institute a system of religion to be taught in all the schools of the country, how could it be right to do it without paying anything for the schools they were going to take? Again, with regard to public control, if it was the wish of the public in a particular district that such religious instruction should take place, how could it be right to take the school away, and say to the 100 per cent. of parents who wished their children to go on that in the interests of the whole the one thing they wanted most must be taken away? The right hon. Gentleman had observed that a great deal might be done by giving £1,500,000 of public money towards carrying out the purposes of the Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester welcomed what he believed was going to be a great contribution to the rates, but, so far as he could himself see from the figures worked out for him, the result would be that Shropshire would have to find £9,000, which meant that they must impose a 2d. rate. The contributions which were made did not cover the question of upkeep of fabric,

199
of repairs of schools, and so forth. Those expenses were always ignored by hon. Gentlemen opposite who desired to criticise the Act of 1902. And, from that point of view, that would be a heavy loss to the county councils. Although he firmly believed that it was the duty of the Government to give more money to education, he could not help thinking that the First Lord of the Admiralty would have met the wishes of the country, if after providing for medical inspection he had devoted the rest of the money, which he proposed to vote to the destruction of the Church schools, to the construction of a new battleship. They all recognised the Nonconformist grievance in single school areas, but it could be remedied without imposing a still greater grievance on other people. The Government could only settle this question by approaching it in a spirit of fair play.
MR. BELLOCsaid that the one element in the whole of this debate was whether the unification of elementary education in this country was valuable or not. If it was, then this Bill was a wise one. If, on the other hand, the unification of elementary education was not a matter worthy of achievement, then this Bill was an unwise one. Upon that the whole question turned. If a dual or multiple system did not handicap us, then this debate was merely the discussion of small jealousies between cliques of the wealthy governing classes, for with the exception of the Catholics and the Jews there was no strong popular opinion on the subject. If the unification of our elementary education was worthy of achievement then the Bill was wise. Unification of elementary education had been preached by every educationist worthy of the name in every civilised country in the world. It was unification of elementary education under one bureaucratic control that transformed Germany into what she is. They need
200
not go for illustrations to those who were not and never could be our rivals. They had better far to go to our great trade rivals, France and Germany. He was not now speaking of "higher education," the condition of which in this country was past praying for, or of secondary education which did not exist, but of our elementary education which differed from that of all our great rivals. There was, he thought, no one who cared for the results of elementary education in the modern state who would not wish to see a simple and united system, and the House would agree with him when he said that the mistakes of modern elementary education had been enormous. He was too young to have witnessed the change, but men of the previous generation who had witnessed it, men of the most diverse sorts, men in the rural districts, men in the great manufacturing towns, and men who had seen the industrial rise of modern Germany, had all come to the conclusion that modern compulsory free elementary education had changed the face of Europe. Were we abreast of our rivals? So long as we kept the multiple or dual system, it was universally admitted among experts that we were not. Could we establish a universal system in this country? He was quite certain that if those who had taken the matter in hand in a practical way on the local councils, and especially on the London County Council, thought that ideal possible, they would say, "Let us establish to-morrow a united system with central control,"—allowing, of course, largely for local difference, and that local spirit peculiar to the life of this people. But could they establish it? There was only one rock upon which it was practicable for it to exist. They would make the territorial squires angry if they established it in the rural districts, and they would make a certain number of archælogical ecclesiastics very angry if they established it in the towns. There was, however, only one mass of

201
opinion at the present moment opposed to it, and that was the body of his coreligionists. There was no other organised body in Great Britain which consistently, in all ranks of society and under all circumstances, put faith before mundane matters. Let those who were afraid to call a spade a spade ask themselves who of their Jewish friends or acquaintances, upon making a considerable sum of money, hesitated to send their sons to an Anglican school, or who of the Jewish community upon achieving a place in society hesitated to send their sons to Eton or Harrow. At enormous sacrifice, at the sacrifice of the opportunity and advantage of community with the national life, his co-religionists maintained for three generations, two generations most actively, even amongst their wealthier members a system of a separate education. So long as that intense feeling existed, so long would this obstacle to a complete national system exist also. The House had heard from the hon. Member for Bradford a short and most eloquent appeal. He spoke, not as a member of their communion, but as representing certain constituents, and he had given facts and figures which were surely sufficiently striking. Could they pretend that their differences in theological opinions compared in any way with that intense favour which made poor men sacrifice 5s. per week and which made the poor in the slums of our great industrial cities build their schools, endow their altars, and beautify their churches? That was a peculiar phenomenon which they met in modern England, and undoubtedly but for it every practical man would adopt some one united system and would, therefore, favour the secular system. That point had to be met, and he confessed the best and most practicable method seemed to him to be some such rule as was adopted in 1906—-a rule that four-fifths or some very large proportion of the parents should be allowed to give
202
to a school an exceptional position. They had often heard that that was a clause introduced merely for the Catholics. It was a clause introduced for any body of men who cared enough to send their children on a rainy day some distance to school instead of to the nearest school, for any body of parents who had sufficient grip upon their fanciful philosophy to make it the principal thing in their lives. It was simply because the Catholics were an exceptional body in the State that it applied to them. He agreed with it and spoke in favour of it in the North of England, where, especially in Lancashire, there was controversy on the Bill. He said, and would say again, that it was a statesmanlike solution of the difficulty. There was no doubt that the Bill introduced by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland was a statesmanlike solution of the education difficulty. Men differed as to how it was wrecked. The hon. Member for Mayo told them that it was wrecked by the Nonconformist extreme opinion. He was not of that opinion. He thought it was wrecked by the House of Lords.
And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

EMPLOYMENT OF MILITARY IN CASES OF DISTURBANCES.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed (1) to inquire into the power possessed by Civil Authorities to obtain Military aid in the suppression of Disturbance, and to consider whether those powers ought to be subjected to any and what modification or restriction; (2) further to inquire into the duties and responsibilities now attaching to Military officers in these cases, and to consider whether it is expedient that these duties and responsibilities should be further defined.
Committee accordingly nominated of,—Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Chance, Mr.

203
Curran, Mr. Devlin, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Lamont, Mr. Paulton, Mr. Albert Stanley, and Mr. Middlebrook.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

EMPIRE DAY.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
EARL WINTERTONsaid that at Question-time the Prime Minister said that he had no yet received from any quarter sufficient proof of the breadth and extent of the movement for the recognition of Empire Day to induce him to depart from the policy laid down by his predecessors. He felt that such a challenge should not be allowed to go disregarded, and he would therefore venture, in a few words to put before the right hon. Gentleman at any rate some of the reasons why he should consider whether he should not depart from the policy hitherto followed. That was his sole excuse for detaining the House a few moments. The movement had been growing in importance and size during the last five years throughout the Empire, and it was especially recognised in Canada, where it originated. A very good answer to the contention that it was not recognised by the late Government was that it had made remarkable progress during the last three years and was very much larger than when the present Government came into office. Its object was to instil into the people, and especially the children, a love of the British Empire; and it was a purely non-political movement. It was generally supported throughout the Empire; it was growing very largely in this country; and, without discussing the relative merits of commercial and sentimental
204
bonds, they appealed with confidence to the Government, at any rate to give consideration to it, especially having regard to the fact that they at all times had regarded the sentimental bond between the mother country and the Colonies as of the greatest importance. If there was any movement which could strengthen that bond, it was this; and as the Prime Minister had, in his answer to their Questions, shown a tinge of sympathy in the matter, he respectfully appealed to him to give the matter consideration, so that even if he was unable to come to any decision this year, the present policy might in the future be altered and some official cognisance taken of that day.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,: I do not in the least complain of the course the noble Lord has taken. I am delighted, but I am not surprised to hear that during the last three years the sentiment of Imperial patriotism and the common spirit and loyalty throughout the Empire has grown to dimensions previously unknown, and to that extent no doubt it is true there has been a change in the situation since the present Government has had the honour to assume responsibility. I admit that that is a very important factor and ought to be borne in mind in dealing with the question. I can assure the noble Lord that if he and his friends will convey to me from time to time such information as is at their disposal of the growth of a general desire for this particular form of manifestation or demonstration of patriotism on the part of children or adults—of those who are common citizens of the Empire to which we belong, it will be received with the most respectful consideration.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Lincoln Corporation Bill.—A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Rochdale Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Cambourne Water Bill.—Brought from the Commons, read la, and referred to the Examiners.
Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Loch Leven Water Power Order Confirmation Bill.—Brought from the Commons and read la,; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation
2
Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899,) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Herschell), and reported from the Committee. (No. 69).
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.—Brought from the Commons and read la; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 70.)
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.].—Committed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [H.L.].—Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

PETITIONS.

  IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE PROHIBITION BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of: Of Zoological Society of London; Linnean Society of London; Selbourne Society; Royal Society for Protection of Birds; and

  3
  persons signing (1); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVY (HYDROGRAPHER'S) REPORT.
  Report on Admiralty Surveys for the year 1907, by the Hydrographer:
  TRADE.
  Annual Statement of the trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions 1907, compared with the four preceding years. Volume I. Summaries, abstract and detailed tables of imports and exports.
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3996, Russia (Batoum and District).

  ALIENS ACT, 1905.
  Second Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector under the Aliens Act (Part I.), and a statement with regard to the expulsion of aliens (Part II.) in respect of the year 1907.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to enable His Majesty's Postmaster-General to acquire lands in London, Glasgow, Bolton, Devonport, Dover, Ilford, and Stroud for the Public Service, and for other purposes.—Was presented by the Lord Granard (E. Granard); read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 71.)
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to secure a weekly rest-day—Was presented by the Viscount Hill; read la, and to be printed. (No. 72.)

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE PROHIBITION BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING].
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, this Bill has been introduced on behalf of
4
the Linnean Society, the Zoological Society, the Society for the Preservation of Birds, and last, though not least, the Selborne Society. I have also presented a petition from the members of the Royal Society. In fact, it has the general support of the naturalists of the country, and especially of all lovers of birds. It is no doubt of a somewhat peculiar character, but the circumstances are exceptional.
The most beautiful species of birds are being rapidly exterminated. At the plume auctions held in London during the last six months of 1907, I am informed by Mr. Buckland, who has done so much to promote this movement, that there were catalogued 19,742 skins of the birds of paradise, 1,411 packages of the nesting plumes of the white heron (representing the feathers of nearly 115,000 birds), besides immense numbers of the feathers and skins of almost every known species of ornamental plumaged bird. For the year the sales of egrets amounted to 190,000, and of birds of paradise over 28,000. At the June sale, held at the Commercial Sale-Rooms, 1,386 crowned pigeons' heads were sold, while among miscellaneous bird-skins one firm alone catalogued over 20,000 kingfishers. A deplorable feature of recent sales is the offer of large number of lyre birds' tails and of albatross quills.
The constant repetition of such figures as the above—and these plume sales take place at least every two months—shows that the Legislature must choose between the extermination or the protection of the birds in question. A precedent for legislation on this subject exists in the law that now obtains in the State of New York, where the entire feather trade of the United States has its centre; according to this law no wild birds, other than certain species named therein, and birds for which there is an open season, can be taken or possessed at any time, dead or alive, except under the authority of a certificate, and no part of the plumage, skin, or body of any protected bird can be sold or had in possession for sale. I understand from the Secretary of the Game Preservation Department of the Department of Agriculture in the United States that the example of the State of New York

5
has been followed by several other States.
We commend this Bill to the favourable consideration of the House on three main grounds:—(1) scientific; (2) æesthetic; (3) humanitarian; and I think I might add a fourth, namely, economic. As regards the first, it is evident that unless the slaughter is stopped several species of birds will be within a few years absolutely exterminated. Once destroyed they could never be replaced, and from a scientific point of view this would be deplorable. Then I come to the aesthetic aspect of the question. It is not only the fact that some species will be utterly annihilated, but that the victims are just the most beautiful; in fact, their beauty is their ruin. Moreover, birds' feathers in hats are, I submit, not ornamental, but, under the circumstances, repulsive. This is so self-evident that I feel I need not, and ought not to, occupy your Lordships' time in elaborating a proof of what no one will, I think, attempt to deny.
Lastly, I come to the humanitarian reasons for the Bill. We all know that birds, while beautiful at all times, are pre-eminently so at the breeding season. Just when our best feelings would induce us to give them a close time, they are most ruthlessly destroyed. The history of the snowy heron, from which the so-called egrets, or "ospreys" are obtained, is especially pathetic. They used to be a numerous and widely distributed species—harmless and beneficial to man. Now they are greatly reduced in numbers, and indeed in some places exterminated. At most times the birds are wary and difficult to approach, but at the breeding season their habits alter. They will run any risks themselves rather than allow their young to starve. Of this the hunters take a mean advantage. They wait under the trees and shoot down the old birds as they are bringing food for their little ones.
Mr. Pearson, Secretary of the North Carolina Audubon Society, has given a graphic description of the scene. He said—
"In the tall bushes, growing in a secluded pond in a swamp, a colony of herons had their nesting home. I accompanied a squirrel hunter one day to the spot, and the scene which met
6
our eyes was not a pleasant one; I had expected to see the beautiful herons about their nests, or standing on the trees near by, but not a living one could be found, while here and there in the mud lay the lifeless forms of some of the birds. They had been shot down and the skin bearing the plumes stripped from their backs. Flies were busily at work, and they swarmed up with hideous buzzings as we approached each spot where a victim lay. This was not the worst; in four of the nests young orphan birds could be seen who were clamouring piteously for food which their dead parent could never again bring to them. One little one was lying with its neck hanging out of the nest, happily now past suffering."
At this time the destruction of the parents means an even more cruel death to the young also. Thus, the 190,000 egret plumes sold last year mean at least 500,000 deaths.
The same thing is happening not only over Florida and the whole Gulf Coast of the United States, but also in California and great districts of South America. Dealers often state that "aigrettes" are manufactured, but this is not so; man has never yet been able to imitate successfully these beautiful plumes. All that are offered for sale have been taken from the backs of the smaller white herons. Even the stiff plumes, or "stubs," are not manufactured but are the plumes of a larger species belonging to the same family. The so-called "ospreys" used to be worn in the Army, but they were given up on account of the cruelty they involve. No one would say that our fellow countrywomen are less humane than the authorities of the War Office, but the fact is that they do not realise the suffering to which they are parties.
I am glad to see that this Bill has been most cordially and sympathetically received by the Press, but one or two writers have expressed the opinion that it would have little chance if women had votes. On the contrary, I firmly believe they would welcome it. Her Majesty the Queen, we gratefully recognise, has done much to check the wearing of plumes. The Englishwomen are indeed few who would wear an "osprey" if they realised that it involved not only the slaughter during the nesting time of the parent bird, but the starvation of the whole brood of young. Again, it is sometimes said that the only effect of excluding feathers here would he that

7
they would be sold abroad. If this were so, we should then at any rate have no responsibility; we should not be parties to this cruel trade. But if your Lordships and the other House pass this Bill, English ornithologists and lovers of birds will appeal to our brother naturalists abroad, and we believe they would initiate similar legislation on the Continent and thus put an end to this cruel, wanton, and barbarous slaughter.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Avebury.)
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will be able to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I can add but very little to that which the noble Lord has said. If there are any objections to this Bill they will probably come from the trade, that is from the dealers in feathers and plumes. The value of the plumes to the wearers does not consist in the fact that the feathers belong to rare birds, but that the manufactured plume is the fashion of the moment. At the present rate of destruction the extinction of many of the most beautiful creations of Nature is inevitable, and the prohibition of the use of the plumage now would be only anticipating what, as far as the trade is concerned, must be the result in a few years. This Bill seeks to bring about by the preservation of the birds now that condition as far as the supply of birds' feathers to the trade is concerned which must ensue on their destruction in a few years time.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am sure the objects of this Bill will commend themselves to every Member of your Lordships' House. This is a matter in which a great many of your Lordships will have taken a sympathetic interest; and it is impossible for anybody either to hear or read the account which has been quoted by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, and which I think I have read in the public Press, of the condition in which the herons' nests were found after a visit from some of the agents of the dealers, without feeling that some action ought to be taken.
8
My duty this evening is rather to express the hesitation felt by the official mind as to whether the Bill, as drawn, will entirely accomplish the object of the noble Lord. My noble friend will be one of the first to realise the distinction between the prohibition of imports and exports, and I venture to suggest that it might be more efficacious to prohibit exports from our Colonies rather than to prohibit imports into this country. Steps have already been taken in the Bermudas, Barbados, Trinidad, Fiji, Natal, St. Vincent, and elsewhere, to prevent the exportation of these birds and their plumage. Then, a large quantity of plumage is brought into this country, made up, and exported to the Continent, and it is not impossible that such legislation would divert that trade to the Continent without the advantage sought for being attained.
I am not sure that the noble Lord would have the entire sympathy of the public, or, at any rate, of the ladies, in the passing of this Bill, but I can assure him that His Majesty's Government are very anxious to assist him in securing the objects he has in view. There is one other consideration, and that is that there are some species in danger of extermination which, though very beautiful, are often a great inconvenience and sometimes a considerable nuisance in the countries in which they are found. An Australian experience occurs to my mind at the moment with regard to the sweet -briar. This is a plant which we all rejoice to see in our hedgerows, but it is one of the most inconvenient and obnoxious plants to the sheep breeder in Australia. In the same way a bird which we may think ought to be preserved for its beauty may be a great nuisance in the country from which it comes, and the people there may think it desirable that there should be fewer of them.
Therefore, the question arises, what will be the best step to take in order to give effect to this Bill? I would venture to ask your Lordships to agree to the Second Reading this afternoon, and I would then suggest that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The noble Lord himself has admitted that the Bill is of an exceptional character, and I

9
think, in the circumstances, its reference to a Select Committee would be of considerable advantage. If the noble Lord would agree to that course the Select Committee would be able to consider the suggestion that representations should be made to foreign countries as to how far they would be willing to assist by preventing export, which I am not at all sure is not really the most efficacious way of preventing the distinction of these birds.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the course proposed by the noble Earl who has just spoken is probably the most convenient, and I hope my noble friend will agree to it. My noble friend made, I think, a very strong case both upon humanitarian and upon scientific grounds, for some effort to prevent the extinction of a number of interesting species of birds. I feel very decided sympathy with him, and I hope that I may be pardoned for saying that I believe I am one of the few who have taken a practical step in the direction my noble friend recommends; because, if I am not mistaken, it was while I was at the War Office that my military advisers agreed to accept a substitute for what used to be known as "osprey plumes," but which, I need not say, had not a single osprey feather in them, but which, nevertheless, were, I think, obtained by the destruction of a very harmless and interesting bird, the white egret. I think the noble Earl is quite right in suggesting that we should make it our endeavour to obtain the cooperation of foreign countries, for without that I am afraid the success of the Bill will not be very great.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, whilst desiring to support the object of the Bill I would point out that Clause 2 proposes to give certain powers to the Privy Council which my advisers tell me are not altogether what they should be, and I am going to ask your Lordships to accept an Amendment to this clause when the Bill reaches Committee. With regard to the general question, the only fault I find with the
10
Bill is that I am afraid its provisions will not carry out what is desired. You cannot prevent birds being killed in their own habitat; people will go on killing them just in the same way, and I think that if the noble Lord will make inquiries in the millinery shops of London he will find that a very large number of feathered hats come from Paris, and perhaps still more are sent from Germany marked as from France.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, it is quite obvious that any measure purporting to interfere with fashion, and, to a certain extent, with trade, must be surrounded with difficulty. The noble Lord who has introduced this Bill has taken the only practical step that has yet been suggested to bring the matter to the notice of the public, and by that means to influence fashion. I think we are under a great obligation to my noble friend. I am sure that if he will preside over the Select Committee he will be able to guide it to a wise and sensible conclusion. I think this discussion will do a great deal of good. It puts the matter in a practical shape before the minds of men and women. We know that the highest lady in the land has done much to check the wearing of plumes, and I cannot help thinking that by degrees fashion will play a potent part in putting an end to the destruction of these birds.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK: My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has given a warmer expression of sympathy than was elicited from the noble Earl who represents the official mind in this matter. I do not think we can rely very much on the influence of opinion and fashion. This is undoubtedly not a new matter. It has been for a long time before leaders of fashion, and the great influence to which the noble and learned Lord referred has been exerted, but I am afraid the efforts that have been made have failed. I hope the treatment which it is proposed to give the Bill will not be a dilatory treatment, because we know not only that the thing wants doing but that it wants doing quickly.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I am obliged to your Lordships for the sympathetic manner in which you have received the Bill. With regard to the point made by Lord Tweedmouth, if he will look at the words at the bottom of the first page of the Bill he will see that it will be impossible for milliners to bring over from Paris hats containing plumage; and as regards Lord Beauchamp's statement that it would be more efficacious to stop export, I would remind him that a great number of these birds come from South America, Russia, and China—countries from which it is impossible for us to stop export. It is only recently that these birds have been killed in these countries in such large numbers, and it has been largely owing to the fact that there has been such a profitable sale in this country. Therefore, if we stopped the sale in this country we should put an end to a very important reason for the destruction of these birds. We do not wish to prevent the agriculturists of the countries concerned from taking any steps that may be necessary to deal with birds that may be an annoyance, but I believe it is felt that on the whole birds do a very great deal of good to agriculture. As it is the opinion of the Leaders on both sides of the House that it would be desirable to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, I shall be very glad to adopt that course, if your Lordships are good enough to agree to the Second Reading.
On Question, agreed to.
Bill read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.

EAST HARDWICK (WEST RIDING) SCHOOL.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXrose to ask the President of the Council whether the Minister of Education, when he confirmed on appeal the decision of the West Riding County Council to erect a council school at East Hardwick, was aware of the following facts:—That the existing voluntary school was enlarged in 1871, when the population amounted to 282; that the present population is 144, and the average attendance thirty, of whom only twenty-six reside in the township, and that the accommodation
12
admits of 14 cubic feet per child; that the managers submitted plans to the education authority carrying out their requirements, viz., to provide a playground, cloak-room, and lavatory in accordance with the recommendations of Mr. Marvin, the Inspector of the Board of Education, made in November, 1905, and that such plans never received the sanction of the local authority, and the Board of Education refused to allow the work to be carried out until such sanction was obtained; that it was not until May, 1907, that the West Riding Education Committee definitely refused to sanction the improvements proposed to be carried out in accordance with the report of the Inspector of the Board of Education, and decided that a new school was necessary; that a petition signed by every ratepayer and parent of children attending the school protesting against this decision had been forwarded to the Board of Education, and that the cost of the proposed school, to accommodate sixty children, would inflict a burden on the ratepayers of East Hardwick of 1s. in the £ in addition to the existing education rate of 8d. in the £ in a purely rural hamlet; that under Section 9 of the Education Act, 1902, the Board of Education in deciding on appeal as to the provision of a new school shall have regard:—(1) To the interests of secular instruction; (2) to the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children; (3) to the economy of the rates.
"To ask further, how, in view of the fact that the plans submitted by the managers to carry out the requirements of the Board of Education, which had met with the full approval of the district Sub-Committee, to whom the West Riding County Council submitted them, were never returned by the Board of Education to the managers so as to enable them to carry out the requirements of the Board, and have been in the hands of the Board ever since March, 1907, the Board can now condemn the Managers for delay, and propose to take compulsory powers in order to grant the demand of the West Riding County Council for a new council school, when they have never given the managers a chance of carrying out the requirements of their own inspector, by giving their sanction to the plans in question."

13
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if, in asking the Lord President of the Council the Questions which stand in my name on the Paper, I give a very short statement of the facts of the case. I know the locality perfectly well, and I think the facts which I shall put before your Lordships do not admit of any dispute. The East Hardwick school has been carried on for 250 years as a Church of England school, and it has served a small rural hamlet comprising some 627 acres, with a rateable value of about £600. In 1872 when the population reached 282, which is its highest point, the school buildings were considerably improved and enlarged. Since then the population has decreased—in 1881 to 228, in 1891 to 193, in 1901 to 155, and at present, I believe, the population is 144. The average attendance in the school is, I believe, 30; this allows 14 superficial feet for each child. If 10 feet were allowed there would be room for 50 children in the school.
For some time prior to June, 1905, correspondence had been going on between the Education Committee of the West Riding and the trustees of the school with regard to the necessity of providing a cloakroom, lavatory, and playground. There was great difficulty in finding accommodation for the playground, and the managers referred to the Board of Education. The Secretary to the Board, in a letter dated 10th July, 1905, wrote in regard to the playground—
"I am, however, to inform you that in the opinion of the Board the local education authority have no power to require your managers to provide a playground."
That was the opinion of the Board of Education in 1905. The managers, however, did their best to provide a playground. The difficulties which they encountered postponed their being able to make definite proposals for a playground until some time later than that at which they did send in plans for the other improvements; but they were eventually able to send in definite plans for a playground, and not only that, but to offer to the local education authority the exact piece of ground which the inspector of the local authority had said
14
would be sufficient and desirable for the purpose of a playground.
On 21st June, 1905, the trustees, after consultation with the vicar, the Charity Commissioners, the Board of Education, and the West Riding Education Committee, authorised tenders for the work of constructing the lavatory, cloakroom, etc., as soon as the plans had been sanctioned by the local education authority and the Board of Education. On 29th September, Mr. Marvin, on behalf of the Board of Education, visited the school, approved of the proposed alterations, and reported accordingly. On 8th November an inspector would the school on behalf of the West Riding Education Committee, and his report approved them also, with certain provisos as to the playground. On 10th November of that year plans were submitted by the trustees to the West Riding Education Committee, and in January, 1906, the trustees, having overcome the difficulties, agreed to lease a portion of the glebe land for a playground to enable them to carry out the necessary conditions. In accordance with this agreement, plans for the playground were subsequently submitted to the local education authority. So that definite plans, considered sufficient both by the inspector of the Board of Education and by the inspector of the local education authority, were submitted to the West Riding Education Committee.
All this time the plans for the building, submitted to the local education authority, had neither been approved nor returned to the managers, and they were advised by the Board of Education that they had no power to improve the school without the sanction of the West Riding Education Committee. On 16th November, 1906, that body, though they had never returned the plans or communicated with the managers, announced their intention to provide a new school to accommodate sixty children. The managers remonstrated, and in March, 1907, the West Riding Education Committee's architect attended the school—that is more than a year after the plans for the improvement of the buildings had been sent in—and proposals to erect a cloakroom and lavatory and to provide a certain amount of glebe land for a

15
playground were again discussed, and the managers' willingness to provide the same without cost to the ratepayers when their plans were sanctioned was again brought forward. The managers were prepared to do this at their own cost, and the architect promised that the proposals should receive the early attention of the West Riding Education Committee.
Two months later the Education Committee definitely refused to sanction the plans submitted on 10th November, 1905, and never returned them, and intimated their intention, with the consent of the Board of Education, to compel the building of a new council school to accommodate sixty scholars at a cost of £14 per head, making a total cost of £1,000 for the whole work. Upon this a public meeting of ratepayers was held on 22nd June, 1907, to protest against the county council's proposal to saddle the hamlet with a council school which they did not wish to have, and all were unanimous in condemnation of the proposal. The managers appealed to the Board of Education and supported their appeal by a petition from all the inhabitants of the district and the ratepayers, but the Board of Education, under Mr. McKenna, refused to alter its decision and that of the local education authority, and did not grant a legal inquiry in accordance with its powers. Nor did Mr. McKenna consider, as I submit he was bound to do in making his decision, under Section 9 of the Education Act, 1902, first, the interests of secular education; secondly, the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children; and, thirdly, the economy of the rates.
When this decision became known a lady who lives in the locality very generously offered to build a new school to accommodate fifty children, the school to remain a voluntary school similar to the one it was to replace. The West Riding Education Authority, however, refused the offer, the chairman stating that it was a deathbed repentance, whereas the delay in carrying out the alterations was entirely due to the county council and not to the managers of the school. An appeal to the Board of Education met with the same result,
16
the vicar of East Hardwick, who attended on behalf of the offer to build a new school, being told that Mr. McKenna had already decided that there was to be a council school. The Board of Education, on the petition of the West Riding County Council, has now introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House, on 5th May, asking for compulsory powers for the purpose of compelling Mr. Thornton, of Pontefract, to sell part of his land for the site of the proposed new council school, the West Riding Education Committee having failed to find a single owner of property in East Hardwick willing to sell and for such a purpose.
The cost to the ratepayers of a council school will amount to an additional rate of 1s. in the £, making a total education rate of 1s. 8d. in the £. That is a plain statement, I believe, of the facts. There is no pretence for saying that there is not adequate accommodation for the children who attend the school. There is accommodation in the school for fifty children. The Education Blue-book, published in 1907, shows accommodation for fifty children in the existing school, and, in point of fact, only thirty children attend. All the children who attend the school, with the exception of one, are over five. The figures supplied by the local education authority to the Board of Education as to the number of children of school age whom the new provided school would serve, include all children over three, two boys attending the Pontefract grammar school and who would not attend this school at East Hardwick, and eleven children who are in the habit of attending a school belonging to another parish. No legal inquiry into the matter was granted by Mr. McKenna after he had received the petition from the inhabitants of the district.
In regard to the interests of secular education, if the proposed alterations were such as to make the school sufficient, as is admitted on the report of both inspectors, obviously the secular education would be quite as good in the one building as in the suggested new school. The wishes of the inhabitants have been entirely disregarded, as shown by their petition and their absolute refusal to sell any property for a provided school. And

17
in regard to rates, I have already told your Lordships that it will mean an increase of 1s. in the £ in the education rate paid by this poor and small hamlet. Disentangled from complications, the plain fact is that the local education authority required certain improvements to be made in the East Hardwick school, including the provision of a playground, which, as I have informed your Lordships, the Board of Education said they had no power to compel; that the proposed alterations were considered sufficient; that the managers did find a playground, though it was not necessary for them to do so; and that, in spite of all this, the local education authority, with the consent of the Board of Education, refused to allow the plans to be carried out and insisted upon building a new provided school, at a great increase to the rates and contrary to the wishes of all the inhabitants. In face of these facts it is almost impossible to deny that what really determined the action, both of the Board of Education and the local education authority, was the desire to substitute a provided school under the local authority for the non-provided school which had always existed in the parish. This is made sufficiently obvious by the fact that when the managers offered to build a new school their offer was refused.
I know what will be said in answer to my questions. It will be said, first of all, that the plans were retained by inadvertence, which I think is an extremely lame excuse; and, next, that the plans were carefully considered and deemed insufficient. If the proposed alterations, as is not denied, were considered sufficient up to 1907, what suddenly determined their insufficiency in May, 1907? I do not like to make the suggestion, but it is almost impossible that the thought should not occur to one's mind that it was the same administrative action which has been threatening the training colleges, which in this case was applied to an elementary school in a poor country village. In regard to the detention of the plans, I would like to draw your Lordships' attention, for it is an instructive comment upon all this, to what occurred in the neighbouring hamlet of Wentbridge. There there was a non-
18
provided school which was admittedly insufficient. The managers offered to build a new school, and submitted plans for that purpose. The plans were detained by the local education authority, and representations were made to the Board of Education that the managers were unwilling to take any steps to meet the requirements of the local education authority. Upon the strength of those representations, which were false, as I shall show in a manner that cannot be contradicted, the Board of Education sanctioned the erection of a provided school. The managers were subsequently able to prove to the Board of Education that the information supplied to them by the local education authority was incorrect, with the result that the Board of Education rescinded their Order. In their letter to the local education authority, a copy of which I have in my hand, the Board of Education state definitely that inasmuch as they had ascertained that the information supplied to them was incorrect they had rescinded their Order to erect a new provided school. The managers were in consequence allowed to carry out their plans, and this hamlet has now a non-provided voluntary school in the place of the provided school which would have been forced upon them if they had not been able to prove to the Board of Education that the information supplied by the local education authority was, to use a mild expression, absolutely incorrect.
It appears to me that when we are told, as we are constantly being told, that the inhabitants of this country are quite indifferent whether they have a denominational or an undenominational, school, the facts in the case of this little school of East Hardwick prove diametrically the reverse; and I would ask your Lordships what chance of peace there is likely to be in regard to this education question if in all the single school districts in the country, in which the single schools are largely Church schools, we are to have this sort of treatment adopted towards them on the part of the local education authority? I myself attach much greater weight to the question of the character of the school than I do even to the question of the rate; but I think your Lordships will

19
admit that the question of the rate is not an unimportant one, and that it is absolutely intolerable that the rate should be raised against the wish of the whole of the inhabitants when everything that the parish itself wished for, and was necessary for educational purposes, could be got without difficulty and without adding a penny to the rates. I must say I think it a very astonishing thing that proposals of this sort should come from those who profess that the wishes of the inhabitants should be respected, and that such proposals, so diametrically opposed to the pecuniary and other interests of the parishioner, should be sanctioned by the Board of Education. I now beg to put the Questions standing in my name, and I would ask the President of the Council whether, in view of these circumstances, he will not withdraw the Bill for taking compulsory powers and give the managers an opportunity of carrying out the improvements which they are quite ready to do.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I find myself in rather a curious position in regard to the House and the Questions of the noble Viscount. I have no official knowledge of the subject at all, I have only been at the Privy Council now for about a month; and this matter has not been brought under my notice before to-day. In any case I do not know whether the Privy Council has any power to deal with it. So far as I can make out, the Privy Council consists principally of secretaries and messengers. There is a splendid room, and a splendid inkstand, but otherwise I do not think the President of the Council has anything to do. At any rate, the control of education and the control of agriculture has been taken away from the President of the Council. In this matter, therefore, I must confine myself to reading the brief which has been supplied to me by the Board of Education. I do not think it is a good custom for Ministers to read typewritten replies, but I am sorry to say that in this case I am compelled to follow that course, and I apologise to the House therefor.
It appears that in 1901 the Board's attention was called to the absence of a playground for this school. In 1903
20
the Board were informed that the state of the premises was unsatisfactory (there was no cloakroom, lavatory, or water supply, and the roof was leaking) and that there was no playground. The attention of the managers was called to these defects, and they were warned that, unless the defects in the premises were removed, no further annual grant would be paid. On December 13th, 1904, the Board were informed that the defects in the premises had not been removed, and they again called the attention of the managers to the matter on 23rd February, 1905. It appears that plans were prepared by the managers for the improvement of the premises and submitted to the local education authority early in 1905, and the local education authority returned the plans to the managers, with certain additional requirements. Plans for the improvement of the premises, but not including a playground, reached the Board from the managers on 6th July, 1905. On 10th July, 1905, these were sent by the Board, in accordance with their universal practice, to the local education authority for their observations. Considerable discussion took place at this period as to the necessity for a playground. A special visit to the school was paid by His Majesty's inspector, and he advised that the requirement of a playground should be supported, and on 28th September, 1905, the Board endorsed his recommendation. The plans were again returned by the managers to the Board, still without provision for a playground, on 15th December, 1906, when they were again sent by the Board to the local education authority. The local education authority had previously, on 4th December, 1906, given notice to provide a new council school. On 8th February, 1907, the local education authority informed the Board that, on the advice of their architect, they were unable to approve the managers' plans. On 18th February, 1907, the Board received an appeal against the proposed new council school from the ratepayers and inhabitants of East Hardwick. The managers' plans, including the provision of a playground, appear to have again reached the Board from the local education authority on 5th March, 1907. These plans were at once sent to

21
His Majesty's inspector, who reported that, even if they were carried out, the premises would still be very poor. The local education authority expressed a similar opinion on 26th March, 1907. On 19th May, 1907, the Board decided, after consideration of all the circumstances of the case, that the proposed now council school was necessary. This decision was communicated to the local education authority and the managers, and, in letters dated 17th June and 18th July, 1907, the Board explained to the managers that they had taken the proposals of the managers into account in forming their decision that a council school was necessary, and that they considered that, even if the alterations, including the provision of a playground, were carried out, the premises would still be very poor, and not fit on that account for recognition permanently. The plans were, by inadvertence, not returned to the managers when the Board's decision was communicated to them, and the managers did not call attention to the omission until 16th April, 1908. The plans were returned on 30th April, 1908. It will be seen from these facts that this case was decided against the managers of the voluntary school on its merits and not on the ground of delay. Having decided that the proposed improvements in the voluntary school would not make it fit for permanent recognition and that the erection of a new council school was necessary, the Board had no alternative but to assent to the exercise of compulsory powers by the local education authority, since they were unable to acquire a site by agreement. I am afraid that is all the Answer I can give the noble Viscount. It is, I think, a very clear and definite Answer. As to the merits of it, I cannot take any responsibility.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to call attention to the reply which has just been given by the Lord President of the Council. What is the mode by which His Majesty's Government can be approached in your Lordships' House on educational matters? Here is a question brought up, and the Lord President tells us he is afraid he has no official knowledge on the subject and apparently has no access to such knowledge.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I have given the House the report of the Board of Education on the matter.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Are we unable to obtain any responsible replies to such Questions in this House?
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I represent the Board of Education in this House.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Lord says he represents the Board of Education. That being so, I do not understand why he has no official knowledge. I am puzzled by the statement of the noble Lord that powers in regard to education had been taken away from the Privy Council. Presumably powers with respect to education lie somewhere, and there must be some one in the House responsible for answering Questions in relation to education.
I pass from the frame that surrounds the Answer, and come to the Answer itself. As far as I could see, the noble Lord read an account corresponding in its entirety to the statement which had been previously made by the noble Viscount. If the facts are accurate, what is the explanation? The point is not so much the bullying attitude of the local authority as the endorsement given to that attitude by His Majesty's Government. We have been told over and over again that we should trust the local authorities in matters of this kind. We have heard many arguments in the last few years to that effect, and I plead guilty to being one of those who have constantly urged that our duty in these matters is to leave the responsibility upon the local authority who have been entrusted by Parliament with these important functions. In this instance it appears to me, as far as I can follow it, that the local education authority not only have no case, but have not even attempted to present a case.
But I confess that what staggers me is less the instance of the tyranny of the local education authority—though that is somewhat alarming and bewildering, for it is exercised contrary to the wishes of every ratepayer in the parish and of

23
the parent of every child in the school—than the endorsement given to such action by the Board of Education, who appear to have stated that they saw no ground for regarding the action of the local education authority as other than right. If I understood the reply of my noble friend just now, he stated that the Government had no alternative but to sanction a council school, that being, by the admitted facts, contrary to the wishes of all the parishioners and all the parents. But I would point out that a lady had offered to build an entirely new school, which would have saved the whole of the expense to the parish. The argument, therefore, as to the inadequacy of the old building entirely falls to the ground.
The Board of Education have taken up this position in the teeth of the Act of Parliament, which says that in deciding cases of this sort they are to have regard, first, to the interests of secular instruction (obviously not impaired by the nature of the building, which was to be new), secondly, to the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children, the parents being in this case unanimous; and, thirdly, to the economy of the rates, upon which must be placed now the whole expenditure which a private individual would have been willing to bear. The statement which we have heard from the Lord President did not seem to me to be any attempt at a practical reply.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, while we are on this subject I should like to say a word or two as manager of a voluntary school under the West Riding County Council in connection with which we have suffered very much the same kind of treatment as that of which the noble Viscount complains. I approach the matter from a rather different point of view from that of the most rev. Primate. The most rev. Primate says he is not so much concerned with the tyranny of the West Riding County Council or the local education authority as with the answer of His Majesty's Government. I think the answer of His Majesty's Government really amounts to very little. My noble friend below me, Lord Tweedmouth, explained the
24
difficulty he was in, and that this was an intricate matter of which he had no personal knowledge. What I wish to ask is whether, where you have the tyranny of a body like the West Riding County Council, the Board of Education is of any use to us? Or is it absolutely powerless when it comes to close quarters on a matter of this kind with a strong and determined body like the education authority of the West Riding County Council?
In my particular case, the local education authority absolutely disregarded, not only the wishes, But the experience of the people for whom they were supposed to be acting. It was the case of a small voluntary school established in an old toll-house. I quite admit that the school was perfectly inadequate to the educational needs or ideals of the present day, but there were only twenty-five or twenty-six children in attendance, and sometimes the number went down to sixteen; it was never above twenty-eight. The other day we were told—and I was perfectly willing to recognise the justice of it—that we were to put up a new school to serve this side of the district. We suggested sites and gave reasons and so on, but the local education authority paid no attention to any suggestions we made, although they were accompanied by arguments which we thought to the point regarding a likelihood of a dislocation of population. They chose their own site and put up the school.
I do not mind so much their disregarding the site we recommended, but as a matter of fact they have erected a school which will accommodate sixty or seventy children, at a cost to the ratepayers of between £1,100 and £1,200. And now that they have done this and have discovered that there are not nearly enough children to fill the school, we are to be put to a large additional expenditure to provide a heating apparatus, because it is pointed out that the few children who will attend will be starved to death in the cold weather unless this provision is made. When I saw the plans I suggested one or two alterations; I suggested a limestone wall, but instead of that they have given us the sort of railings which you find round villas at Surbiton.

25
They paid no attention at all to our suggestions, and the building they have erected is the sort of thing you see in the Bois de Boulogne where you go and take tea. It has a chalet appearance with Surbiton railings round it. I gave the ground and was glad to do it, but when I was asked to be present and open the new school, I replied that I would have nothing to do with such wanton waste of public money. We did all we could to bring our views forward, but when the matter went to the Board of Education the Board were powerless or afraid to do anything. I should like to ask whether that is a desirable state of things.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I venture to think that this state of things is very unsatisfactory, both as regards this House and the information it gets, and also as regards the particular case brought forward by Lord Halifax. I am puzzled to understand the position which the Lord President of the Council takes up. When a Minister answers a question he is supposed to have looked through the Papers himself, and to deal with the House as one who is satisfied that the statement he is making is correct; whereas I understand Lord Tweedmouth has merely read to us a typewritten document supplied by the Board of Education, and with which he says he has nothing to do. He simply read it without having verified it in any respect himself, nor has he favoured us with his opinion upon the subject brought before us. I consider that a very unsatisfactory state of things. If the Lord President of the Council cannot answer for the Board of Education we should have some other noble Lord who can. The other point which seems to me to be very unsatisfactory is that we have had no answer to the question why, when an appeal was made to the Board of Education, backed up by all the inhabitants of the district, and the ratepayers, the Board of Education did not hold an inquiry under Section 9 of the Education Act of 1892 to verify the local statements, instead of simply upholding the local education authority without any inquiry at all. I consider these two matters extremely unsatisfactory, and I hope we shall have some further explanation of them.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I would be the last person to say anything of an unfriendly character towards the noble Lord who occupies the position of Lord President of the Council, but I agree with the most reverend Primate and the noble Viscount who has just sat down that our position is very unsatisfactory, and it will become impossible when the Education Bill comes up unless we are to have a representative of the Board of Education on the Front Bench opposite who can really go into the questions and answer points raised in debate. Until a short time ago the noble Earl who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies was Lord President of the Council, and I doubt if any one in your Lordships' House knew so much of Mr. Birrell's Bill as he did. Consequently I remember the noble Earl was congratulated on the manner in which he conducted the debates on that measure, and I venture to think that if another Bill of great importance is to come to this House, whoever represents the Board of Education on the Front Ministerial Bench should be, I will not say as conversant with the matter as the noble Earl, for I think that would be almost impossible, but at any rate thoroughly acquainted with the details of that measure.
The substance of the answer which has been given to-day in no way meets the case made out by Lord Halifax. If there is to be a combination between the local education authority and the Board of Education to tyrannise over voluntary schools, then indeed the greatest injustice possible can be anticipated by supporters of denominational schools. We have had put before us to-day a variety of reasons why the Board of Education should not have adopted the line they have, and I cannot think we have had one clearly-put argument as to the reasons why they have taken that course. I should like to ask whether the cost of this school, which is not wanted by the ratepayers and is objected to by the inhabitants, will come out of the £100,000 grant or out of the rates. In any case, the ratepayers of East Hardwick will be burdened with a rate which they do not desire. In

27
1905 the managers advised the Board of Education that they proposed to put the school in a satisfactory condition. The Board's architect thoroughly approved of their proposals, and they were approved by the architect representing the local education authority. Therefore, I would ask on what grounds the Board of Education declined to permit the managers either to improve the school or to build a new school. With regard to the playground, in all probability I was myself responsible for the answer that was sent, to the effect that no claim could be made upon the managers to provide a playground. But, in spite of that, so anxious were the East Hard-wick managers to meet any requirements, that they were prepared to provide a playground adequate for the purpose.
I come back to the main question. Why was the desire of the ratepayers not to have a new school entirely overridden by the Board of Education? Surely there must be some reason behind all this. It seems to me that the Board of Education have not acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1902 in dealing with this case; and on this point I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether the Board has not been guilty of an illegality in infringing the provisions of Section 9, which enacts that—
"The Board of Education, in deciding an appeal as to the provision of a new school, shall have regard, first, to the interests of secular education."
Is the secular education insufficient or badly administered in this East Hard-wick school? Surely not, or the school would not be receiving the Government grant.
"Secondly, to the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children"—
My noble friend has told us that meetings of the inhabitants and ratepayers have been held, and that they almost unanimously object to the proposal to build a council school. In that matter the action of the Board of Education is contrary to the Act. The section continues that the Board of Education shall have regard—
"thirdly, to the economy of the rates."
I do not think that any Member of the Front Bench opposite will assert for a
28
moment that they are considering the economy of the rates. Therefore, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether by their action the Board of Education are not infringing the provisions of the Act of 1902.
I ask, on what grounds did the Board of Education refuse the legal inquiry for which the managers had every right to ask? Surely that is contrary to the spirit and desire of the Act. After all, the Board of Education is not a political body. It should decide impartially in the interest of good education, and therefore I again ask on what ground was an inquiry refused. I can only think that the action of the Board of Education, in combination with the West Riding Education Authority, is to squeeze out denominational schools. If that is the case, it is a most unfair way in which to deal with political opponents. It is nothing more nor less than introducing politics into education. I hope, before the conclusion of the debate, we shall have some further explanation from His Majesty's Government.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, this is a case which involves the administrative discretion of the head of a Department. It is one of those cases which, when I had to deal with them, always made me wish that a reform which, for all I know, may be some day proposed, had already been adopted—namely, that Ministers were permitted to deal with Departmental cases in either House of Parliament. These are, as I have said, purely cases of personal discretion in administration, and it is very difficult for those who are not immediately concerned in the business of an office to deal fully and adequately with questions arising out of its administration.
I think that the most rev. Primate and subsequent speakers were somewhat hard on my noble friend behind me, the Lord President of the Council. These are among the most difficult class of questions to understand and follow of any that I know. My noble friend has not long held his present office,

29
and I think it is not surprising that he has not yet mastered all the intricacies of administration which arise under the Education Act of 1902. If I had been confronted with a similar question when I had been only the same time in that office I should have found myself obliged to give what my noble friend frankly admitted was a somewhat formal answer instead of a reasoned argument of the whole case.
This, as I say, is a question of administrative discretion. This school is over 200 years old. That is, no doubt, an interesting fact, and a fact which, of itself, arouses some sympathy with the continuance of the school; but it is not a fact which, as such, can be said to appeal to the Board of Education. The Board of Education has to deal with schools as they are, and it is not disputed that for some considerable time this small village school was in certain respects behind the general modern standard of comfort for the children who attended it. For instance, for a long time there was no playground, and the managers argued, if I remember rightly, with some obstinacy against the idea of providing one at all. That is a point on which the Board of Education, though willing to do all they could, were obliged to put their foot down. Then the cloakroom and lavatory accommodation was for a considerable time inadequate, and it was not until something like four years after the attention of the managers had originally been called to that fact that plans were submitted and a change made.
The question, as I have said, is one of the administrative discretion of the Minister. The noble Marquess opposite has correctly pointed out three grounds on which the head of the Board of Education has to act under Section 9 of the Act of 1902 in deciding whether or not a new school is necessary. Those are, as we know, the interests of secular education, the wishes of the parents, and the burden of the rates. But, my Lords, the Minister for Education of the day can, as I have often pointed out from this Table, lay any degree of stress upon any one of those considerations to the exclusion of the other two. We have often held that the task imposed upon any
30
head of the Board of Education to decide between incompatible and very often opposing things was a really impossible task to perform. The result is that the matter is left to the discretion of the Minister of the day, and therefore when the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire applied to have a council school erected, my right hon. friend, Mr. McKenna, had to make that decision.
I think it is evident from, I am afraid, the little time I have been able to give to the subject, that it was a very nicely balanced case, and I cannot say what my own decision would have been had I been President of the Board of Education at the time. I should have been in considerable doubt on the subject, but my right hon. friend, in the exercise of his discretion, did decide—primarily, I take it, on the ground that even if the proposed repairs and alterations were made to the school it would be essentially un unsatisfactory school—in favour of the West Riding County Council. As I have said before at this Table, I hold no brief for the West Riding County Council in these matters of education, though I was once a member of that body in the happy time when complaints of this particular order did not arise; and I think I have said on former cases that the particular pressure which the West Riding County Council has occasionally thought fit to exercise upon voluntary schools was not one which I was in any way concerned to defend. As regards the Wentbridge case, I know nothing of the particular circumstances. Still less do I know anything of the illustrative case presented by Lord Ribblesdale, which did not bear directly upon this case but merely formed part of a general indictment against the West Riding County Council as a local education authority.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: It bears directly on one of Lord Halifax's main points, that of the rates.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I must again point out to my noble friend that this is a matter entirely in the discretion of the Minister of the day. That may be an unfortunate fact, but he gives such weight as he chooses, in relative proportion, to the three considerations

31
referred to. And when the noble Marquess opposite attempts to point out that the interests of secular education are satisfied by the fact that the school had been receiving the grant, I would point out that this is not the case. The interests of secular education must mean the general efficiency of the school, and would also, of course, include the condition of the school from sanitary and other points of view. Then the most rev. Primate said that my noble friend the Lord President had stated that there was no alternative to the action of the Board of Education. This, I think, was a misapprehension on the part of the most rev. Primate. Of course there is that discretion which I have already described. What my noble friend stated was this, that after the council school had been declared necessary no offer to build a new school had been considered. That, I think, was the only point on which that particular question arose.
The noble Marquess who has just sat down asked whether any part of the £100,000 grant would be devoted to the erection of this school. I understand not. This case is taken entirely on its merits as the provision of a council school in the ordinary manner, and therefore the whole sum will be provided out of the rates in the proportion with which the noble Marquess is, of course, familiar. Cases of this kind are, no doubt, usefully debated in your Lordships' House, but we come perpetually back to the point that the Minister of the day takes his own view as to how he will exercise his discretion. It is quite right, no doubt, that those who object to that exercise of discretion should comment upon it where they think the Minister has acted wrongly, but as the Act of Parliament stands the absolute discretion does rest with the Department, and it is clearly impossible to go behind what Mr. McKenna did in this instance.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I would ask the noble Earl whether it is not possible for some steps to be taken to prevent the compulsory powers applied for being granted to the local education authority to provide a site. The Bill for compulsory powers has been referred
32
to the Examiners, and it will very shortly, I suppose, come before this House, when I presume it will be competent for any Member of your Lordships' House to move that the Bill be not agreed to. As to the playground, I should like to read to your Lordships an extract from the surveyor's report which was sent to the local education authority on this question. He first of all said, in regard to the suggested site—
"This site is available, and if the vicar will hand it over to the trustees it will provide the site necessary for the purpose."
That site for the playground was acquired for the school, and therefore there is no question that the playground could have been provided. The surveyor added—
"In the circumstances the question of adding to the rates by the provision of a provided school should not be brought forward until all other means of making the necessary playground provision had been exhausted."
This was the report of the surveyor of the local education authority itself. The necessary site was forthcoming, but, nevertheless, the local authority and the Board of Education insisted upon a provided school.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I feel that this is a very difficult matter to discuss without a fuller statement of the facts on both sides. The facts as presented by the noble Viscount opposite are, no doubt, very strong in his favour, and I should be inclined, if those facts were incapable of being refuted, to give him a rule nisi. But there are two defendants in this case—the Board of Education and the West Riding Education Authority. I should be perfectly willing to say, on the facts as presented to-day, that the local education authority, while it might have been perfectly right in the earlier days in pressing for a suitable school, used its powers oppressively at the latter part of the negotiations. We have not, however, a leading member of the West Riding County Council here to tell us from his own knowledge what passed, and therefore I do not like to condemn one party to a dispute when that party has not been properly heard.
But may I point out to the noble Viscount a course which he and his friends

33
might properly take whereby this question would be fought out in the best possible way? A Provisional Order is at this moment being promoted to acquire the proposed site by compulsion. That Provisional Order takes the course of an ordinary private Bill. The owner of the site proposed to be taken can oppose, and he can give any evidence he pleases to satisfy the Private Bill Committee that it is not a proper case for the exercise of compulsory powers. I understand that the Board of Education has not yet removed this voluntary school from the list of public elementary schools. Therefore it is quite competent for the owner of the proposed site to show to the Committee that this school is at the moment recognised, that the managers are ready and willing to do everything, to the extent of actually building a new school, and that therefore there is no occasion for Parliament to grant powers for the purchase of a site on which to erect a council school. If that were done both sides would be heard before an impartial tribunal. It cannot be satisfactory to debate a question where we have only the case, temperately put, I admit, of one side.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Earl who leads the House apologised for the somewhat meagre explanation afforded by his colleague on the ground that the Lord President is a novice in his present Department. The Leader of the House cannot plead that he is a novice in regard to matters of education; indeed, he has, on the contrary, always been regarded by us as a high authority upon the subject. Therefore, when we find his explanation not more satisfactory than that of the Lord President, we may, I think, conclude that the Government case is not a very strong one. Neither of the two noble Lords can be surprised if we are dissatisfied with their explanations; and it is to be observed that both of them carefully avoided accepting an ounce of responsibility for the action of the Board of Education. The Secretary of State for the Colonies explained to us that this was a question involving the administration of a Department, and that the matter lay enttirly within the personal discretion of the head of that Department. I do not know whether we are to
34
expect in this House that whenever an awkward question is put to the Front Bench opposite we are to be told, if the head of the Department does not happen to sit on that Front Bench, that the matter is one concerning the personal discretion of the Minister at the head of the Department.
THE EARL OF CREWE: May I explain that the peculiar character of the discretion which rests with the Minister for Education under the Act of 1902 is what made me draw attention to the point in this particular instance. I should by no means say that of every administrative act of every Minister.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I accept my noble friend's interpretation of the matter; but if he tells us that the question is one concerning the administration of the Department, and that the administration rests with the head of the Department, then I say that it is the recent administration of the Education Department that fills us with apprehension. This is not a solitary case in which the administration of the Board of Education had been of an aggressive, and, I would almost venture to say, of a vindictive character.
I will not recapitulate the history of this case at length, but just let us fix our attention on the salient facts. Here is a small school in an out-of-the-way part of the country, but this episode has thrown a flood of light upon the educational policy of His Majesty's Government. This little school has been for 250 years a Church of England school; it is big enough, is admitted to be big enough, to meet the wants of the decreasing population. It requires only one or two alterations to bring it up to modern requirements, and it is quite clear to any reasonable mind that there is no difficulty in providing those modern alterations. The matter was investigated again and again; everyone was consulted, the trustees, the West Riding Education Committee, the Charity Commissioners, the Board of Education, and all went perfectly well until the month of March, 1907. Even the two architects sent down by the local education committee

35
and the Board of Education were satisfied with the alterations that were proposed. Then what we want to know is why, in the spring of 1907, there was a sudden change of front, and why at that particular moment this new, and, I venture to say, aggressive policy was set in force? What has happened? A new council school is to be built to accommodate sixty children, the present attendance being thirty, and at a cost of £1,000. The ratepayers naturally objected, but the Board of Education refused an inquiry.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Can the noble Marquess tell us what was the foundation of the original school—who built it, and who was responsible for it?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am informed that it has been a Church of England school for over 200 years. Is that challenged?
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I do not know.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then why did the noble Lord interrupt me? I am assured by my noble friend behind me that there is no doubt whatever on the point.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: It was a non-provided school.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Even assuming that the alterations originally proposed and acquiesced in by everybody, including the Board of Education, are insufficient, and that something more must be done, we can fall back on the generous offer made by a lady to build a new voluntary school at her own expense. Why is that offer brushed on one side? Why are the ratepayers to be compelled to find the money? In spite of the local indignation aroused at this high-handed conduct, inquiry is refused. The noble Marquess behind me appealed to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Loreburn) who was sitting upon the Woolsack at the time the noble Marquess was speaking for an opinion as to the legality of the action of the Board of Education. I
36
should be perfectly ready to accept one from my noble and learned friend who is sitting upon the Woolsack at this moment (The Earl of Halsbury). The clause in question runs—
"The Board of Education shall, without unnecessary delay, determine, in case of dispute, whether a school is necessary or not, and in so determining, and also in deciding upon any appeal as to the provision of a new school, shall have regard to the interests of secular education, to the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children, and to the economy of the rates."
We want to know why an investigation upon those lines was
peremptorily refused by the President of the Board of Education. To my mind this case is of very peculiar importance, because it seems to me to throw a good deal of light upon the sincerity of the professions of Ministers who tell us that they are in favour of a reasonable compromise on the education question. Within the last few hours a colleague of the noble Lord opposite, speaking in another place, said that His Majesty's Government had an earnest desire to obtain a lasting settlement of this controversy. He said that the great majority of the public were anxious for peace, and he dwelt upon the prevalence of a spirit of practicability and common sense. How far has the action of the Board of Education in the present case been animated by a desire for compromise or by a spirit of practicability or common sense? I venture to say that unless the administration of the Board of Education shows a greater amount of consideration and a less aggressive tendency, the chance of a reasonable settlement of this most difficult of all questions will be enormously decreased.

INDIAN TRADERS IN NATAL.
LORD AMPTHILLrose to call attention to the statement concerning the Municipal Corporations Act and the Dealers' Licences Act of the Colony of Natal made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 6th instant, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, about a fortnight ago I asked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could lay on the Table of the House any correspondence concerning the two Acts of the

37
Colony of Natal which are named in my Motion. In doing so I refrained from comment for two reasons. The first was that the noble Earl had only just succeeded to his high office, and the second was that I thought it was desirable, if possible, that important questions of this kind should be discussed in the full light of official knowledge. The noble Earl declared his inability to present any Papers, saying that there were no Papers to give.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I said the Papers were incomplete.
LORD AMPTHILL: Anyhow, there were no further Papers to present. But the noble Earl went out of his way to make a statement concerning the situation which has arisen in Natal on account of those two Acts. That statement added nothing to the knowledge of the subject which is possessed by the general public, but it omitted a good deal. I am, therefore, raising the question again today in the hope of persuading the noble Earl to repair those omissions, and particularly to give us some indication of his policy. We cannot, in view of past experience, rest content to leave a matter of this kind to the unquestioned discretion of the Colonial Office. We should fear that the result would be very much what it was in a recent case, on which I need not at this moment enlarge. But perhaps I may say that we all hope the noble Earl will initiate a policy at the Colonial Office rather different from that which has been pursued during the past two years, and he will, I am sure, understand that if I make any criticisms of the policy of His Majesty's Government they are not directed at him personally, although, of course, they are directed at the Government of which he is a Member.
The noble Earl said that there had been no correspondence since September, 1907, when his predecessor had addressed a letter to the Natal Government, which at that moment still remained unanswered. What I have to ask, then, in the first instance, is, why there has been no further correspondence. There has been plenty of occasions for further correspondence, and I confess I was dismayed at hearing that this had not
38
been the view of the Colonial Office. If the Imperial Government have any duty at all towards His Majesty's subjects, wherever they may be under the British flag, if they have any responsibility for the unity and harmony of the Empire, there has been ample and frequent occasion for correspondence with the Government of Natal. The Dealers' Licences Act, which was passed in the year 1897, has placed the Indian trader in Natal completely at the mercy of his European competitors. It is not clear that this measure was originally intended as an anti-Asiatic measure, although it is being at present administered as such. Licensing boards composed solely of Europeans, and those Europeans often the actual trade rivals of the Indians, have unprecedented powers of granting or refusing trade licences or renewals. But, what is most serious of all, there is no appeal from their decisions to the Courts of the Colony.
Now, these boards have of late been using their powers in a manner which can only be described as most unjust and high-handed. They have been refusing licences, or rather the renewal of licences, on the flimsiest of pretexts. Some of the Indians who have just been deprived of their livelihood are well-known shopkeepers and tradesmen who have been resident in the Colony for as long as twenty or thirty years, and had made the Colony their home. There can be no doubt whatever that all this is part of a deliberate policy to drive the Indian trader out of the Colony, and to reduce the Indian coolie to a condition which would be described by the supporters of His Majesty's Government as one of slavery. Apart from the injustice and inhumanity of this policy, it is both short-sighted and ungrateful. It is short-sighted because the Colony cannot do without Indian labour, and cannot have Indian labour unless the Indian trader remains there. It is ungrateful because the Indians—it is not too much to say it—have actually made the Colony of Natal. Natal would have been bankrupt years ago if it had not been for the presence of our Indian fellow subjects. Natal would be bankrupt to-morrow if you removed all the Indians from the Colony.

39
We may leave it to the Colonists themselves to consider the improvidence of the step so far as it is a matter that concerns their own interests; but the ingratitude concerns us, inasmuch as it amounts to a breach of an Imperial compact, and is, therefore, a serious danger to the Empire as a whole. The Indians came to Natal rather more than forty years ago by invitation. They came in response to an invitation when the Colony was in dire necessity, and their advent saved the Colony from impending ruin. These Indians made the Colony their home, relying on the good faith, not only of the Imperial Government, but also of the Colonial Government. Since they have been there they have played an indispensable part in the development of the Colony. The actual position is that there is an Indian population of 100,000, slightly in excess of the white population. Of these 40,000 are indentured labourers, while the remainder are free Indians, of whom a great proportion are women and children.
Before proceeding, I should like once more to explain my attitude on this question generally, in order that there may be no misunderstanding. I do not deny, and never have denied, the right of any Colony to limit or restrict the immigration, either of Indians or of any other people, as that is a matter concerning their own property, and the right is analogous to the rights which we exercise in our own country, both as regards public and personal property. But what I do say is that if it is necessary on economic grounds, on commercial grounds, to restrict the immigration of any section of His Majesty's subjects, the measures to that end should be so framed that there could be no suggestion or suspicion that such exclusion as might be necessary was made on grounds of colour or race prejudice. The exclusion must be on economic or proprietary grounds, and on those alone.
I return to the Dealers' Licences Act, and I should like to say that the unfairness of the Act has been recognised by many prominent citizens of Natal; and some, indeed, have protested in very strong language their indignation at the manner in which it was being administered.
40
I will not trouble your Lordships with numerous quotations. A single one will suffice. A former Attorney-General of the Colony, M. Labistour said
"That town councillors were called upon to perform a dirty work, in that they were expected to tacitly refuse licences merely on the ground of colour,"
and he suggested that if the legislature intended such work to be done it ough to legislate in that direction and not leave the town councils to do it.
That is a fair sample of the opinions which have been expressed by other prominent Colonists.
Now I come to the other Act—the Municipal Corporations Act. Up to 1896 free Indians in the Colony occupied a position of equality with the white Colonists, but in that year they were deprived of the political franchise. This Municipal Corporations Act proposes to deprive them of the municipal franchise. The reasons for this are not apparent. There is no analogy with the circumstances which were said to disqualify Indians for the political franchise—namely, that representative government did not exist in India. Municipal institutions do exist in India, and Indians have proved that they are well fitted to make good use of them. The Indians in Natal have done absolutely nothing to justify this proposed deprivation, and it is difficult to see what reason there can be for it unless it is to humiliate them and to render their position intolerable.
His Majesty's Government have not, so far as we are aware, protested against this law, but they have, so the noble Earl told us a fortnight ago, reserved assent to it in order to bargain for an appeal to the Supreme Court under the Dealers' Licences Act. The next question I have to ask is, Why have His Majesty's Government not protested against this proposed municipal disfranchisement? The letter suggesting this bargain in relation to the Licences Act was sent in September, 1907, and since then it appears that no further action has been taken. But meanwhile the persecution of Indians under the Licences Act has been going on apace. Why have His Majesty's Government not protested? I have seen the inner life of the Colonial Office, and I know what has been done, and can be done, under similar circumstances. Mr. Chamberlain

41
knew how to protest in precisely similar circumstances, and he did protest.
THE EARL OF CREWE: He passed this Act.
LORD AMPTHILL: I will take that point now. Mr. Chamberlain allowed the Act to pass because it was not apparent at the time, nor was it, I believe, the intention, that the Act should be an anti-Asiatic Act, but when he saw how it was being administered he protested. His protest met with a respectful hearing and a corresponding result; and what I want to know is why His Majesty's Government have not done the same now that this high-handed action has recommenced?
It is idle to say that these are domestic concerns of the Colony with which we may not interfere. The fact that the South African Colonies are not alone concerned is amply demonstrated by the feeling in India on this subject. His Majesty's Government, above all, cannot offer that excuse after their determined and uncompromising interference in the matter of Chinese labour. His Majesty's Government interfered to save the Chinese, who are not our fellow subjects, from ill-treatment, for so they declared it to be. By no possible quibble can they deny that the right, the power, and the duty to protect Indians who are our fellow-subjects is far greater. I will tell His Majesty's Government why they have not done anything, and why they have not been able to do anything. It is because you are not trusted by the Colonies and because you are not on friendly terms with the Colonies. At the instigation of a meddling section of your supporters, you have interfered with these Colonies and treated them unfairly in matters which are really not of Imperial concern. That is why you cannot get a hearing now when really Imperial concerns are at stake. You have interfered in the administration of justice and the preservation of order, which are purely local concerns. I need only instance your interference in the case of the murder of the police inspector in 1906, in the matter of the administration of martial law, and at the present time in the case of Dinizulu.
42
It is on account of that interference that the Colonies are flouting you now in this matter, and that they will not listen to any protests which you may make. And what is the attitude of the Dutch, whom you believe you have made your friends by the concessions you have given to them? It is only in human nature that they should be glad to see a dispute between British colonists and the Home Government, and that they should tacitly encourage it. That is what is going on now.
This inaction of His Majesty's Government has encouraged the Transvaal within the last few months to follow suit to Natal. The new Gold Law and the draft Local Government Bill, of which we have seen accounts in the Press, are attempts to restore a tyranny even worse than that which existed in the Kruger regime. What I have to ask is, What are His Majesty's Government going to do now? That is what we want to know, and we should like to see the cards on the table. We shall be told again, I suppose, that nothing can be said because it is a matter of "diplomacy." We know that diplomacy, and we want no more of it. We have learnt that what is called diplomacy, so far as the administration of Colonial affairs are concerned, means, first of all, timid protest, then long inaction, and, finally, ill-graced acquiescence. It is the diplomacy which banged, barred, and bolted the door against Colonies that favoured a policy distasteful to the Radical Party, but which licked the boots of the Colony which was ready to play the Radical Party game. It is the diplomacy which interfered recklessly to stop Chinese slavery, but which dares not raise a finger to prevent Indian slavery; which grovels before an Afrikander Ministry, but bullies a British Ministry in South Africa; which pledged five millions of British money to redeem Radical electioneering promises, but which will not give preference on a single peppercorn to promote Imperial unity. It is the diplomacy which has dragged down Imperial affairs, so far as the Colonies are concerned, into the mire of party politics. We want no more of that diplomacy, and we hope that the noble Earl, who has now so appropriately

43
been placed in the high office of Secretary of State for the Colonies, will return to the old policy of that Department—the policy of candid and fearless assertion of the rights of British subjects and of the duty of the Imperial Government, a policy which is better calculated than this recent diplomacy to inspire the confidence of our kith and kin beyond the seas, and to win the co-operation of the joint inheritors of our great traditions of freedom and justice.
Moved, for Papers.—(Lord Ampthill.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I anticipated a somewhat simple question from the noble Lord, but in this House one sometimes enjoys agreeable surprises. We have heard a glowing oration. If I were in the noble Lord's place I should be half disposed to ask the gentlemen in the Press Gallery not to report this speech, in order that he might have the advantage of delivering it somewhere on a public platform, to which, I think, it would be more suited than to the peaceful atmosphere of your Lordships' House.
I really have very little to add to what I said in reply to the noble Lord, whose deep and absolutely honest interest in this matter I most cordially recognise, when he put a similar question to me the other day. There are two so-called Acts concerned in this matter. One is the Dealers' Licences Act, which is in force, and the other is the Municipal Corporations Act, which is not in force; and really the only complaint I have to make of the noble Lord is that he mixed those measures so completely together that he would have almost led anybody not acquainted with the circumstances to imagine that both of those Acts were at this moment the law of Natal. The Licences Act is, but the Municipal Corporations Act is not. It is a reserved Bill.
LORD AMPTHILL: I said clearly that His Majesty's Government had reserved it in order to make a bargain.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, but at the same time the noble Lord denounced us for allowing Indians to be deprived
44
of their vote when, as a matter of fact, they have not been deprived of their vote. It is true that when the Prime Minister of Natal was here my noble friend, Lord Elgin, did propose what the noble Lord calls a bargain, and the reason for doing so was this, that it might undoubtedly be somewhat of a grievance to the Indian to lose his municipal vote, but the advantage of getting an appeal as to the Dealers' Licences Act would have been, from our point of view, and, as we believe, from the point of view of the Indian settlers in Natal, so infinitely greater that if that bargain could be made it would be an extremely good bargain The Municipal Corporations Act is, as we have said, not the law of the land. It is a reserved Bill; nothing whatever has happened under it, and therefore the Indian still has his municipal vote. In September last, as has been stated, my predecessor, Lord Elgin, wrote the despatch to which the noble Lord has alluded. That despatch has not, so far, been answered, and the effect of its not being answered is that nothing has happened and that the law remains exactly as it has been since 1897, when the Dealers' Licences Act was passed. So that what the noble Lord asks us to do is not, I take it, to deal with the Municipal Corporations Act, which for all we know, is dropped—at any rate, it does not, so far as we are concerned, exist—but to make an entirely fresh and independent attack upon the Dealers' Licences Act with a view of getting it altered. My noble friend Lord Elgin thought that what the noble Lord calls a bargain was the better way of getting to work, and if that bargain could be carried out I should certainly proceed with the policy of my noble friend. The noble Lord said that when the Dealers' Licences Act was passed in the year 1907, it was not imagined that it was going to apply to Asiatics. That is to me a most astounding statement.
LORD AMPTHILL: I did not say that. What I said was that it was not supposed to be by intention an anti-Asiatic Act.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not exactly know what the noble Lord means by that.
Lord AMPTHILL: It is very simple. An anti-Asiatic Act is an Act intended to make the position of Asiatics less bearable, less tolerable—an Act intended to drive them out of the country.
The Earl of CREWE: All Acts of Parliament depend to some extent on the method in which they are administered, and if an Act is passed which in future years, when feeling becomes more pronounced, enables a colony to act in a more pronounced way, then those who gave their consent to that Act are responsible. That Act, as the noble Lord must surely know, was explicitly framed so as to include Asiatics. The wording of Section 22 is exceedingly ingenious, and includes all Asiatics without naming them; and Asiatics have, as a matter of fact, been under it ever since.
I do not propose to deal with that part of the noble Lord's speech in which he said that we were regarded in an unfriendly manner by the Colony. I have no reason to believe that that is so as regards the Colonial Office, and, indeed, I repudiate the suggestion. There is only one point of his speech in that connection to which I would allude. When the noble Lord accuses us of having lost the affections of some of the Colonies by having shown an interest in native questions, he should not forget, among all his very natural interest in, and devotion to, the cause of Indians, that there are coloured men of other races who are also the subjects of His Majesty the King, and in considering the interests of one, as I hope we shall, we certainly do not intend to sacrifice the interests of the other.
As to the reason why no further correspondence has taken place, there was no real advantage in pressing for an answer to Lord Elgin's dispatch of September last until the Natal Parliament met. The Natal Parliament has not sat for six months. It is, I believe, to meet next month, and we shall then be in a very much better position to give a full reply to the noble Lord's question than we are at the present moment. I have no hostility whatever to the idea of publishing Papers on the subject. Our reason for not agreeing to do so at once was, as I stated at the
46
time, that the Papers, if published now, would be incomplete; but I hope that before the end of the session it may be possible to lay Papers, and if the noble Lord will withdraw his Motion I will let him know if and when it may be suitable to lay further Papers on the subject.
Viscount St. ALDWYN: My Lords, as I happen to know something about the Colony of Natal, I should like to trouble your Lordships with a few observations on this question. I think it is not at all surprising that the noble Lord behind me, with his great experience and knowledge of India and his natural interest in the subjects of the King in that part of the world, should have brought this question before your Lordships, but I do not think he made quite sufficient allowance for the extreme difficulty of the Colonial Office in dealing with such questions as this in Natal. They have to consider, not only the rights and claims of our Indian fellow subjects, but also the feelings and the interests of the white population in the Colony.
It is very easy for us to talk of the rights of our Indian fellow subjects in a British Colony, but your Lordships must remember that it is a British Colony and not an Indian Colony. I cannot myself see that because Indians are our fellow subjects therefore they have the right to the position of what is, after all, the dominant race in the British Empire, and to be placed on the same footing in Natal as the British race or the Dutch race. But I think they have a claim—a very strong claim—to be treated with fairness and justice, having regard to the rights which they have acquired at the present time in that Colony. It must be remembered that the Indian population in Natal outnumber the white population, and that the white population have to deal, in addition, with an enormously pre-pondering number of South African native races. It is an extremely difficult position, and a position which is increasing in difficulty rather rapidly.
I myself believe that the time ought to come very soon when the immigration of Indians into Natal—the indentured

47
coolie immigration—should, for the sake of everybody concerned, be brought to an end. I think it has become something very like a danger to the future of Natal. But, however that may be, I entirely admit that any obligation entered into with the Indians already there ought strictly and rigidly to be observed. We must remember the feelings—you may call them prejudices if you like—of the Natal colonist in this matter. From my own experience, I know that the feeling of the white population in Natal, generally, might almost be called bitter against the competition to which they are subjected from the very virtues of the Indian trader. The Indian is an abstemious and frugal person, he lives upon very little, he is always sober, he is content with small gains, and he is fitted in every way to be a trader; and the white trader in Natal, as in other parts of South Africa, finds it almost impossible to compete with him successfully. So naturally there exists a feeling in Natal that they would desire, if they could, to limit the number of Indians who are allowed to trade.
The Colonial Office cannot ignore the fact of that feeling, and they must consider it in their dealings with a self-governing Colony. My knowledge of South Africa leads me to say that the less the Colonial Office interfere in any matter with the self-governing Colonies of South Africa, the better for this country, the better for South Africa, and the better for the Empire as a whole. There is the white Natal side of this question to be considered as well as the Indian side. The Colonial Office have to judge between them, and they should endeavour to do so with fairness and justice.
Lord AMPTHILL: I, of course, readily accept the noble Lord's suggestion that he should let me know when it is convenient to present Papers, but I would like to point out that I did not receive any answer to my question as to why there has been no further correspondence on the subject of this highhanded administration of the law and no protests against the deprivation of the municipal franchise.
The Earl of CREWE: The deprivation of the municipal franchise has not yet taken place.
Lord AMPTHILL: I meant to say the proposed deprivation. The Act is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government. The noble Earl confined himself more or less to an argument as regards the nature of the Dealers' Licences Act—an argument to the effect that it ought not to have been passed by His Majesty's Government in 1897, and that they should have foreseen that it would be used as an anti-Asiatic Act. There was absolutely no reason to foresee that it would be applied for that purpose. It was an Act which, on the face of it, bore nothing more than the intention to restrain objectionable persons from trading, whether Europeans or Indians. It was only some time afterwards that it was used for the purpose of persecuting Indian traders.
The Earl of CREWE: It did not apply to Europeans and to Indians alike. It applied to people who had not got the Parliamentary franchise at home.
Lord AMPTHILL: At any rate it was not an anti-Asiatic Act, and protests on previous occasions have been successful.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.