Sitting of 24 November 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Bishop's Sutton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
  Petition from Hornsey, for legislation, to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Deptford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 20th November, 1908, granting a. Retired Allowance to Mr. William Stead, First Class Officer of Excise, Aberdeen Collection, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Statement as to Expenditure by Local Education Authorities on the Maintenance (as distinct from administration and loan charges) of Public Elementary Schools for the year ended 31st March 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  UGANDA.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to Famine in the Busoga District

  81
  of Uganda [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
  Copy presented, of Order dated 12th November, 1908, entitled the "American Gooseberry Mildew (Prohibition of Importation of Bushes) Amendment Order of 1908" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (PRISONS).
  Copy presented, of Rules and Regulations, dated 29th October, 1908, amending Regulations for Naval Prisons made by the Admiralty under the Naval Discipline Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT, 1876.
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary for Scotland by His Majesty's Inspector for Scotland under the Act [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATES ACTS (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report for Scotland under the Inebriates Acts for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Return ordered, "showing the amount of annual expenditure incurred for the upkeep of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, also the sum contributed by the taxpayers and by the Treasury, respectively, and giving particulars of the number of barracks and men, and cost of salaries and pay, during the past five years."—(Mr. Field.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Persons found in Destitute Condition in Public Places.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the report of an inquest held last week in Westminster on the death of a man found in a dying
  82
  condition on the Victoria Embankment as the result of which the jury returned a verdict of death from starvation; whether anything is known of the movements of the man before he was found by the police; and whether the police can be instructed to take all possible pains to remove persons found in a, destitute condition in public places to the workhouse infirmaries or the hospitals so as to prevent the recurrence of such an occurrence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have seen a newspaper report of the inquest, held at Westminster on 13th November, on a man named Trew, which is, I believe, the one to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. The police had no knowledge of this man or his movements until he was found on the Embankment. They already have full instructions to deal with all such cases in a prompt and humane manner. Acting under these instructions, the constable who noticed the man on a seat on the Embankment, apparently ill, sent at once for an ambulance, and removed him to hospital, where he died shortly afterwards. The same action-would be taken by the police in any other similar cases. I should add that the man was not absolutely destitute, as he had 4s. 2d. in his purse.

  Indian Regiments Changing Stations by Road.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state what period has elapsed since British and Native regiments habitually marched by road from one station to another when changing stations; and if it is contemplated to revive the practice during peace time.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) Although the practice of marching British and Native regiments by road from station to station in peace time has become less common with the increase of railway communications, it is by no means: infrequent at the present time. The occasions on which route marching is; adopted are entirely in the discretion of the military authorities.

  Distress Committee for Stoke-on-Trent.
  MR. JOHN WARD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received any request from the town council of Stoke-on-Trent to reconsider the recent refusal of his Department to sanction the establishment of a distress committee under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Board informed the town council of Stoke-on-Trent on 28th October that, on the information then before them, they doubted whether they would be justified in establishing a distress committee for the borough. No further reply or information has been received from the town council; but I have instructed one of my inspectors to make some investigation.

  Sanction for Loan for Electric Mains at Stoke-on-Trent.
  MR. JOHN WARD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the town council for Stoke-on-Trent have made formal application to his Department for sanction to borrow £7,555 to extend electrical mains to the district of Fenton for the supply of power to manufacturers and others; whether the Local Government lave considered the same and the damage to the trade of the district which will result from unnecessary delay in providing energy; and what action, if any, it is proposed to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The town council have made such an application. A local inquiry has been held, and the town council have been informed that any question of supply to Fenton should be deferred pending a settlement in regard to the question of the federation of the potteries towns. The inspector reported that no evidence was brought forward at the inquiry to show the immediate necessity for a supply of electrical energy in Fenton, and I am advised that it is doubtful whether the capital expenditure contemplated with that object would prove remunerative.

  Burwell Farm, Cambridgeshire.
  MR. JOHN WARD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Crown farm at Burwell, Cambridgeshire, has been let to a tenant since 1905; whether the tenant has farmed it or sub-let it to other tenants; if so, how many subtenants are there, and what is the size and rent of each small holding; and what is the financial result of this new arrangement to the tenants and the Crown.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Crown farm at Burwell was let to my hon. friend the Member for East Cambridgeshire as from Michaelmas, 1906, for the purpose of establishing small holdings and allotments. Full particulars of the letting and sub-letting are given in the First Report (1907) of the President of the Board on the Agricultural Crown Lands, a copy of which I will be pleased to send my hon. friend. As mentioned in that Report there was an actual loss of £690 17s. 3d., without allowing for rent or Crown Receivers' fees for superintendence, during the two years to Michaelmas 1906 while the farm was in hand, whereas by the letting a rental of £700 per annum was secured. The President has no official knowledge of the result of the arrangement to the sub-tenants, but my hon. friend the Member for East Cambridgeshire has been good enough to supply the following interesting particulars. The rent has been paid in full and to time. No smallholder has given up his holding. The amount of stock now on the holdings is two and-a-half times as much as it was in 1906. The small-holders have spent £750 on feeding stuffs and £600 on new implements during the past year, while the amount of outside labour paid for amounts to something over 24s. an acre.
  MR. NICHOLLS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can say whether a tenant held the Crown farm at Burwell, Cambridgeshire, during 1904 and 1905; what amount of rent was paid by such tenant; if there was

  85
  no tenant in possession, what arrangements were made for conducting the farm; and what was the profit or loss during that period.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) For the two years from Michaelmas, 1904, to Michaelmas, 1906, the Crown farm was in hand for want of a tenant. The farm was stocked by the Commissioner of Woods, and was cultivated and managed by a resident bailiff, under the superintendence of the Crown Receivers. Upon the farm being relet as from Michaelmas, 1906, the stock and crops were realised, and the total loss for the two years, without charging rent or Crown Receivers' fees for superintendence amounted to £690 17s. 3d.

  Old-Age Pension Regulations— Opportunity for Discussion.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Prime Minister when an opportunity will be afforded of discussing

  Public Elementary Schools.

  (a) Recognised Accommodation.

  1901–2.

  1906–7.

  Council

  3,003,247

  3,650,503

  Church of England

  2,813,978

  2,681,442

  Roman Catholic

  403,064

  406,137

  Other schools

  506,560

  306,125

  (b) Average Attendance.

  Council

  2,369,980

  2,873,801

  Church of England

  1,927,663

  1,899,965

  Roman Catholic

  269,191

  286,188

  Other schools

  348,583

  231,330

  Education Bill—Regulations under Clause 2.
  LORD E. CECIL: To ask the President of the Board of Education when will the Regulations proposed to be made under Clause 2, subsection (5), of the Education Bill be submitted to the House; and will the same condition apply under the Regulations to the desire of parents for their children to receive undenominational as will apply to denominational teaching.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Regulations will be laid upon the Table
  the Departmental Regulations re the Old-Age Pensions Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am afraid that, unless some special reason for doing so is brought to my notice, it will be difficult to find another opportunity for the discussion of these Regulations.

  Public Elementary Schools.
  MR. ELLIS: To ask the President of the Board of Education what were the figures of school places in the council, Church of England, Roman Catholic, and other public elementary schools, respectively, of England and Wales during the school years 1901–2 and 1906–7; and what were the figures of children in average attendance in each of these classes of schools during the same years.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.)—
  before the House enters upon the Committee stage of the Bill. Subsection (5) of Clause 2 applies only to requests on the part of parents for facilities for religious instruction of a character different from that which it is open to the local education authority to give in accordance with Section 14 (2) of the Elementary Education Act, 1870.

  Unemployed Distress at Southwick-on-Wear.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that there is great distress in the urban district of

  87
  Southwick-on-Wear, Sunderland, owing to unemployment; and, if so, can he state why the Government, in view of the increased sum of money set apart for work for the unemployed, refuse to make a grant to such areas if the authorities of such areas are prepared to put in operation schemes of work for the relief of the unemployed.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware that there is a good deal of unemployment at Southwick-on-Wear. The grant at my disposal was voted for contributions in aid of expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, and hence I cannot allot payments from it to local authorities other than the authorities under that Act.

  Board of Trade Examination Fees.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the practice for the Board of Trade to charge a fee of £1 to candidates presenting themselves for examination for first and second mates in the merchant service; whether, in the event of their failing, a further fee of £1 is charged for every subsequent examination; and, if so, whether he can see his way to make the first fee of £1 cover all subsequent examinations of the same candidate for the same grade.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The practice is as stated in the first part of the Question, except that the fee for examination or re-examination for a certificate as first mate is only 10s. when, as is usually the case, the candidate has already obtained a certificate as second mate. In view of the fact that the fees at present charged do not cover the examination expenses I do not see my way to meet the suggestion made by my hon. friend, which would have the effect of encouraging candidates to present themselves insufficiently prepared.

  Appointment to Assistant Surveyorships of Taxes.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether at the examination held in September for assistant surveyorships of taxes the unprecedentedly small number of only six places
  88
  was available for competition; was this caused by filling up nineteen places in the taxes department from candidates at the junior assistants examination held in July; was any notice given to intended candidates for the September examination that almost four-fifths of the vacancies for which they might fairly suppose they were competing were to be filled by the results of an examination for a quite different department; and would he recommend for taxes appointment, say, the first ten of the rejected in September.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The total number of six assistant surveyor-ships of taxes offered for competition at the examination held in September was below the average of previous years, owing to the number of retirements under the age limit having this year been unprecedentedly small. The number of vacancies was in no way due to the subsequent appointment of nineteen candidates from the junior assistants examination held in July, who were added to the establishment in view of an increase which was authorised by the Treasury as from 1st October, 1908, but which had not been sanctioned at the time when the September examination was announced. The candidates for the September examination were informed by advertisement and notice from the Civil Service Commissioners that not less than six vacancies would be open to competition, and this number was accordingly filled from the list. I cannot undertake to make any such recommendation as that suggested by the hon. Member in the last sentence of the Question.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Mrs. M'Cabe, of Boss.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what steps the Estates Commissioners have taken to reinstate Mrs. M'Cabe, of Ross, the evicted tenant on the Edward O'Connor estate, County Cavan; and when may she and her family expect to get the benefit of The Evicted Tenants Act, 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that

  89
  no application for reinstatement appears to have been lodged by Mrs. M'Cabe in respect of a holding on the O'Connor estate.

  Appointment of Miss G. Knox to Ardess National School.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Miss Georgina Knox was in October, 1907, appointed assistant teacher at Ardess national school (Roll No. 11,717, District 3a); had Miss Knox passed the qualifying examination with King's scholarship; did the inspector of the national board several times inspect the school and report favourably on her educational work after her appointment; did she continue to discharge the duty till July, 1908; and on what ground was her appointment then declared invalid by the Board, and is she to receive any remuneration for her nine months' work.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that Miss Georgina Knox was appointed by the manager as assistant teacher in the Ardess national school in October, 1907. The Commissioners, on receiving a notification of the appointment in January, 1908, informed the manager that Miss Knox was ineligible, as she did not possess any of the qualifications prescribed by Rule 76 (a) and (b) of the Commissioners' Code. The fact that she had passed the qualifying examination for admission to a training college did not give her any claim to recognition as an assistant teacher. No special references were made by the inspector to Miss Knox's work. Notwithstanding the intimation that the appointment of Miss Knox could not be sanctioned, the manager retained her services up to the 30th June last. The Commissioners do not propose to make any payment to Miss Knox for the period during which she acted as teacher in this school.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Patrick Dram.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether the Estates Commissioners have received
  90
  an application on behalf of Patrick Drum, the son of the evicted tenant whose holding in Aughrim was evicted by John J. Benison in December, 1881; and is the landlord still in possession of this farm.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that Patrick Drum's application was not lodged within the time specified in the Evicted Tenants Act, and cannot therefore be dealt with under that Act. The Commissioners have not inquired into the case, and cannot say who is in possession of the farm in question.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Shipbuilding—Cost of Increased Speed.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Report of the Admiralty Committee on Mercantile Cruisers in 1902 calculated that a vessel of 23 knots ocean speed would cost £575,000 and that a vessel of only 2 knots greater speed, or 25 knots, would cost £1,000,000; and whether he can state, from any calculations in the possession of the Admiralty, what would have been the cost of three "Invincibles," designed for the same armament but of 23 knots speed, as compared with the three existing 25–knot "Invincibles" costing £4,931,000.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): There are no such calculations at present available.

    New Torpedo Destroyers.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to state if the orders for torpedo destroyers have yet been placed, and, if so, where; and whether the lowest tenders were accepted in each case.
    MR. MCKENNA: The orders have been provisionally placed as follows: three to Messrs. Cammell, Laird and Company; three to Messrs. J. Brown

    91
    and Company; three to the Fairfield Shipbuilding Company; one to the Thames Shipbuilding Company; two to Messrs. J. S. White and Company, Limited, Cowes; one to Messrs. Thornycroft and Company; one to Messrs. Denny Brothers; one to Messrs. Hawthorn, Leslie and Company, Limited, one to the London and Glasgow Shipbuilding Company, Limited. The acceptances are provisional, inasmuch as certain modifications in details of design and certain other contract conditions have to be agreed to. In allocating the orders, the lowest tenders were accepted so far as possible, consistent with such questions as suitability of design, experience of the firms, and proper distribution of orders.
    MR. CREAN: Has any of the work been allocated to Irish firms?
    MR. MCKENNA: I do not think any tendered, or, indeed, are capable of doing work of this kind.
    MR. GRETTON: When are the vessels to be completed?
    MR. MCKENNA: I think the contracts range from fifteen to eighteen months.

    Manning of the Navy.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that both the officers and men of the Navy are so often moved from one warship to another that they seldom remain long enough on one ship to get accustomed to each other or their ship; whether he is aware that naval officers consider this system a great disadvantage both to men and officers; and whether, in view of the importance of the matter, he will consider the possibility of making different arrangements.
    MR. MCKENNA: I am not aware that any representation has been made by naval officers that the officers and men are moved so often from one ship to another that they seldom remain long enough in one ship to get accustomed to one another or their ship, and I have no reason to suppose the circumstances to
    92
    be such as are suggested in the hon. Member's Question.
    MR. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire of the officers and men?
    MR. MCKENNA: I have no opportunity. I get my information from the expert advisers of the Board who inform me no such representations have been made.
    MR. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire among naval officers?
    MR. MCKENNA: If opportunity serves I will do so, but I cannot undertake to do it.
    MR. BELLAIRSinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would have tabulated lists made of the number of times that ships changed their captains and their crews, and whether he was aware that the "Barfleur" changed her captain six times and her crew five times in the course of twenty-four months.
    MR. MCKENNA: My hon. friend will not expect me, without express information, necessarily to accept the figures which he has given me. I will inquire into the matter further.

    Territorial Force—7th Batt Sherwood Foresters.
    MR. RICHARDSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether permission has been given to the 7th Battalion Sherwood Foresters late Notts. Robin Hoods V.R.C., to retain their old Lincoln green uniforms, or whether the uniform of the battalion will be assimilated to that of the line regiment to which it is attached; and whether the badges, buttons, etc., on the service dress will be those of the Regular battalion, or whether a special pattern may be adopted.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND,): This battalion is permitted, under the instructions issued in Circular Memorandum 49 to the County Associations, to retain as walking-out dress the distinctive uniform which

    93
    it wore as a Volunteer battalion. Applications to introduce changes in the walking-out dress would be submitted by the County Association concerned, and in this case no such submission has been made. The service dress of the Territorial Force must for obvious military reasons correspond to that of the Regular Army. Applications to adopt special badges and buttons are dealt with on their merits.
    MR. RICHARDSON: Will the battalion be allowed to retain the name of the Robin Hoods?
    MR. ACLAND: That is a matter for the Association to make application about.

    Murder of a Dacca Student.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is able to give any official information regarding the murder of a Dacca student by his fellow students and the cause of this occurrence.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): According to the information received by the Secretary of State, the murdered student was the principal witness in respect of a charge of kidnapping brought against the head of a political association, of which he was an ex-member. It is thought that his connection with this charge supplied the motive for the crime.

    Royal Indian Marine.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India is aware of the dissatisfaction on the part of the first, second, and third-grade clerks of the Royal Indian Marine with their conditions of service, and of the fact that during the last ten years their petitions to the Government of India Marine Department and to the Viceroy praying for the provision of a compassionate family pension in the event of loss of life on duty, for an increase of pay, and a set of special leave and pension rules have been refused; that the request of the clerks for the
    94
    provision of a compassionate family pension in the event of their meeting with death in the execution of duty was sent with the recommendation of the director of the Royal Indian Marine in November, 1901, to the Marine Department of the Government of India, which, however, refused to entertain it, although under the provisions of the Indian Marine Act of 1887 these clerks were made subject to the strict discipline, penalties, and risk of combatant service, and that while the pay of the gunners and carpenters in the Royal Indian Marine has recently been raised, the pay of the clerks has remained unchanged, while though in a combatant service they are deprived of the privileges of the Marine regulations, being governed by the Civil Service regulations in the particulars of leave and pension; and whether, having regard to the fact that these clerks are chiefly natives and Catholics from Goa and that the branches of the Indian Marine of similar rank, whose members are in enjoyment of greater privileges, are chiefly composed of Europeans and Protestants, the Secretary of State for India will consider the propriety of the appointment of a commission to inquire into the grievance of these clerks.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has no information on the subject but he will make inquiry.

    Reforms in India.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can state the date upon which the Secretary of State will explain the reforms contemplated for India; what opportunity this House will have of becoming acquainted with them; and when they will actually come into force.
    SIR H. COTTON: At the same time may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, when the Secretary of State makes his statement regarding the reforms in India foreshadowed in His Majesty's gracious proclamation, a simultaneous statement will be made in this House; and whether this House will be afforded an opportunity for discussing the statement made.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I will answer this Question and that of the hon. Member for Nottingham on the same subject together. I am unable at present to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham on Thursday last.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Does that mean that this House will be dependent for information on the debate in another place?
    MR. BUCHANAN: It merely means that I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave last Thursday.
    SIR H. COTTON: Will this House be allowed no opportunity of discussing the question?
    MR. BUCHANAN: I have not said that.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to state whether this House will have an opportunity of hearing the proposals of the Secretary of State?
    MR. BUCHANAN: No, Sir.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are we to understand that we are only to get our information about India from the House of Lords?
    MR. BUCHANAN: No, Sir, you are not to understand that.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am afraid I do understand it.

    British Emigrants.
    MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the names of those Colonies and Dependencies which insist upon an emigrant from Great Britain having in his possession a certain minimum sum in cash; and what are the respective minimum amounts in each case.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): Im-
    96
    migrants into Canada landing before 1st January, 1909, are required to be in possession of at least 25 dollars; immigrants landing between 1st January and 15th February, 1909, must be in possession of at least 50 dollars, immigrants landing after the latter date must be in possession of 25 dollars. Immigrants into the Cape of Good Hope must be in possession of £20. Immigrants into the Transvaal must have a similar sum or a promise in writing from some employer of repute of immediate employment on arrival. In the case of the East African Prtectorate an immigrant must satisfy the authorities that he has visible means of support, or he may be required to deposit £50.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any colony other than Canada compulsorily expropriates immigrants who have been in the Colony nearly two years because they are out of employment?
    COLONEL SEELY: I do not think that arises out of the Question.
    MR. R. DUNCANasked whether there was any difference in the sum required in the case of a British subject and an immigrant of any other nationality.
    COLONEL SEELYasked for notice of the Question.
    MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he will state which Colonies or Dependencies, if any, forbid the entry of British emigrants who are under contracts of service to employers in such Colonies and Dependencies.
    COLONEL SEELY: The entrance of immigrants under a contract to perform manual labour into Autralia is forbidden unless the contract has been approved by the Minister for External Affairs. The circumstances in which such approval must be given, and the penalty imposed on an immigrant landing before approval has been given are laid down in the Commonwealth Act, No. 19, of 1905,

    97
    the text of which is printed on pages 52 and 53 of the "Emigration Statutes and General Handbook," issued by the Emigrants' Information Office.

    California (Trinidad) Water Rate.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether a memorial has been received signed by 104 proprietors, residing at California village, in the ward of Savonetta, Couva, Trinidad, protesting against the action of the Colonial Government in imposing water rates and enforcing the payment of the same upon a section of the taxpayers of the town of Couva and the village of California without giving them, as an equivalent for such payment, any water; and, if so, can he state what action has been taken in the matter.
    COLONEL SEELY: NO, Sir; the Memorial has not been received at the Colonial Office.

    Trinidad Indentured Immigrants.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that nearly all sugar and several cocoa estates in Trinidad keep a special book with the object of evading the clause of the Immigration Ordinance which refuses additional immigrants when 70 per cent. of the adult males indentured have failed to earn 3s. 6d. a week; whether these special books show indentured immigrants as earning considerably more than they really do; whether the inspector of immigrants and his assistants are aware of the existence of these books; and, if so, can he state what action, if any, the Government intend to take to see that the conditions laid down by the Immigration Ordinance are complied with.
    COLONEL SEELY: The section of the Trinidad Ordinance to which my hon. friend refers (Section 70) requires that if 30 per cent. of the adult male immigrants have, during the year, earned a less amount of wages than will give an average for each of sixpence for every day during the twelve months, it shall not be lawful for the protector to accept any applications for immigrants in respect
    98
    of the plantation in question for the year next ensuing, subject to the power of the Governor to give relief for due cause shown. The Secretary of State is unaware that any such special books are kept as my hon. friend indicates, but he will make inquiry on the subject if my hon. friend so desires.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: Will the hon. Gentleman let me know the result of the investigation?
    COLONEL SEELY: If my hon. friend desires, I will inquire and communicate with him.

    Alleged Flogging of Zulus.
    MR. LEHMANN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have any information respecting the progress of the investigation which, on 18th September last, Sir M. Nathan reported to be then proceeding into the allegations that had been made by Miss Colenso as to the flogging of Zulus; and has the attention of the Secretary of State been called to the letters which were addressed by her to the Natal officials on this subject, dated 3rd September, 3rd, 5th, and 20th ultimo, in the last of which she represents its urgency to the Attorney-General of Natal, on the ground that the recent thrashings and threatenings of Zulus under martial law have a vital bearing on much of the alleged evidence against Dinizulu.
    COLONEL SEELY: I regret that the reply to our telegraphic inquiry has not yet been received.

    Dinizulu.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state upon what charges Dinizulu has been indicted; and whether any of the charges for which he was arrested and upon which he was committed for trial have not been proceeded with; and, if so, which they are.
    COLONEL SEELY: A copy of the indictment has now been received. It contains twenty-three counts charging

    99
    the prisoner with various treasonable offences, but not with murder. I will lay it with other Papers at once.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Are there no charges beside those of high treason?
    COLONEL SEELY: The hon. Member had better wait until I lay the document, as a lengthy answer is involved.
    MR. MACKARNESS: When will it be laid?
    COLONEL SEELY: I have said at once.

    Expedition against the Nigerian Munshis.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can inform the House whether any sanction has been given by the Secretary of State to a suggested military expedition against the Munshis in Nigeria, or whether the policy previously accepted by the Colonial Office on the advice of the chief authorities of Southern and Northern Nigeria is to continue.
    COLONEL SEELY: No military expedition against the Munshis has been suggested or sanctioned. In accordance with settled policy steps are being taken to extend the area of our effective control with a view to ensuring the peace and good government of the country; but there has been no change in policy nor is any in contemplation.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether the expedition would receive military support.
    COLONEL SEELY: Certainly. In accordance with what has been done we endeavoured to extend our effective control to prevent internecine warfare, but there is no fresh policy. Of course, if force is used against the expedition, force must be used n reply, but special instructions have been given to avoid the use of force by every possible means.

    Russia and Persia—Colonel Liakhoffs Position.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary
    100
    of State for Foreign Affairs whether Colonel Liakhoff, who led the Cossacks in the destruction of the Parliament buildings, has just been exhorting his Cossacks to destroy the constitution and win the loot of Tabris; and whether in view of the fact that the honour of Great Britain is involved by reason of the Anglo-Russian Convention, he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I do not follow the argument of the last part of the Question; and I cannot see that any obligation rests upon us in consequence of the Convention to interfere in the internal affairs of Persia. But, in any case, as I have received no information which leads me to think that there is any probability of Colonel Liakhoff's having made any such statement, and as I do not credit the report of it, it does not seem necessary for any one to take any steps.
    DR. RUTHERFORDasked whether in view of the fact that Colonel Liakhoff destroyed the Parliamentary buildings his retention of the position of adviser to the Shah was consistent with the dignity of the latter.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: For whatever action Colonel Liakhoff took in the summer responsibility rests between him and the Shah. I do not see that any responsibility rests upon any outside Power.
    MR. LYNCH: Is it not a fact that Colonel Liakhoff is an officer in the active service of Russi
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The hon. Member has asked that Question very often before.
    MR. LYNCH: No, no.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Yes, the hon. Member asked it in the summer. Colonel Laikhoff is under the orders of the Shah and not of the Russian Government.

    North German Essen Railway.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any information has now been obtained as to whether the main line from Essen to the North and West Coasts of Germany had for some time past been reserved, exclusively, for the carriage of Government goods, chiefly armaments, so that ordinary trade was sent by a longer route; and, if so, is this rule still in force.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I can learn of no foundation whatever for the rumour alluded to by the hon. Member.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Is my right hon. friend aware that articles have appeared in the German papers and complaints have been made by German manufacturers on account of this monopoly of the line?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have not seen those articles. I understood from the Question on the Paper that what my hon. friend wanted was that I should make independent inquiries to ascertain whether the statement was true. I have made such inquiries, and I cannot obtain any information to show that it is true.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Egyptian Provincial Councils.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the draft law amending the constitution of provincial councils in Egypt and enlarging their powers has yet reached the final shape in which it is proposed that it shall be submitted to the Egyptian Legislative Council, in accordance with hopes held out by the British Agent in Cairo on page 4 of his Report for 1907 (Egypt, No. 1, 1908); and whether it is still intended that this step shall be taken in the course of the current year.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The draft decree mentioned by the hon. Member
    102
    was duly passed by the Council of Ministers, and has already been submitted to the Legislative Council.

    The Persian Parliament.
    MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the convocation of the Persian Parliament or as to the nature of the assembly which the Shah proposes to set up.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am informed that the Shah has issued a rescript declaring that he does not intend to convoke a Medjliss at all. I can only repeat that this is entirely contrary to the advice which has been given by both the British and Russian Governments in the interest of the maintenance of order in Persia. It is, therefore, a step for the consequences of which the responsibility must rest entirely upon the Shah.
    MR. HART-DAVIES: Have any representations been made to the Shah as to his responsibility?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I stated in reply to the previous Question that advice has been given.

    Russia and Persian Territory.
    MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government have recently issued a declaration to the effect that Russia will in no circumstances occupy the slightest portion of Persian territory, and that no Russian troops will cross the frontier unless, with England's approval, it may be found indispensable to send a small detachment to protect the lives and properties of foreigners; and what was the form of this declaration.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not aware that any such declaration has been issued, nor do I think it could be expected in the form put in the Question.

    International Naval Conference.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for

    103
    Foreign Affairs, in view of the approaching deliberations of an International Naval Conference on the laws of maritime warfare between representatives of this country and those of ten mainly military Powers, whether he can assure the House that this country shall not be committed to the acceptance of any alteration, modification, or new interpretation of any part of those laws except with the consent of Parliament.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot give any pledge except that any conclusions come to by the Conference on points of International Law will be laid before Parliament before it is asked to pass the legislation which will be necessary, as I understand, to enable His Majesty's Government to ratify the Prize Court Convention.
    MR. BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish the House to understand that, in certain conceivable circumstances, this country may find itself committed to a reduction of its maritime power without the knowledge or consent of Parliament?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Of course all responsibility for executive action which does not require legislation rests with the Government.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the nine Powers which have accepted the invitation of His Majesty's Government to take part in the International Naval Conference, meeting in London on 1st December, are the only Powers to which such an invitation has been addressed; and, if not, can he say what other Powers were invited, and with what results in each case.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative.

    International Trade—Professor Marshall's Pamphlet.
    MR. BONAR LAW: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Paper on International Trade, by Professor Marshall, just published as a Parliamentary
    104
    Paper, was written at the request of the Treasury in 1903; and, if so, whether he will invite an economist who is opposed to the system of free imports to write a Memorandum on the same subject, so that this country may have the opportunity, with the sanction and at the expense of the Government, of studying a scientific examination of the question from both sides.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): As regards the first part of the Question, I think I cannot do better than refer the hon. Member to the letter from Mr. Marshall which appeared in The Times of yesterday, in which Mr. Marshall explained the origin of the Memorandum and the causes which led to its publication. The Memorandum was prepared for the late Government and was only issued owing to the request of the hon. Member, and I think it would be establishing an undesirable precedent if, by inviting another economist to furnish a rejoinder, I were to initiate a controversy at the public expense.
    MR. BONAR LAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the point in regard to which I challenged him is not even referred to in Professor Marshall's Memorandum?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think that is so. I only referred to the document to quote from it, and I was bound by the Rules of the House, if requested to do so, to lay it on the Table and publish it.
    MR. BONAR LAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I made no demand for the document? The right hon. Gentleman made a statement on the subject.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a speech.
    MR. BONAR LAW: May I put it in this way? If I can convince the right hon. Gentleman—[Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: That is commencing a hypothetical question.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman with reference to that part of his Answer which says that the Paper was prepared at the request of the late Government, whether he is not aware that it was prepared for an individual Member of the late Government, and was not circulated to the late Government, and was not left on record at the Treasury by the Minister for whom it was prepared.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is certainly not my information, and if the Members of the bench opposite want the whole of the record of the transaction I can easily publish it, but I can only do that on their responsibility.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My information is that it is not a record of the late Ministry, and was not circulated to members of the late Government. It was not left on record.

    Pension Officers.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the sections of the Old-Age Pensions Act under which power has been taken to appoint two classes of pension officers for each pension district; whether he is aware that throughout the entire Act the reference is to the pension officer, and not to the pension officers, for each district, and that the same language is not repeated in the definition clause of the Treasury Regulations; and whether, in view of the fact that this duplication of officials must involve expense and delay that might have been avoided, he will take counsel's opinion as to its legality.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Pension officers are appointed by the Treasury under Section 8 (4), which provides that the Treasury may appoint such number of these officers as they think fit to act for such areas as they direct. "Pension officer" is defined in the Regulations to mean the pension officer to whom any claim or question is referred. I see no reason to doubt the legality of these arrangements, nor does it seem to me that any other scheme would prove more economical.

    Pension Applicants' Characters.
    MR. BARNES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that papers are being issued to tradesmen in the South of London from the pension officer of the Inland Revenue Office asking for information concerning the characters of applicants for old-age pensions, and as to whether they always worked according to their ability to support those dependent upon them; is there anything in the instructions to justify such inquiries; and will he see that pension officers are prevented in future from bringing discredit on the Old-Age Pensions Act.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is the statutory duty of the pension officer to satisfy himself that a claimant is not subject to disqualification under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act, and, under Nos. 5 and 6 of the Instructions to pension officers as to investigation of claims, which form the Second Schedule of the Regulations, he is authorised to reduce to writing any question which he desires to put to any person, and is required to take all reasonable steps to obtain the best evidence and information which it is reasonably possible to obtain and to make all such inquiries as appear to him necessary having regard to the circumstances of the case.
    MR. BARNES: Does this instruction apply to women applicants for pensions as to character?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It would certainly apply to all applicants for pensions.
    MR. BARNES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that pension officers are inquiring as to the character of applicants for pensions, notwithstanding that such applicants have been members of friendly societies for, in some cases, fifty years; and will he take steps to see that such officers be instructed to keep within the limits of the provisions of the Old-Age Pensions Act.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have received no complaints as to the way

    107
    in which pension officers are discharging their duties in the matter. If the hon. Member has a specific case in mind, I shall be happy to have it looked into if he will give me the particulars.

    Pension Regulations.
    MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for the translation of the Regulations with regard to old-age pensions into the Welsh language.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Both the Act and the Regulations have been translated into Welsh and are being printed by the Stationery Office. They will be published in a few days.
    MR. KETTLE: Will the same course be taken with regard to Irish speaking districts in Ireland?
    MR. WATT: And in Scotland also?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have had no application from either Scotland or Ireland. It has not been represented to me as an Irish grievance.

    Dinorwic Quarries.
    MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of men employed at the Dinorwic quarries, in the county of Carnarvon, for the year ending 31st December, 1907; how many were employed inside and outside the quarry, respectively; and what was the number of accidents reported during the same period, distinguishing those to men employed inside and outside the quarry.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The figures asked for are as follows: Employed inside, 1,114; employed outside, 1,711; total employed, 2,825. Fatal accidents reported, 4, all of which occurred to inside workers. Non-fatal accidents reported, 38, of which 32 occurred to inside workers.

    Stray Dogs in London.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
    108
    Home Department whether last year the Metropolitan Police handed over to the veterinary inspectors 12,018 dogs; what orders these veterinary inspectors have as to the disposal of these dogs, and by whose authority the orders are issued; and what precautions are taken to prevent these dogs being used for purposes of vivisection.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The number stated is correct. Detailed instructions to persons taking charge of dogs under the Act of 1906 are issued under the authority of the Commissioner of Police, and are in strict compliance with the Act. Every veterinary surgeon when appointed is required to give a formal undertaking that he will not sell or hand over any dog for the purpose of vivisection.
    MR. SMEATON: Is there any statutory penalty for infringement of this regulation?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not sure.

    Explosions of Inflammable Liquids.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give the number of deaths and injuries and the amount of damage done to property during the past three years owing to the bursting or exploding of vessels containing inflammable liquids; whether the Government is aware that there are mechanical devices compulsory by law in several countries in Europe which secure complete immunity from such explosions; and whether, in view of the increase in the use of petrol or other inflammable liquids, the Government are willing to amend the Petroleum Act of 1903 to make the use of safety devices compulsory in this country.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have no official information as to the number and nature of such accidents, though I have reason to believe that the number of deaths at any rate is extremely small, nor have I any information as to the legal requirement of safety devices in foreign countries. I have had in view for some time the appointment of a small committee to consider what steps can be

    109
    taken to diminish the dangers attendant on the storage and conveyance of petrol. This committee, as I stated yesterday, would consider, inter alia, the use of improved mechanical devices.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Are there no figures as to accidents supplied by reliable authorities?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I will inquire.
    MR. P. BARLOW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last three months there have been thirteen deaths and sixteen cases of personal injury?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of it.

    Royal Procession at Oxford Circus.
    MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on the occasion of the passage down Oxford Street of the Royal procession on the 18th instant, the arrangements made by the police at Oxford Circus for crossing that thoroughfare were so defective that persons were obliged, with the consent of the police but without their assistance, to push themselves across as best they could; and will he arrange that in future on such occasions passages shall be arranged at convenient intervals for persons on foot and shall be kept open by the police.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. I have received no complaints on the subject, and the Commissioner of Police informs me that the arrangements made were as effective as possible. It is obvious that on such occasions some inconvenience must be caused both to vehicular traffic and pedestrians, which no police arrangements can prevent.

    Treatment of Young Persons.
    SIR GEORGE KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take into consideration the establishment in connection with the Home Office of a consultative committee, similar to the consultative committee at the Board of Education, to which matters relating to children and young persons may be
    110
    referred by him; and whether such a committee can be established without legislation.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have considered my hon. friend's suggestion, but I do not see my way to adopting it. I am always able, without the formal constitution of a Standing Committee, to obtain the friendly advice and assistance of those best qualified to advise on any question relating to children and young persons that may from time to time arise—and in the case of any question of unusual difficulty or complexity, it is always open to me to appoint, ad hoc, a committee of specially qualified persons.

    Bradford Goods Guards, Hours of Duty.
    MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that among the goods guards employed by the Midland Railway Company at Bradford there occurred, from 10th September last to 8th October last, sixty-four cases of men working periods varying from sixty to sixty-five hours per week to eighty-five to ninety hours per week, and that on 15th September last three local goods guards were dismissed; and will he say what action he has taken, or proposes to take, under the Railways Regulation Act, 1893, to deal with these cases.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): In connection with the dismissal of certain goods guards on the Midland Railway my attention was drawn by my hon. friend the Member for Derby to the overtime worked by other goods guards at various places on the railway in September. On inquiry I ascertained that the whole matter was under consideration by the Conciliation Boards, established under the agreement of last November, I am glad to learn that on the 6th instant the Central Conciliation Board on the Midland Railway came to a settlement upon all outstanding questions relating to goods guards, and in view of this settlement no further action on the part of the Board of Trade would seem to be necessary.
    MR. CLYNES: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman get

    111
    further information regarding the excessive hours of duty?
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid the matter had been discussed fully, and a satisfactory settlement arrived at, and he had not, therefore, thought it necessary to go into special details.

    Imports of Slates.
    MR. TOMKINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the total amount of slates used in this country has been imported from abroad in each of the years 1902 to 1907, inclusive.
    MR. CHURCHILL: If the annual consumption of slates in the United Kingdom be taken as equivalent to the production of each year with the imparts added and the exports deducted, it appears that the proportion of imported slates to the total consumption so ascertained, was about 13 per cent. in 1902, 19 per cent. in 1903, 14 per cent. in 1904, 12 per cent. in 1905, and 8 per cent. in both 1906 and 1907. In making this calculation, account has been taken of the imports and exports of roofing sates only, no separate information being available with regard to any imports or exports of slate in other forms.
    MR. TOMKINSONasked if the marked increase in imports was not in the period of the Penrhyn strike.
    MR. CROOKS: Lock-out.
    MR. CHURCHILL: That probably in the case.
    MR. BONAR LAW: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply the principle he has adopted in the case of slates to other classes of goods?
    MR. CHURCHILL: That is rather a complicated question, which I should like to study.
    MR. ELLIS DAVIES: What proportion of the slates was exported to British Colonies?
    MR. CHURCHILLasked for notice.

    Hammersmith Bridge Embankment.
    MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in reference to the number of deaths from accidental drowning on the Surrey side of Hammersmith Bridge, he is aware that the Borough of Hammersmith and the Urban Council of Barnes have each offered to pay one-third of the cost of erecting a protective wall or railing to make the embankment safe; and whether, in view of the refusal of the Thames Conservancy to spend any money for this purpose, he can take any action to procure the consent of the Conservancy and the early undertaking of necessary protective works.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am informed by the Thames Conservancy Board that they have received and carefully considered a proposal made to them by the Barnes Urban District Council that a fence should be erected at the place referred to, the cost being defrayed in equal shares by the Council, the Corporation of Hammersmith, and the Thames Conservancy Board. This proposal the Conservancy Board have felt themselves unable to accede to, as the execution of protective works on the river banks is not, in their opinion, a duty with which they are charged, though they are ready, as I informed the hon. Member on 15th July last, to give the local authority permission to construct protective works provided these do not interfere with the use of the towpath or navigation. The matter does not appear to be one in regard to which the Board of Trade possess any powers.

    Electric Lighting Companies Accounts.
    MR. G. A. HARDY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to his promise carefully to watch the operation of the Board of Trade arrangements for the audit of the accounts of electric lighting companies, he has arrived at the conclusion that it is undesirable in the public interests that the same auditors shall continue to act in the dual capacity of Board of Trade and shareholders' auditors; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the Board of Trade's own Return showed that this practice was pursued in no

    113
    less than forty-nine cases, he will consider the desirability of ending it in the new appointments that are about to be made.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. I do not intend to appoint any of the shareholders' auditors to act as official auditors of the accounts of the same electric lighting companies for the present year.

    Welsh Trade Statistics.
    MR. WALTER ROCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can in future in the Board of Trade statistics publish the statistics for Wales separately.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I will consider how far it may be possible to meet the views of my hon. friend, and will communicate with him further on the subject.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: Will goods sent from Wales into England be treated as exports?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Old-Age Pensions—Poor Relief Disqualification.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is yet in a position to say whether an old-age pension may be given to a woman who is fully qualified to receive a pension but whose husband is in receipt of outdoor Poor Law relief.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): If the relief were given to the husband solely for his own support, the wife would not, I think, be thereby disqualified.

    Distress in the Cockermouth Union.
    SIR JOHN RANDLES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there has been any grant for the relief of distress at Workington or Maryport following applications from these districts; is there any possibility of his taking steps to prevent persons who have accepted test work at the stoneyard from the Cockermouth Board
    114
    of Guardians under special, temporary, and exceptional circumstances due to unemployment being disfranchised; and whether his attention has been called to the fact that the special committee on distress due to unemployment in 1895, of which he was a member, recommended that persons so relieved should not be disfranchised.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. There is no distress committee for either of the places mentioned, so that no payment could be made to them from the grant at the present time. I have, however, given consideration to the circumstances of both places, have made inquiries with regard to them, and I am now in communication with the local authorities as respects the distress in them. Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the suggestion in the second part of the Question. I am aware of the Report of the Committee of 1895, but I am afraid I could not hold out any promise of legislation on the subject at the present time.

    Lancashire Technical School—Work for the Unemployed.
    MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that technical and secondary schools at Earlston, Eccles, Middleton, Morecombe, Lancaster, Waterford, Waterloo-with-Seaforth, and Walkden have been approved by the local education authority for the County of Lancaster at various dates between October, 1906, and May, 1908; whether he is aware that the cost of building these schools with the extensions will amount to upwards of £167,000 but that progress cannot be made until the sanction of the Local Government Board is obtained; and if, in view of the prevailing unemployment in Lancashire and in the interest of education, he can expedite the departmental sanction.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the facts in this matter. The limitation on the amount which the town or urban district councils can raise for purposes of secondary education prevents their being able to borrow the sums required

    115
    without some assistance from the county council, and considerable, difficulties have arisen in connection with the arrangements to be made for this purpose between the county council and the other councils. I have long been in correspondence with the county council with regard to the matter. I am about to address a further communication to them on the subject, and I trust that this will effect a settlement of the difficulties to which I have referred. I will then at once deal with the applications for sanction to the borrowing of the sums required.
    In reply to a further Question by Lord BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley),
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid they were rapidly approaching a settlement of this rather tangled question.

    Treatment of Remand Prisoners.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of a girl who, having been charged at the Marylebone Police Court with a petty offence was sent to a remand home, where, after being detained for a week, and on the day preceding her liberation by the magistrate under the Probation of Offenders Act, she was taken downstairs by a woman at the Home, who cropped off the girl's hair-close to her head; what and where is this Home; what is the name of the woman who committed the assault; and what does he propose to do in the matter.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have made inquiry as to this case. It occurred at the Pentonville Road Remand Home, established by the Metropolitan Asylums Board. It appears that the girl's hair was cut off by the house mother of the girls branch of the Home by direction of the visiting medical officer on account of its verminous condition. The medical officer explains that he gave the direction as he had been informed that the girl was to go to an Industrial Home. Had he known that this was not correct, he would not have given the order for the hair to be removed. In the circumstances
    116
    it does not seem to me necessary that I should take any further action in the matter.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the authorities of the Home, and specially to the medical officer, that in future no girl's hair shall be cut unless the magistrate has actually made an order?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I will bear the suggestion in mind. Everything that can be done to avoid a repetition of this Rape of the Lock will be done.

    Special Committees for Unemployment
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the Unemployed Workmen Act, by Section 2 (3), peremptorily required all county councils and county borough councils, wherever no distress committee was established, to appoint special committees to obtain information as to the conditions of employment, and to promote or establish labour exchanges, he will state in what counties and county boroughs such special committees have been established; whether the Local Government Board has ever called the attention of county and county borough councils to their obligations under this subsection; and whether he will present a Return giving a summary of the statistical and other information obtained by the special committees thus constituted, and by any labour exchanges which they have promoted.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Shortly after the passing of the Act the Local Government Board called the attention of these councils to the requirements of subsection (3) of Section 2, and they subsequently communicated with them with special reference to labour exchanges and employment registers. Returns have not been received as to these cases. I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to give my hon. friend the particulars for which he asks.
    MR. ALDEN: When is it likely we shall have the information?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: If I can bring any pressure to bear on the county councils to hurry it on I will do so.

    Customs and the Coastguard.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state whether, when the coastguard service is transferred to the Customs, men in the former service will be promoted to higher positions in the Customs waterguard without the usual examination in force for such promotions; and whether he will consider the possibility of recruiting the positions in the upper and lower sections of preventive officers from the existing waterguard staff, with a view to somewhat relieving the existing stagnation of promotion among both the preventive officers and preventive men graders.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): A Bill will be necessary to give effect to any amalgamation, and under these circumstances I would prefer not to make any definite statement on the subject.

    Stationery for Government Offices.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has decided that only ink made in Ireland shall be used in Irish Government Departments; and whether he could arrange that the blotting-paper used for all Government work should all be of either British or Irish manufacture
    MR. HAROLD COX: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange that goose quills shall be substituted for steel pens throughout the service in order to encourage small holders to keep geese?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that only ink made in Ireland is used in Irish Government Departments. The blotting-paper used for all Government work is made in the United Kingdom.

    Small Holdings.
    MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in order to expedite the acquisition of
    118
    land under the Small Holdings Act, the Board will be prepared to specify some reasonable period of time at the expiry of which it will expect the requirements of all suitable applicants, whose applications were made immediately after the passing of the Act, to have been satisfied.
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The suggestion will be borne in mind, but the Board do not think the time has yet come to carry it out.
    MR. BENNETT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at a recent conference of the county councils Lord Carrington described it as a most admirable suggestion?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I am not aware of that.
    MR. MORRELL: Is the hon. Member aware that under Section 3 of the Act if the Commissioners and the Board of Agriculture were fully to carry out their duties it would be impossible for a county council to delay carrying out a scheme for more than six months?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.
    MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that inquiries held under the Small Holdings Act have revealed the existence of a large demand for land in places where such demand cannot be satisfied locally owing to the prevalent system of cultivation being already one of small holdings, more particularly in parts of Wales, Lancashire, and Somerset; and whether the Board will consider the desirability of so amending the Act as to give to a central authority power to create opportunities of land holding for persons who are willing to move out of their own districts.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board are aware that there are difficulties in acquiring land in those parts

    119
    of the country where a large number of small holdings already exist, but no amendment of the Act is necessary to enable county councils to provide holdings for applicants who are prepared to move outside their own county.

    Organisation of Agricultural Enterprise.
    MR. BENNETT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board would urge upon the various county councils the importance of appointing in each county an expert lecturer and organiser for the purpose of establishing co-operation and other methods of agricultural enterprise amongst small holders; and whether the Board of Agriculture could see its way to render financial assistance towards this object from the funds at his disposal.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board fully recognise the importance of this matter and are considering the whole question as to the best means to be adopted to encourage co-operation among small holder?, and the suggestion of the hon. Member will not be lost sight of.

    Counties without Small Holding Schemes.
    MR. ROBERT HARCOURT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what counties in England and Wales have neither acquired land nor submitted schemes under the Small Holdings Act.
    SIR EDWARD STRACKEY: The counties which have neither acquired land nor submitted schemes are:—England: Cumberland, Derby, Hereford, Lancashire. London, Middlesex, Monmouth, Suffolk West, Surrey, Sussex East, Sussex West, Warwick, York (North Riding). Wales: Brecon, Cardigan, Carnarvon, Flint, Glamorgan, Merioneth, Pembroke. I should add, however, that many of them are in active negotiation for the acquisition of land.

    Small Holdings Act—Defaulting Counties.
    MR. ROBERT HARCOURT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in
    120
    the opinion of the Board, any county councils have failed to make adequate use of their powers under the Small Holdings Act; and, if so, whether it is proposed to take steps to declare them in default.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Every county council has practically completed its preliminary inquiries, and is now in active negotiation for land. Whenever desirable the Board make strong representations in favour of greater expedition and energy, and they will not fail to take any further action that may prove necessary.
    MR. MORRELL: Has any county council yet forwarded a Report to the Commissioners to the effect that it is desirable to proceed?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Whenever the Board thinks that a county council is not taking sufficiently active steps Commissioners are sent down.

    Small Holdings in Hampshire.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, how many applications for small holdings have been made; how much land has been applied for; and how many small holdings have been created up to date in each division of Hampshire; whether any scheme of small holdings in Hampshire has yet been reported to or approved by the Board of Agriculture; will he state the names of the members of the committee or committees (if any such have been constituted) charged with the administration of the Act in each division of the county; and whether any of the Commissioners have yet visited any of the divisions of Hampshire; and, if so, what Report have they made to the Board as to the way in which the Act is being administered.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Five hundred and thirteen applications have been made for 7,579 acres, but no small holdings have been actually provided as yet. The Board have received and approved one scheme. Six visits to the

    121
    county have been made by the Commissioners and inspectors, and they are satisfied that the county council are doing their best to administer the Act. I shall be pleased to send my hon. friend a list giving the names of the small Holdings Committee.
    MR. SMEATON: Is it not the fact that up to the present time only 15 acres have been actually distributed?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: That is so, but I hope more land will soon be distributed.
    MR. MORRELL: And although 513 persons have been waiting for eleven-months, has no Report been made that it is desirable to prepare a scheme?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: We are satisfied that up till now the county council has done its utmost; otherwise we should take steps.
    MR. MORRELL: Is it not the duty of the Commissioners as soon as they are aware there is a demand for land to report that fact?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is arguing the matter rather than seeking information.

    Suggested Increase of Inspectorate.
    MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the number of applications which have been received under the Small Holdings Act and the number of those still waiting to be dealt with, the Board will now appoint another Commissioner and as many more inspectors as may be necessary in order to insure a more rapid and vigorous administration of the Act.
    SIR E. STRACHEY: he Board are now considering what additional staff is necessary to cope with the work arising under the Act.
    MR. MORRELL: Is it not the fact that, as now constituted, the Commissioners are really unable to carry
    122
    out the work imposed on them by the Act?
    SIR E. STRACHEY: I do not think so at the present moment. My hon. friend may rely on it that the President of the Board, if he thinks more staff is required, will not fail to make the necessary appointments.
    MR. MACKARNESS: How many inspectors are there now?
    SIR E. STRACHEY: Six.

    Small Holdings in Oxfordshire and Staffordshire.
    MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will obtain from the Oxfordshire County Council full particulars of all approved applications under the Small Holdings Act according to the parishes in which the applicants live, showing name, address, and occupation of applicant, date of application, amount of land applied for, date at which the application was approved, and subsequent proceedings; and also particulars of all rejected applications with the reasons for the rejection in each case.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: At the same time may I ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will obtain from the Staffordshire County Council particulars of all applications approved by them according to the parishes in which the applicants live, showing name, address, and occupation of applicant, date of application, amount of land applied for, date at which application was approved, and subsequent proceedings; and also particulars of all rejected applications, with the reasons for the rejection in each case.
    SIR E. STRACHEY: The Board are not prepared to ask for the Returns suggested. They would involve a great deal of labour without any corresponding advantage. Every applicant is informed whether he is approved or not,

    123
    and the Board are always ready to inquire into any specific complaints. Our experience affords no justification for the suggestion that applicants are, as a rule, rejected on inadequate grounds.
    MR. BENNETT: Can the hon. Gentleman say how it is that some of the applicants in Oxfordshire whose applications have been either ignored or not approved have not been notified of the fact?
    MR. MACKAENESS: And is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Berkshire applications are refused without reasons being given to the applicants?
    SIR E. STRACHEY: If that is so the applicants should complain to the county council.
    MR. MORRELL: Is it not the duty of the Commissioners to ascertain the extent of the demand? Do they do that?
    SIR E. STRACHEY: They do it through the county council, and the Board do not interfere so long as they think the county council are acting in a proper manner.

    Small Holdings—Suggested Appointment of Local Inspectors.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the number of applications received from certain districts and the delay which has already occurred, the Board will consider the advisability of appointing local inspector in all such districts to assist the Commissioners and the county councils in ascertaining and satisfying the demand.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board are now considering what additional staff is necessary to cope with the work arising under the Act.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: When are the Board likely to come to a definite conclusion?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: After due consideration.

    Small Holdings.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any case has yet occurred in which the Commissioners have reported to the Board that it is desirable that a scheme should be made and the Board have forwarded that report to the county council, as provided in Section 3 of the Small Holdings Act, so as to enable the Board, if the county council fail to take action, to direct the Commissioners without further delay themselves to prepare a scheme.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: No such case has yet arisen.
    MR. MORRELL: Under Section 2, subsection (3), is it not the duty of the Commissioners as soon as they are aware there is a demand for land to at once make a report to the Board?
    AN HON. MEMBER: Will the hon. Gentleman give the Commissioners instructions on that point?
    MR. SPEAKER: Really hon. Members who have so many Questions to ask should put them on the Paper. They are of a highly technical character, and it is not fair to a Minister who is answering for a Minister in the other House not to give him full notice.

    Small Holdings in Monmouthshire.
    MR. THOMAS RICHARDS: 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 the fact that in the county of Monmouth 265 persons have applied for small holdings; that 113 of these have been approved; that is is estimated that 1,484 acres will be required to satisfy them; that none of the applicants have yet been provided for and no land acquired; and what steps he proposes to take.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board are aware of the position in Monmouth. One of their inspectors recently inspected a farm for which the

    125
    county council are negotiating, and the Board are satisfied that the county council intend to carry out the Act to the best of their ability.

    Scottish Education Bill.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he would state the various deputations from Scotland that have waited on him in connection with the Education (Scotland) Bill, giving the total number of such.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I have a record of sixteen deputations from Scotland which have waited upon me in connection with the Education (Scotland) Bill. The names of the various authorities represented by these deputations cannot conveniently be narrated in a verbal answer, but I will send the hon. Member a list of them.
    MR. PIRIE: How many of the deputations were due to the somewhat unparalled action of His Majesty's Government in changing the scheme of allocation originally proposed and indeed adopted on the Second Reading of the Bill?
    MR. SINCLAIR: My hon. friend knows that that is a matter of argument, and we do not take the same views on it.
    MR. PIRIE: I am not asking as to a matter of argument, but as to numbers of the deputation.
    MR. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of the cost to the ratepayers of these deputations?
    MR. SINCLAIR: That question should be addressed to the authorities concerned.
    MR. PIRIE: In view of the number of deputations, does the right hon. Gentleman still consider this Bill to be non-contentious?
    MR. SINCLAIR: It certainly is not a highly controversial Bill.
    MR. PIRIE: How many deputations are required to make a Bill contentious?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Scottish Public Meetings.
    MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his Department have issued lantern slides to be used at public meetings in Scotland; and, if so, under what Vote is such expenditure accounted for.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The reply is in the negative, but if the right hon. Member will inform me specifically to what he refers I shall be happy to make inquiries.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that slides have been used at Liberal meetings in the South of Scotland?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Irish Intermediate Education.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can obtain from the Intermediate Board a precise definition of the meaning they attach to the addition to Rule 49, which states that the exhibitions assigned to the literary course will be allotted equally between Divisions 1 and 2; does this refer to a minimum number of exhibitions only or has it another and, if so, what signification.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Commissioners of Intermediate Education inform me that the statement in Rule 49 refers to a minimum number of exhibitions only. There is nothing in the Rule to prevent the Commissioners from allotting additional, exhibitions to either division of the modern literary coarse if the number of students and the standards attained should justify the award of additional exhibitions.

    Mr. Fetherston's Milltown Ranch,
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state when Mr. Fetherston's ranch at Mill-town, near Castle-pollard, purchased by the Estates Commissioners, will be distributed.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are not at present in a position to say when the lands referred to will be distributed.

    Irish Land Purchase.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can, by reference to the number of vendors and mortgagees of estates sold and arranged to be sold under the Land Act of 1903 from the 1st November of that year to 1st November, 1908, who reside out of Ireland, estimate approximately the proportions of the aggregate price and bonus going to residents out of Ireland and the proportion going to residents in Ireland.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Land Commission have no information as to the proportions of the aggregate purchase money and bonus which have gone to residents in and outside Ireland, respectively.

    Pakenham Estate, Westmeath.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the interest of local peace and the success of their scheme for distributing the untenanted land on the Pakenham estate in Westmeath, the Estates Commissioners will reconsider the purpose ascribed to them of planting on that land persons objectionable to the community, such as bailiffs from other estates who should be provided for by their employers; and whether, in a matter affecting the pockets of the local ratepayers, a draft scheme of distribution will be submitted to the representatives of those ratepayers, and their views thereon considered.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners will carefully consider all the circumstances before deciding on the mode in which the untenanted land on this estate is to be dealt with, and will have due regard to any representations that may be submitted on behalf of the people of the locality. The reply to the concluding part of the Question is in the negative.
    MR. MOORE: Are we to understand the Estates Commissioners will give due regard to representations from the people of a locality denouncing
    128
    particular men as being bailiffs and prevent them having an allotment?
    MR. BIRRELL: Nothing of the kind, Sir.

    County Cavan Derelict Lands.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what was the date of the lodgment of objections by J. S. Winter and another and Samuel Saunderson, owners of untenanted land in County Cavan, to the compulsory acquisition of their derelict lands under the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907; and will he have the hon. Member for West Cavan supplied with a copy of the aforesaid objections.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that objections under Section 2 (1) of the Evicted Tenants Act were lodged against the compulsory acquisition of the lands of J. S. Winter, and another on 25th May and 6th June last. Objections to the acquisition of the lands of Samuel Saunderson were lodged on 25th and 28th of May last. Copies of such objections can be obtained from the Keeper of the Records of the Land Commission in the manner prescribed by the Statutory Rules.
    In reply to a further Question the right hon. Gentleman said copies of the objections could be obtained on making a preliminary payment.

    Martyn Estate, County Clare.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the tenants on the Martyn estate, County Clare, are still paying 3½ per cent. on the purchase money, although this money was paid over to the vendor since 1906; and if he can state why the tenants are asked still to pay more than the 3¼ per cent. arranged for under the purchase agreement.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that this estate was purchased by them for purposes of resale, and they hope to vest the holdings in the purchasing tenants at an early

    129
    date. The purchase money was advanced to the vendor in 1907. Until the holdings are vested in the tenants, they are liable for interest in lieu of rent at 3½ per cent., in accordance with the terms of their purchase agreements, and the provisions of Section 18 (1) of the Act.

    Curraheen Schools.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in spite of frequent representations on the subject, no proper facilities have been granted by the National Board of Education for the construction of new schools at Curraheen, Glenbeigh, to take the place of the existing Keelnabrack School which has been condemned as unsafe for use; and can he say what steps, if any, will be taken to have the new school built.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that a grant of two-thirds of the estimated cost of providing a new school at Curraheen for the pupils of the Keelnabrack School was sanctioned in April last, but the manager declined the offer upon the ground that, owing to the poverty of the district, he was unable to guarantee the remaining third. The Commissioners were not until recently in a position to consider an application for a larger grant, but they are now making investigations in connection with the manager's representations as to the poverty of the district, in order to determine whether a grant in excess of two-thirds of the cost of the new buildings can be allowed in this case.

    Ireland and the Unemployed Grant.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in how many cases have applications been made to the Local Government Board in Ireland for grants from the Parliamentary Vote under the Unemployed Workman Act; what grants have been made; and how many applications have been refused or postponed.
    MR. BIRRELL: Grants from the Parliamentary Vote in aid of expenses
    130
    under the Unemployed Workman Act can only be made to distress committees duly constituted under the Act. Applications have been received by the Local Government Board for such grants from the following districts in which committees have been, or are being, formed: Dublin, Belfast, Londonderry, Limerick, Drogheda, Kingstown, Ennis. The applications from the Dublin and Belfast Committees have been already acceded to. The Board are at present in correspondence with the other local authorities mentioned, with a view to securing sufficient information to enable them to deal with the applications. The Board have also received applications from districts which contain less than the minimum population prescribed for the establishment of separate distress committees under the Act. These applications cannot be entertained.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Why has not the application from Ennis been granted?
    MR. BIRRELL: We are supplying Ennis with the materials which will enable them to make out a case which I hope will receive ready acceptance.
    MR. KETTLE: Does the responsibility for making the grant rest with the Irish Local Government Board or the Treasury?
    MR. BIRRELL: With the Treasury.

    Pike Farm, North Tipperary.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the total amount of purchase money advanced to Mr. William Carroll, under the Ashbourne Act, to enable him to purchase from Mr. William Trench the lands known as the Pike farm, in Ballingarry, North Tipperary.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Land Commission inform me that on 8th August, 1890, an advance of £735 was made to Dalton Carroll for the purchase of a holding of 147 acres on the estate of William Thomas Trench, at Ballingarry, County Tipperary.

    Land Purchase in North Tipperary.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total area of the land that Mr. H. Davis Kenny, of Ballingarry, North Tipperary, has purchased with the assistance of the Land Commission, and what is the total amount of purchase-money that has been advanced by the Land Commissioners in favour of Mr. Davis Kenny.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Land Commission inform me that the total area purchased by Mr. Kenny under the Land Purchase Acts is 211 acres, and that the amount advanced to him was £3,000.
    MR. HOGAN: Did he purchase the interest under the Ashbourne Act?
    MR. BIRRELL: Really, I never heard of Mr. Kenny before.
    MR. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Mr. Kenny has been boycotted and the hunt broken up and he himself assaulted because the right hon. Gentleman would not afford him adequate protection?
    MR. REDDY: And have not the people the right to break up the hunt?
    MR. MOORE: No.
    MR. REDDY: Yes; the farmers have.

    Irish Cottage Industries.
    MR. MULDOON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the definition given to the words home and cottage industries, in Section 30 of the Act creating the Department, by the Law Officers in Ireland has operated to prevent the Department assisting some cottage industries within the spirit but outside the letter of the Law; and whether he proposes next session to secure an amending Bill to remedy this defect.
    MR. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affir-
    132
    mative. The second query is under consideration.

    Ireland and the Unemployed Grant.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any allocation has yet been made between Great Britain and Ireland of the Parliamentary Vote available under the Unemployed Workmen Act; and, if so, how much has been allocated to the separate use of Ireland.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not possible at present to allocate any definite sum to Ireland, as the information available with regard to the necessities of the several localities affected in the United Kingdom is not sufficient for the purpose. Every application for assistance is considered on its merits.
    MR. KETTLE: Is the right hon.. Gentleman aware that under the plan of allocation in 1906 Ireland got £11,000 while in 1907 when a different plan was introduced, she only got £4,500.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It looks as if Ireland got more than she was really entitled to in the first year.

    English Historical Monuments Commission.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that while other societies, such as the Royal Archæological Institute, the Royal Institute of British Architects, and the British Archæological Association, were each formally invited to submit names to serve on the English Historical Monuments Commission, no-such invitation has been sent to the Society of Antiquaries of London, which has thus no official representation on the Commission; and whether he can state the reason why the Society of Antiquaries has been ignored.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): As I was unaware who among the members of the societies referred to by the hon. and gallant Member was best suited to assist on the Royal Commission on Ancient Monuments, I invited these societies to submit

    133
    names to me. The prominent position of the Society of Antiquaries made it unnecessary for me to follow the same course in their case, and in accordance with the usual practice, I used my own discretion in the selection of members from that body to serve on the Commission. The fact that out of the eleven members of the Commission five are Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries—one of them having been President of the Society for many years—should, to my mind, be sufficient proof that neither in intention nor in practice has the Society of Antiquaries been ignored.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me have the names of the five members?
    MR. ASQUITH: Yes, they are well-known.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Can the Prime Minister tell us what the business will be on Friday?
MR. ASQUITH: On Friday we propose to submit to the House a Resolution for the allocation of time for the later stages of the Education Bill. When that is disposed of, we shall take up some of the smaller Bills.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 379.]
LUNACY BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 380.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A. (in respect of the Criminal Appeal (Amendment) [Lords] and of the White Phosphorus Matches Prohibition Bills);
134
Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Halpin; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bills); Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. T. P. O'Connor.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  MEAT MARKING (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To identify all imported meat, whether fresh or frozen, and to provide that it shall not be sold as native produce," presented by Mr. Field; supported by Mr. Hayden, Mr. Condon, and Mr. Farrell; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, next, and to be printed. [Bill 381.]

  ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the Bill which he asked leave to introduce was practically the same measure which had been before Parliament for a good many years. It was introduced on several occasions by Members representing Irish constituencies on behalf of the Irish Party, but he regretted to say that, owing to the difficulty which private Members found in making progress with their measure, hitherto this Bill had never got beyond the introduction stage. He was taking a perhaps somewhat unusual course in asking leave to say a few words in explanation of the Bill, but he thought that course was advisable in view of the fact that it had come to his knowledge that there had been a good deal of misrepresentation with regard to the scope and object of the measure. Its object was plain, simple, and explicit. It was to place the Catholic population on terms of equality with people of other denominations. That was the real object of the Bill. The Catholics claimed for themselves and their religion, equality; they asked for no more, and they certainly would be satisfied with no less. It might be a surprise to many Members of the House—he knew it was a surprise to a number of people outside—to know that people of the Catholic religion at the present time did not as a matter of fact enjoy equality with other denominations. The popular belief, he was sure, was that the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829

  135
  removed all grievances of which the Catholics could legitimately complain, and yet the real fact was that there still remained upon the Statute Book a considerable number of enactments which were not only irritating and unjust, but in their nature grossly insulting to the people of the Catholic faith, in this country. As a matter of fact, the so-called Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 itself contained several sections of the most offensive character with reference to the people of the Catholic religion. He had no time to deal in detail with the various enactments which it was proposed to repeal, which still existed in reference to Catholics, but by way of illustration he would refer the House to one or two sections of the Catholic Emancipation Act itself. From Sections 26 to 38 of the Act of 1829 called the Catholic Relief Act there were provisions of the most offensive character towards Catholics. For instance, there were provisions which made it an absolutely penal offence for Catholic clergymen to celebrate any of the rites or ceremonies of their religion, or even to wear the habits of their orders anywhere outside the Catholic places of worship or private houses; and Section 28 of the Act of 1829 frankly made the following declaration—
  "Whereas Jesuits and members of certain religious orders, convents, and societies of the Church of Rome, bound by monastic or other rules, are resident within the United Kingdom, and it is expedient to make provision for their gradual suppression and final prohibition within the United Kingdom, be it enacted."
  And then there was a series of sections of the most violent and insulting character aiming at the suppression of all these religious orders in the Catholic Church. There were provisions which made it obligatory on members of the Jesuit and other orders highly respected in this country to register themselves, to give notice of their numbers to the clerks of the peace in the various districts, and to send notices of their presence in England, to the Home Secretary, and in Ireland, to the Chief Secretary, in order that they might be registered, very much in the way in which ticket-of-leave men were. He was certain that there were no Members in the Horse belonging to any denomination at all who would refuse to admit that some of the best educational establish-
  136
  ments in this country were conducted by members of these very religious orders against which these penal enactments were in existence, and he was certain that no fair-minded man could feel surprise that a great deal of irritation and resentment was felt at this time of the world's history at the presence upon the Statute-book of England of provisions of this character. The answer might be made to him that, while it was true that these obnoxious and old-time provisions still remained, they were obsolete. They were told that they were dead letters, and were never put in force. Surely that was a greater reason for their removal from the Statute-book, because if they never intended to put these laws into force, there was certainly no reason whatever for retaining them, in view of the irritation which they caused to millions of people of a particular denomination throughout the whole of the Empire. In 1902 an application was made to a magistrate in London to put these laws into operation against certain Jesuit fathers in this city, and the magistrate, Mr. Kennedy, declared and quoted Sir James Stephen's "History of the Criminal Law" to show that these provisions had been treated as a dead letter. The King's Bench was appealed to, and the decision of the magistrate upheld. Mr. Justice Darling, in his judgment, said that whatever might have been the reasons for passing these statutes, which persecuted opinion and not acts, they were against the spirit and the genius of the age. Lord Mansfield said that, properly speaking, they were never designed to be enforced at all; they were made merely in terrorem. Was it, therefore, remarkable that the millions of Catholics of this country should object to have laws of this character held in terrorem over their heads? He passed on to another provision in the Bill, in which he also proposed to include the provisions of the Catholic Removal of Disabilities Bill, introduced by Mr. Gladstone in 1891. The Bill was backed by all the leading members of the Liberal Party; it was supported in eloquent speeches by Mr. Gladstone himself, Sir Henry James, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and the present Prime Minister. The object of that Bill was

  137
  to remove the disqualification of a Catholic for occupying the position of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland or Lord Chancellor of England. In 1867 the prohibition of Catholics filling the position of Lord Chancellor of Ireland was removed. Speaking of this disqualification the present Prime Minister said in 1891—
  "Sixty years ago, the principles of religious exclusion were entrenched in this country behind an imposing fortress of legal safeguards and securities. One after another of the strong places has been captured, and its walls battered down, until all that remains is this paltry little corner, a solitary and belated relic of the past, which can never be rebuilt. The finger of fate is upon it, and although by your votes you may for a few years retard, depend upon it, you cannot evade, its downfall."
  He asked the right hon. Gentleman to act up to the spirit of that very broad-minded declaration. He also proposed in this Bill to deal with the very offensive references which were made to the millions of his Catholic subjects by the King in the Accession Declaration. It was said, he knew not with what truth, that this was a declaration not to the liking of His Majesty himself, but be that as it might, it was admitted a few years ago by all parties in the country and in the House of Lords that the references made to Catholics in the Accession Declaration were grossly and unnecessarily offensive in every way. Unfortunately, no agreement could be come to, although everyone expressed a desire to come to an agreement as to the words to be put in the Declaration in substitution of the offensive phrases, but he proposed in this Bill to endeavour to find words in reference to transubstantiation, and to omit the following words—
  "That the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint, and the celebration of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous."
  He was sure there was not a Member in that House who would refuse to agree that references of that kind were grossly offensive and palpably untrue. No Catholic extended adoration to the Blessed Virgin or any other saint. In the Catholic Church as in other churches adoration was reserved for God. In conclusion, he appealed to Members in all quarters of the House not to regard
  138
  this in any sense as a party matter. He himself represented one of the most Catholic constituencies in the wide world—the constituency which returned O'Connell to this House and had a great deal to do with the emancipation of Catholics, both in this country and in Ireland. He believed he could say of every Catholic in this Empire that they of the Catholic Church had no greater desire or ambition than to live in the utmost friendship and goodwill with their fellow-citizens of every denomination. But that could not be the case so long as laws of an unjust and insulting character were retained upon the Statute-book. It was one of the proudest memories of Ireland to-day that Catholic emancipation was carried forward in an Irish Protestant Parliament, Grattan's Parliament, long before the question was taken up in this country. This Bill was supported by both Catholic and Protestant, and he believed that throughout the country broad-minded men, Catholic and Protestant alike, would welcome this effort to do away with what remained of the bad old times. He asked hon. Members to pass the Bill through the House to promote that good feeling, that spirit of friendship and comradeship among all sections of the community, which could never thoroughly exist so long as the members of one communion were signalled out for unjust, unnecessary, and insulting legislation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove certain disabilities affecting the Roman Catholic population, and to make certain alterations in the Accession Declaration."—(Mr. William Redmond.)
  MR. McARTHURagreed that the hon. Member who had just spoken had taken a very unusual course, as he had truly said in his speech, in introducing a controversial Bill of this nature under the ten minutes rule. That peculiarity was enhanced by the fact that there would be no prospect during this session of taking any further stage of the Bill, and therefore the House must now express approval or disapproval of its principle. The Hon. Member proposed to modify the Oath, which guaranteed the Protestant succession to

  139
  the Crown; and further, in advocating the same measure for Catholics as for Protestants, the hon. Member was really asking for the removal of those disabilities which now attached to the succession to the Crown. The next object of the Bill was to legalise monastic institutions. Why were they illegal at present? Was it not because Parliament in 1829 knew more about the true character of these institutions than we did to-day? The speeches made at that time showed that these orders were excluded because it was believed that the Jesuits in particular advocated doctrines which were dangerous to the State, at variance with public morality, and opposed to civil and religious liberty. The fact that these organisations had been driven out of France, tended to show that they had not changed their character in the intervening years. The number of these institutions in Great Britain had increased from sixteen in 1829 to 1,125 at present, so that the absence of a legal status involved no practical disability. While he was quite willing that the question of the legalisation of monastic orders should be considered by the Government of the day, he held that it should be considered in connection with the need for the inspection of these institutions. As to the third object of the Bill, the legalising of Roman Catholic processions in the streets, he himself would rather see further restrictions applied not only to Roman Catholics but to all religious bodies. The streets were not the place for religious processions and demonstrations.
  In addition to that he would remind his hon. friend that this, after all, was a Protestant country, and that while the carrying of the Host in procession might be desired by Roman Catholics it would be a very offensive proceeding to Protestants. There was one further? reason for which he would ask the House to reject this Bill; it was that the Roman Catholic Church, while it had always been willing to accept toleration; had never been willing to grant it to others. ["Oh."] That was true all the world over. Wherever ecclesiastical power was supreme, whether in Spain, in Malta, or in Ireland, there was persecution. He asserted to-day that the lot of Protestants in Ireland was infinitely worse than the lot of Catholics in Great Britain. They frequently read in the newspapers of the persecution of Protestants in Ireland. For instance, only the other day, at Riversdale, in County Sligo, Protestants, because they refused to join the National League, were subjected to the most severe boycott and intimidation. On its merits he trusted the House would condemn this Bill as one which was not required to deal with any immediate grievance, and as one which would condone lawlessness on a very large scale. He asked those who believed in our Protestant Constitution as the guarantee of civil and religious liberty, for Protestant and Catholic alike, to join him in voting against the introduction of the Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 412.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bellow, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Agnew, George William

  Bennett, E. N.

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Alden, Percy

  Boland, John

  Cooper, G. J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Brigg, John

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bright, J. A.

  Cox, Harold

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Crean, Eugene

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Cullinan, J.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Barker, Sir John

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Delany, William

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

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

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Beale, W. P.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Dillon, John

  Bell, Richard

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Duffy, William J.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Clynes, J. R.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Power, Patrick, Joseph

  Erskine, David C.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Reddy, M.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ferens, T. R.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rees, J. D.

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Callum, John M.

  Renton, Leslie

  Field, William

  M'Crae, Sir George

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Richardson, A.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Kean, John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Killop, W.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robinson, S.

  Grinnell, L.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Meagher, Michael

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Gulland, John W.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Seely, Colonel

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Middlebrook, William

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

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Halpin, J.

  Montague, Hon. E. S.

  Sheehy, David

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morrell, Philip

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Muldoon, John

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murnaghan, George

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Summerbell, T.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

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

  Napier, T. B.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hodge, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Hogan, Michael

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry W.)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Grady, J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Williamson, A.

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Paul, Herbert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Young, Samuel

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Pease, Rt Hn J A (Saffron Walden

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Lamont, Norman

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  NOES.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

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

  Gordon, J.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Clark, George Smith

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Clough, William

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  142

  143

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rose, Charles Day

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sandys Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

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

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. M'Arthur and Mr. Moore.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Redmond, Captain Donelan, Lord Edmund Talbot, Mr. Boland, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. Haviland Burke, and Mr. Young.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES (REMOVAL), &c, BILL.
  "To remove certain Disabilities affecting the Roman Catholic population, and to make certain alterations in the Accession Declaration," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read
  a second time upon Monday, 7th December, and to be printed. [Bill 382.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL).
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the. Prevention of Crime Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(Mr. Asquith.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 272; Noes, 73. (Division List No. 413.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gill, A. H.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

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

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

Agnew, George William

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cooper, G. J.

Glover, Thomas

Alden, Percy

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Ambrose, Robert

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gulland, John W.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cowan, W. H.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cox, Harold

Halpin, J.

Barker, Sir John

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Crean, Eugene

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Barnard, E. B.

Cullinan, J.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Barnes, G. N.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N)

Delany, William

Haworth, Arthur A.

Beale, W. P.

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Beauchamp, E.

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hazleton, Richard

Beck, A. Cecil

Dillon, John

Hedges, A. Paget

Bell, Richard

Donelan, Captain A.

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

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Duffy, William J.

Higham, John Sharp

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

Duncan, C. (Burrow-in-Furness

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Bennett, E. N.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hodge, John

Berridge, T. H. D.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Hogan, Michael

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Holland, Sir William Henry

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Erskine, David C.

Holt, Richard Durning

Boland, John

Essex, R. W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Bramsdon, T. A.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Hudson, Walter

Brigg, John

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Bright, J. A.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Jackson, R. S.

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

Farrell, James Patrick

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Bryce, J. Annan

Fenwick, Charles

Jardine, Sir J.

Burke, E. Havilnad-

Ferens, T. R.

Jenkins, J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Ffrench, Peter

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Field, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Chance, Frederick William

Flynn, James Christopher

Jordan, Jeremiah

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Jowett, F. W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Joyce, Michael

Clough, William

Fuller, John Michael F.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Clynes, J. R.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gilhooly, James

Kekewich, Sir George

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Nolan, Joseph

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Laidlaw, Robert

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Nuttall, Harry

Seely, Colonel

Lamont, Norman

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

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

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Lewis, John Herbert

O'Doherty, Philip

Snowden, P.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Stanger, H. Y.

Lyell, Charles Henry

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Lynch, H. B.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

O'Dowd, John

Summerbell, T.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs

O'Grady, J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Maclean, Donald

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Macpherson, J. T.

O'Malley, William

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

O'Shee, James John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Callum, John M.

Paul, Herbert

Vivian, Henry

M'Crae, Sir George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Walsh, Stephen

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

M'Kean, John

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wardle, George J.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Pirie, Duncan V.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

M'Killop, W.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan

M'Micking, Major G.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Marnham, F. J.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Watt, Henry A.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry

Radford, G. H.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Massie, J.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Weir, James Galloway

Masterman, C. F. G.

Reddy, M.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Meagher, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

White, Sir. Luke (York, E. R.)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N

Redmond, William (Clare)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Rees, J. D.

Whitley John Henry (Halifax)

Menzies, Walter

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

Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P

Micklem, Nathaniel

Richardson, A.

Wiles, Thomas

Middlebrook, William

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wilkie, Alexander

Molteno, Percy Alport

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Mond, A.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Williamson, A.

Mooney, J. J.

Robinson, S.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Morrell, Philip

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Muldoon, John

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

Murnaghan, George

Rose, Charles Day

Young, Samuel

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Rowlands, J.

Yoxall, James Henry

Murray, Capt Hn A. C. (Kincard.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Napier, T. B.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Long, Rt Hn Walter (Dublin, S.)

Baldwin, Stanley

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

M'Arthur, Charles

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gordon, J.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston

Moore, William

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hamilton, Marquess of

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Percy, Earl

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Clark, George Smith

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

Hills, J. W.

Renton, Leslie

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Hunt, Rowland

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Craik, Sir Henry

Joynson-Hicks, William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Law Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

146

147

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Younger, George

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

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

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)said the object of the first Amendment on the Paper was to meet the particular difficulties of the Merchant Company which had established superannuation funds in connection with its schools. It would be wrong, of course, to penalise that company as compared with other educational undertakings, and they wished, therefore, as this superannuation was founded by a central board and not by the governors of each separate school, to provide that they should come under Clause 12.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 5, at end, to insert the words, 'Provided further that where, prior to the commencement of this Act, a governing body as aforesaid or any joint or central board on their behalf have established a superannuation fund to which they respectively contribute, directly or indirectly, the superannuation allowance awarded to a teacher to the extent represented by the sum so contributed shall be held to be a retiring allowance within the meaning of this section.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 21, after the word 'boards,' to insert the words 'governing bodies.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CARLILEin moving to omit the words "in Scotland" from Clause 13, said the Amendment dealt with the position of teachers who might have been employed in England for part of their teaching period, and who subsequently, especially in connection with certain denominations in more or less voluntary schools, took up work in Scotland. These teachers, while they had perhaps a longer period of teaching experience, found themselves side by
148
side with teachers who had a much shorter period of work, but who had a claim upon the superannuation scheme, in which they only participated themselves to a very small extent—only for that portion of their experience as teachers which lay within the area of Scotland. In order more or less to obtain an expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman, and to bring their case under his attention, he moved the Amendment.
Amendment not seconded.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 10, line 28, after the word 'Department,' to insert the words 'or of a teacher's superannuation allowance from a governing body as aforesaid or any joint or central board on their behalf.' "
"In page 10, line 34, to leave out the word 'or.'"
"In page 10, line 34, after the word 'managers,' to insert the words 'or joint or central board.'"
"In page 10, line 34, at end, to insert the words 'or superannuation.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER: The next Amendment† in the name of the hon. Member for Ayrshire would involve a fresh charge.
MR. COCHRANEpointed out that it did not involve a fresh charge at all on the Exchequer. The fund to which he referred here was one made up by contributions from the teachers, and they were absolutely entitled to get the benefit of the fund.
†The following is the Amendment referred to—
"In page 10, line 40, after the word 'prescribed,' to insert the words "Provided that the Treasury shall make payment to any teacher who shall make application, and from whose salary deductions have been made under the said Act, but who has ceased to serve as a teacher before this scheme takes effect, a sum equal to the full amount of such deductions, which payment shall cancel the right of such teacher to any annuity under the said Act; and further.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
MR. SPEAKER: The words are, "the Treasury shall make payment." They do not say the Treasury shall make payment out of any particular fund. It must involve a charge and impose a duty upon the Treasury of making certain payments.
MR. COCHRANE: All I desire is that the Treasury shall repay contributions which have already been made to them and which are allocated to the teachers in certain proportions, not that there shall be any fresh charge, but that they shall simply repay the money paid by the teachers out of their own pocket.
MR. SPEAKER: That does not appear on the face of the Amendment. The only way to construe the Amendment is that the Treasury shall make the payment. It does not say it is to make it out of a fund subscribed to by the teachers, and it does not earmark a particular fund.
MR. COCHRANE: Prom whose salaries deductions have been made.
MR. SPEAKER: It does not say from what fund.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 11, line 16, to leave out the word 'may,' and to insert the word 'shall.'"
"In page 11, line 16, at end, to insert the words 'or of an Amendment thereof.'"
"In page 11, line 26, after the word 'boards,' to insert the words 'governing bodies.'"
"In page 11, line 26, after the word 'and,' to insert the word 'other.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. BOLANDmoved to omit subsection (1) of Clause 14. He said he hoped to prove that the announcement made by the Secretary for Scotland that voluntary schools were to benefit to the extent of an extra 2s. was not such a generous gift as it appeared to be. Under subsections (2) and (4) his contention was that there would be brought into the Scottish Education Fund those very amounts out of which State-aided schools had in the past been able to benefit. The probate and estate duties which were brought into the Scottish Education Fund
150
did not, as a matter of fact, form any fixed amount but an anually increasing sum. The actual increase of those duties was more than the increase in the cost of pupils in the schools. As the hon. Member for Sheffield pointed out in a previous debate, there had been an illegal accumulation of funds whilst the duties were being administered. Whilst it might be contended that voluntary schools would benefit under Clauses 15 and. 16, it would be recognised that this was the only opportunity he would have of pointing out in what way the Catholic schools were not getting justice. Briefly, subsections (1) and (4) constituted the fund which gave the extra fee grant of 2s. per child out of purely Scottish money, and it would be found on looking into the Returns already issued that the sum fixed was £40,000. In subsection (4) of Clause 14 the amount was about £69,000, giving a total of £109,000. The average attendance of children in Scotland was 720,000 and that would work out at about 3s. per child. Under Clauses 15 and 16 it might be said that the Catholic schools were going to benefit to the extent of 2s., but 1s. of that amount came out of money which the Catholic schools would have had under the operation of the estate duties. Therefore instead of the voluntary schools of Scotland, equally with the board schools, benefiting by an increase of 2s. or 2s. 6d., as far as he could make out the real increase was not 2s., but really only 1s. 6d. This explained the dissatisfaction with which this measure was regarded by the Catholics in Scotland. He was not taking up this line of argument on account of any settled opposition to the Bill, but in the hope that the reasonable claims of Catholics would be met. He hoped that when they got to the cumulative vote the Secretary for Scotland would see his way to meet them on that point, because if he did a great deal of their opposition would go. He thought it was important to point out that under the two subsections he had mentioned sums of money were being brought in out of which Catholic schools gained a slight benefit and in the new Scottish Education Fund it was not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to substantiate what he had stated, that the voluntary schools were really going to benefit to the extent of 2s. or 2s. 6d. per child.
MR. JORDANseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 26, to leave out subsection (1) of Clause 14."—(Mr. Boland.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid he did what he could to answer the hon. Member's arguments the other day on the general position, and on the position of voluntary schools under the Bill. The Amendment was to omit the first subsection of Clause 14, and the hon. Member was quite right in saying that under that subsection the money provided by it, together with the money provided in subsection (4), constituted the security for making up the fee grant in Scotland. It was apprehended that as those sums were no longer available there might be danger that the fee grant in those schools in which the hon. Member for South Kerry was interested might not secure the 12s. per head in the future. He wished to point out that in subsection (6), so far from it being the case that they were weakening the security for the maintenance of the fee grant in voluntary schools or to all schools at 12s., the position would really be strengthened, because hitherto only the particular sum mentioned in subsections (l)and(2) had constituted the security for keeping the fee grant at 12s., whereas now the whole fund formed that security. That was really the position stated as clearly and precisely as he could put it. So far as the precise point raised in the Amendment was concerned he was able to assure the hon. Member that the security they were now taking for the 12s. grant was even greater than it had been in the past. He hoped that so far as this clause was concerned he had been able to reassure the hon. Member that the position of the schools in which he was interested would be safeguarded.
Amendment put, and negatived.
MR. LAMONTsaid that, in moving the Amendment standing in his name,
152
he did so, not from a sentimental point of view, but from a strong conviction of the advantages of bilingualism from a practical and utilitarian point of view, and of the value of Gaelic as a mental exercise.
SIR HENRY CRAIKasked if the subjects referred to in the Amendment were not excluded by the ruling that such matters were dealt with administratively by the Code.
MR. SPEAKER: The point raised is whether the subjects dealt with in this Amendment ought to be dealt with administratively by Code. I will give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt, and he may proceed with his Amendment.
MR. LAMONTsaid the present position was that Gaelic might be taught in any school in the Highland districts, but that it was rather discouraged by the inspectors. Secondly, there was the so-called Gaelic grant of £10 to each school having Gaelic-speaking children and a Gaelic-speaking teacher, but this money, unfortunately, was often used, not to increase the teachers' salary, but to reduce the rates. Thirdly, provision for Gaelic was nominally made at junior-student centres, but at many of them it was impossible to obtain such instruction. In the fourth place, Gaelic had this year, for the first time, been graded as a higher, as well as a lower, subject in the Department's examniations. Further than this, it was impossible to discover whether anything was being done for Gaelic in the multitude of Blue-Books, Reports, Circulars and Minutes with which the Department, like a cuttle-fish, darkened all around it, and endeavoured to baffle the public. The two most pressing present needs were those dealt with in his Amendment. First, that the bilingual Gaelic child must always first be taught in Gaelic, because it was impossible that general education could ever efficiently be given in a language with which a child was totally unfamiliar. At present a Gaelic child was often in the position of reading only a language which it could not understand, and of understanding only a language which it could not read. Next, that they must create an adequate supply

153
of Gaelic-speaking teachers. The Amendment met these needs by making a better provision for instruction, and by increasing the number of bursaries, so as to increase gradually the supply of teachers. The Amendment had received practically unanimous support throughout the Highlands—even from Inverness, which had opposed the Amendments which he had moved in committee upstairs. Its terms had been arrived at after consultation between "An Cornunn Gaidhealach" and the associations and individuals interested in this question. Aberdeen University had just decided to place Gaelic on an equal footing with French and German in their bursary competitions; and the Provincial Committee of Aberdeen had arranged for Gaelic-speaking students to study Gaelic at their Training College. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would not lag behind in a movement for the educational advantage of a part of Scotland where, more than anywhere, education was appreciated; and where, more than anywhere, education was synonymous with success. He begged to move.
MR. AINSWORTH, in seconding the Amendment, explained that it was brought up in Committee, but ruled out of order for a technical reason. He and his friends were therefore obliged to bring it before the House on the Report stage. He regarded this as a most important proposal, the desire being that children who had learned to speak nothing but Gaelic in their homes should receive instruction through the medium of a language which they understood. A point which he wished to urge was that children who were brought up to speak two languages were given an increased advantage in learning a third. He impressed upon the Government that the districts affected by this proposal were in the poorest counties in Scotland. The necessary funds must be got either under Clause 15 from the central fund, or under Clause 16 from the fund at the disposal of the county councils.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 14, line 10, at end, to insert the words, '(f) To making payments to school boards in Gaelic-speaking districts of such sums as may be necessary to make adequate provision for instruction in reading and writing the
154
Gaelic language, and also of such sums as may be necessary to increase the number of bursaries available, both before and after the junior student stage, for Gaelic-speaking children intending to become teachers.'"—(Mr. Lamont.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid this question was discussed in Committee to some extent. Hon. Members who had studied the Bill knew that in subsection (9) of Clause 16, the continuance of such grants as were now given to this purpose was provided for. They could be given subject to the discretion of the school boards and the district committees. The question was whether they should upset that or not. The Committee had much sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Argyllshire as to the desirability of giving full permission to those people who wished their children to learn Gaelic and to make use of that language. He did not wish to argue the general question as to the advantage of bilingual teaching and accomplishments of that kind. His hon. friend proposed by this Amendment to lay the charge for Gaelic-teaching as a charge upon the national funds—that was to say, he proposed that the Lowland counties which had no interest whatever in Gaelic-teaching should be obliged perforce to contribute to the cost of such Gaelic-teaching as was desired in the Gaelic counties. That was not a proposal which in the interest of Gaelic-teaching should be accepted by the House. He thought it was far better to adhere to the position taken up in Committee, namely, that this was a matter which could safely be left to the discretion of the local authorities themselves. The local authorities could open the door wide for the teaching of Gaelic. As had been stated by his hon. friend, facilities and encouragement had been given in the last year or two for the increase of this form of teaching. Reference had been made to the poverty of the Highland districts, but it must be remembered that they had already special grants for this and other purposes. The best course for the House to take in the interest of Gaelic-teaching was to leave this matter as it was.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman

155
had not quite done justice to the Amendment. Although it was moved and seconded by Highland Members, he would give some reasons in his capacity as a Lowland Member why this should not be treated as a Highland question. It was a national question, not only in the sentimental sense, but in the sense that it was desirable to encourage the teaching of languages. It would be a matter of interest to the whole of Scotland that French and German should be well taught, which, he might add, was very seldom the case. The Gaelic language would be well taught if adequate provision were made for teaching it. The likelihood was that Gaelic would be very much better taught than French or German. In that sense it was a national question. The teaching of languages under the Code had been unduly discouraged in the case of certain children in favour of science. No doubt the Highlands felt strongly on this point, but it was unlikely that under the present parish board system, the teaching of French or German would be very prevalent. By arranging for the teaching of Gaelic the children of the Highlands would get their one chance of learning another language. He thought the Amendment could be defended on sentimental grounds, but that was not his present purpose.
MR. BOLANDhoped the Government would accept the Amendment. Speaking with a knowledge of what had been done to develop the Irish language, to which Gaelic was closely akin, he strongly supported the view put forward by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs as to the educational value to children in the Gaelic-speaking parts of Scotland of learning their own language thoroughly and of having the opportunity of learning another. He knew a young fellow in Kerry who had a knowledge of the Irish language, and at the age of twenty-three he learned to read and write the language. This had created in him a desire to learn foreign languages, but if he had been deprived of the opportunity of learning the Irish language, his desire to learn French or German would probably never have been felt. He very much regretted that this should be regarded as a merely Highland
156
question. It was a national question and it should be so regarded throughout Scotland. If the hon. Member who moved challenged a division, the Irish Party would be delighted to give the Amendment their hearty support.
MR. WEIRsaid he was much disappointed at the speech of the Secretary for Scotland, and at the; attitude he had taken up with regard to the teaching of Gaelic in the Highlands. An hon. Member had said that this was a national question, but he looked upon it as an Imperial question. Nearly all Highlanders in the Western Highlands and Islands spoke Gaelic only in their homes, but in the parish schools English was thrust upon children whose knowledge was limited to Gaelic. In a few schools pupil teachers knew Gaelic, but schools and the Scottish Education Department were opposed, to the teaching of Gaelic. What chance had any Highland boy or girl of learning any language other than English? The parish school boards had not the means to employ teachers to teach French, German, Italian or Spanish. Gaelic was the only language besides English which the children in these schools had a chance of learning. As the Amendment was supported by all the Members representing Gaelic-speaking districts in which there were thousands of old people who were quite unable to speak anything but Gaelic, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision. There were Highlanders in all parts of the world—great soldiers, great statesmen, great commercial men, who had attained to their high position, not because they spoke Gaelic, but because it had materially helped them to acquire other languages. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
MR. PIRIEsaid he made no apology whatever for saying a few words on this Amendment. It had been said that no vote had been changed by argument in the House. Well in this case, his was an example of the exception which proved the rule. To tell the truth he had come into the House with a preconceived prejudice

157
against the Amendment, but after listening to the debate the only argument that he had heard against it, if it could be called an argument, was that the Lowland counties would be made to pay for teaching a language which was not their own; Surely that argument cut both ways. Why should the Highland counties be made to pay for the teaching of a language that was not their own, viz., English? He was a Member for a Lowland constituency in which there were not many Gaelic-speaking people; but he was sure that everyone in his constituency would willingly bear the burden of doing justice to a large, a gallant, and a noble section of the community.
MR. SINCLAIRappealed to his hon. friend not to press his Amendment to a division. The hon. Member knew as well as he did that their system in Scotland was to leave such subjects to be taught under the Code as in the discretion of the school board it was thought the children required or desired. There was no dispute amongst them as to the desirability of Gaelic teaching in Gaelic districts. The question was, with whom should the decision lie? Were they to give to all school boards in all Gaelic speaking districts a claim on national funds for teaching Gaelic? If so, the logical corollary of the Amendment was to give the Lowland districts a claim on the national funds for the teaching of French, German or Italian, or any other language. It was not a question as to whether it was to be done, but how it was to be done.
MR. COCHRANEpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had already made two speeches on this unimportant question, which had been very thoroughly threshed out in the Committee upstairs, when the solution come to was that Gaelic should be taught by Gaelic teachers. He thought the time of the House should be taken up with the discussion of much more important Amendments.
MR. MORTONsaid he was sorry to occupy the time of the House, but he desired to press the fact that their constituents in the Highlands wanted this Amendment to be carried. His right hon. friend said that if the Amendment were carried the Lowlands would have a right to demand that French, German, and Italian should be taught in their schools. But that was not a fair way to put it. What the Highland Members asked was that their native language should be taught to the natives of the Highlands. What they were afraid of was that there were a large number of people who wanted to kill the Gaelic language; they, on the other hand, wanted to preserve it, and to give the Highland children proper opportunities of learning it. He was extremely sorry that his right hon. friend could not see his way to give way, seeing that Parliament did not give too much to the Highland people.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 414.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Jowett, F. W.

Ambrose, Robert

Essex, R. W.

Joyce, Michael

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Farrell, James Patrick

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Barnes, G. N.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Ffrench, Peter

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe]

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Flynn, James Christopher

Law, Hugh (Donegal, W.)

Boland, John

Gilhooly, James

Lundon, W.

Bryce, J. Annan

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Glover, Thomas

Macpherson, J. T.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Grant, Corrie

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Clynes, J. R.

Halpin, J.

Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Crean, Eugene

Hay, Hon. Claude George

M'Kean, John

Cullinan, J.

Hayden, John Patrick

M'Killop, W.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hodge, John

Meagher, Michael

Delany, William

Hogan, Michael

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Dillon, John

Hudson, Walter

Meehan, Patrick A (Queen's Co.)

Donelan, Captain A

Jenkins, J.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Mooney, J. J.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Pirie, Duncan V.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Muldoon, John

Ponsonby, Arthur W. A. H.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Murnaghan, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walsh, Stephen

Murhpy, John (Kerry, East)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Nannetti, Joseph R.

Reddy, M.

Watt, Henry A.

Nolan, Joseph

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Weir, James Galloway

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Redmond, William (Clare)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

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

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williamson, A.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhougton)

O'Doherty, Philip

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Young, Samuel

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Younger, George

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Sheehy, David

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lamont and Mr. Ainsworth.

O'Dowd, John

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

O'Grady, J.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

O'Shee, James John

Snowden, P.

NOES.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Laidlaw, Robert

Agnew, George William

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Alden, Percy

Erskine, David C.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lewis, John Herbert

Baldwin, Stanley

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fell, Arthur

Lynch, H. B.

Barnard, E. B.

Fenwick, Charles

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N

Ferens, T. R.

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

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Maclean, Donald

Beale, W. P.

Forster, Henry William

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Beauchamp, E.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Arthur, Charles

Bellairs, Carlyon

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

M'Callum, John M.

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Crae, Sir George

Bennett, E. N.

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Micking, Major G.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

Menzies, Walter

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Glendinning, R. G.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bowles, G. Stewart

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Middlebrook, William

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gordon, J.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Brigg, John

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Molteno, Percy Alport

Bright, J. A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mond, A.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gulland, John W.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hamilton, Marquess of

Moore, William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morrell, Philip

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

Napier, T. B.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Clark, George Smith

Hedges, A. Paget

Nuttall, Harry

Clough, William

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Partington, Oswald

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Higham, John Sharp

Paul, Herbert

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

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Cooper, G. J.

Holt, Richard Durning

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Horniman, Emslie John

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hunt, Rowland

Pullar, Sir Robert

Cox, Harold

Illingworth, Percy H.

Radford, G. H.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Jardine, Sir J.

Richardson, A.

Craik, Sir Henry

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kekewich, Sir George

Rose, Charles Day

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rowlands, J.

160

161

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Summerbell, T.

Wills, Arthur Walters

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Winterton, Earl

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Seely, Colonel

Vivian, Henry

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wardle, George J.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

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

Wason, Rt. Hn E. (Clackmannan

Yoxall, James Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Stanger, H. Y.

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

MR. J. M. MACDONALDrose to move the omission, of subsection (2) in Clause 15.
MR. BOLANDsaid he wished to move an Amendment before that of the hon. Gentleman, viz: in page 14, line 17, at end, to insert the words, "(g) To paying, in respect of all children attending schools other than board schools eligible for grants under the Code, a sum not exceeding ten shilings per head of the children in average attendance at such schools, and such sum shall be in addition to, and not in substitution of, any grants which, before the passing of this Act, were payable to such schools."
MR. SPEAKERsaid that that was the same matter that they discussed a fortnight ago, and the House came to a decision upon it. The wording was almost identically the same, and the hon. Member could not discuss it a second time.
MR. BOLANDinquired whether it would not be possible to have a division on it. He was most anxious that their claim should be made specially at that point.
MR. SPEAKERreplied that the hon. Member had his division the other day. He had no power to take a division without a discussion.
MR. J. M. MACDONALDsaid he wished to move the omission of subsection (2), which laid down the principle upon which the balance of the Education Fund should be allocated. That principle was that the allocation should take place
162
in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Department, and so framed as to give greater aid to those districts with which per head of the population the burden of expenditure on educational purposes, approved by the Department, is excessive as compared with the valuation of the district, which scheme shall be laid before Parliament. He rose to move the rejection of that subsection not because he had any objection to its pro-visions, but because the scheme which the Secretary for Scotland had introduced was not consistent with the subsection. He went further and held that it was not consistent with the views which the Secretary for Scotland himself put forward in support of it. A model scheme had been presented to the Committee upstairs, illustrating the mode of distribution in accordance with the subsection, and giving the ratios of necessity of the several districts. When subsequently the actual allocation of the money was presented to the Committee, it was found not to correspond with the provisions of the subsection; and the Secretary for Scotland justified the alteration on the ground that, if the allocation were made in accordance with the principles laid down in the subsection, certain districts in Scotland would receive less money than they were actually receiving at the present moment, and also on the ground that those districts were relatively poor. As to the first ground no one would object to a sum being taken from the fund and so distributed as to make the amounts to be given to these districts equal to the amounts they now received. The second ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman justified his departure from the model scheme opened up a much larger question, and it was to that part

163
of the proposal that he should like particularly to draw the attention of the House. In the first place, he contested the view that the districts that would be benefited under the second scheme were the poorer districts, and, in the second place, even if these districts were really the poorer districts, the allocation of the funds gave to them a considerably larger sum than they obtained at the present moment, and gave them that sum at the cost of the rest of the country. The districts that benefited under the scheme represented 38 per cent. of the population of Scotland, and only 36 per cent. of the expenditure and 42 per cent. of the valuation, while the districts adversely affected represented 62 per cent. of the population, 64 per cent. of the expenditure, and only 58 per cent. of the valuation. He contended that those figures proved that the principles laid down in the subsection had been entirely departed from in the allocation which his right hon. friend had actually made of the balance of fund. Take, for example, the six school boards which came under the allocation; five, which were prejudiced by the scheme, had rates over the average for the whole of Scotland, while the only one that had a rate under the average was benefited. Turning to the ratios if necessity of the several districts, he showed that the allocation was not only not in accordance with them, but in many instances diametrically opposed to them.
MR. J. M. HENDERSONrose to a point of order. His hon. friend said he did not object to the terms of this section, which provided that the money should be divided according to a scheme to be laid before Parliament. There had been two tentative schemes produced, but neither was before Parliament, and neither formed part of this Bill. He was most anxious for this Bill to go through, and why should they waste an hour in discussing a scheme which was not in the Bill.
MR. PIRIEinquired whether it was in order to say it was waste of time to discuss a matter of this kind.
MR. SPEAKERdid not think there was any point of order raised. It was a question of merits.
MR. PIRIE,on a point of order, said the second Order on the Paper, which was to be taken at 8.15 p.m., was not necessarily bound to come on at that time, the Rule being suspended. It could come on later, at eleven o'clock. Therefore, they had illimitable time to discuss this question.
MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was wrong there. He would only have up to eleven o'clock. The question of the disposal of the time did not rest with him, but with the House itself.
MR. J. M. MACDONALDsaid he did not wish to detain the House much longer as he had made his point, and he had no doubt his right hon. friend understood it. They did not object to the principle contained in the subsection, but they did object to the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had presented to the Committee for the purpose of carrying it out. They recognised that under the principle of the Bill there were certain districts that would suffer, and would receive less money than they received at the present moment. They were willing that these districts should have money temporarily applied to them, so that the amounts they received under this scheme would not be less than those they at present received, but they were not willing that this scheme should be a permanent scheme to be taken as a model for all future schemes. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the scheme was temporary in its provisions, and that he would reconsider it with a feeling favourably disposed towards the districts which were necessitous, and which suffered under it, it would not be necessary for him to divide the House on his Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 14, line 18, to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 15."—(Mr. J. M. Macdonald.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'for,' in page 14, line 21, stand part of the Bill."
MR. COCHRANEsaid the hon. Member had put clearly before the

165
House a matter of considerable importance to Scotsmen, the division of the spoils. They had fought Education Bills for many years, and now the fight took place over the division of the spoils. The position had been somewhat complicated by the attitude taken up by the Secretary for Scotland. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill he issued with it a Memorandum and a draft scheme showing how the money was to be allocated among the various counties. That scheme was examined by the House, and was referred to the various authorities. At the last moment, just before the Bill went to Grand Committee, the scheme was withdrawn, and another substituted for it. Hence these tears. Had the right hon. Gentleman consulted the school boards before instead of after, he might have produced a different scheme altogether. The right hon. Gentleman truly said they could not go on population or valuation alone, that they must be considered together. If to those elements he had added areas he would have done far better, because areas were a very great element of consideration in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, however, took the two elements of population and valuation, and introduced a scheme, but unfortunately he withdrew that scheme and substituted another in which he entirely departed from those principles, except as to one-third of the fund. He allocated one-third of the fund in proportion to population and valuation, but the other two-thirds he allocated in a purely arbitrary fashion. He himself was quite impartial in this matter, because the constituency which he represented got the same amount under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman as it would get under the scheme shadowed forth by the ton. Member. He was not, therefore, a searcher after illegitimate spoils. When he regarded the reasons which might have influenced the right hon. Gentleman in departing from his original scheme, he noticed some somewhat sinister points. He noticed that particular districts got more under the amended scheme, and that singular favours had been dealt out to Forfarshire, a district not unconnected with the right hon. Gentleman. Taking Forfarshire and Shetland together, he found the ratio of necessity in the former was
166
12,763, and in Shetland 6,604, and it was a curious fact that whereas under the original scheme Forfarshire only got £10,000 and poor Shetland £5,000, under the amended scheme the contribution to Forfarshire rose to £14,441, whilst that of poor Shetland fell to £2,500. Peebles-shire, another county not unrepresented in great circles, also received a considerable increase. He was not going to inquire by what fortunate circumstance these things happened. All he wished to do was to ask the right hon. Gentleman to adopt some definite principle. Population was not enough, and valuation was not enough, and therefore if the right hon. Gentleman adopted areas he would be wise, because some arrangement must be made for those large counties where the expense was very great. Rumour said that the right hon. Gentleman was going to make some statement on this matter, and therefore it would be perhaps better not to move the Amendment he had intended to move. The right hon. Gentleman might find it easier to make that statement to his supporters rather than to the Opposition. All he would say was that he hoped in that statement the right hon. Gentleman would shadow forth some principle which people could understand, and that would be fair to all Scotland. He did not like to think that these schemes were altered from time to time in order to give an unfair share of the spoils to a particular district.
MR. WILKIEpointed out that in the previous week he had put a question to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter now under discussion. But he was informed that the experts on this matter did not acknowledge the correctness of his reply. In his answer the right hon. Gentleman stated that while the proposal was strongly opposed by some, a greater number supported it. That might be so as far as the number of Boards was concerned, but if they took the number of children and people involved in the districts the balance was entirely the other way. The Government set out in their Bill that their object was to help those districts which most needed help, districts where there was large expenditure for education, poor districts unable to pay high

167
rates, but this proposal did the very opposite. Instead of helping the poor urban authorities and the highly rated districts in Scotland it was helping the rich and high valuation districts. What they felt and what they feared, but what they hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to reassure them upon, was that this provision would take from the elementary schools and give to the secondary schools. It used to be the boast of Scotsmen that in the educational system of Scotland there was the opportunity of going to the University from the elementary school, and that there were teachers in the elementary schools able to prepare the scholar for the University. He hoped before this question was decided the Government would be able to assure the House that this provision would work in the entirely opposite direction to what they feared, and that the first idea of the Government would be carried out, and that greater assistance would be given to those districts which needed it most.
MR. MENZIESalso objected to the subsection. He did not, he said, intend to go into the details of the first and second schemes except to draw attention to the footnote on this question in the Cd. Paper 4051. He asked hon. Members to look at those words. The words of the subsection were not altered in Committee, and remained in the Bill as when it was originally introduced. He therefore apprehended that these words having been used to cover a principle in the Bill still held good. On the other hand they found that a second allocation was proposed which was totally different, though, as he had pointed out, the words of the Bill remained the same. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell them which of these two allocations was, according to the Bill, because they could not both be right, and his second allocation was apparently re-enacting the two grants which were solemnly repealed in Clause 14. Having annulled those grants under Clause 14, it was now proposed to re-enact them, if not for all time, apparently for this time, at any rate. The present allocation said one-third, according to population,
168
multiplied by expenses and divided by valuation. How could that be in accordance with the Bill itself? He held that, from the legal point of view, this could not be correct. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman, in the kindness of his intention, had sought to give everybody a little more. He sympathised with him in that particular, but he could not admit that this proposal was in consonance with the terms of the Bill. Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why they should not reverse the two-thirds according to population and expenses? The position might be reversed by having nine-sixteenths on the one side and seven-sixteenths on the other. The truth was that the method was so arranged as to bring out the desired result. There was no principle here. While he credited the right hon. Gentleman with a kind heart in trying to give everybody a little more, it was not according to the Bill. He desired to call attention to another phase of the matter. The Bill said that this clause was to be "so passed as to give greater aid," etc., he need not trouble to read the terms through again. If they boiled the words down to one phrase, it meant that aid was to be given when expenditure was excessive as compared with valuation. The hon. Member for Ayrshire had referred to Forfarshire; he should like to refer to Perthshire and other counties. In Lanarkshire the expenditure per head from the rates was 9¾d., and in Perthshire it was under 8d. If they compared the valuation they found that in Perthshire it was £9 10s. per head of the population, and in Lanarkshire, £6 10s. Surely, if there was any meaning in the words of the Bill, it should be Lanarkshire which should get more and Perthshire less. The matter appeared to be perfectly clear. By this kind-hearted allocation under which everybody got a little, he would point out that Lanarkshire got £42.000, but if that county got the same allocation per pupil in attendance as Perthshire it would get no less than £49.000 more; if it had the same as Perthshire, it would get £32,000 more; as Forfarshire, £37,000 more; or as Dumfriesshire, £15.000 more. Surely no one could be surprised if they doubted somewhat the legality of the allocation. In

169
answer to a Supplementary Question the other day the right hon. Gentleman said this subject was a complex one. He acknowledged its complexity. He had been studying it for some time, and he thought it more complex than a Chinese puzzle. What with residue grants, secondary school grants, grants under a minute (whatever that might mean), general aid grants, special grants, Gaelic speaking grants, and necessitous school grants, grants according to population, and grants according to school attendance, the whole thing should be put in the melting pot and divided up equally according to the average of scholars in attendance. There were people who were rather amused at those Members who backed up their constituencies, yet they were the people who enlarged on the generosity of the Scottish Education Department to their particular counties. In his humble opinion a great deal of that generosity was at the expense of the industrial communities—at the expense of Lanarkshire, Dumbartonshire, Renfrewshire, and other industrial communities. Lanarkshire was the premier county of Scotland. ["Oh, oh."] Well whether it was or not, it had nearly one-eighth of the whole population and it got less than one-tenth of the grant. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether that appeared to him to be a fair allocation. Lanarkshire had an average attendance of 88,000 out of a total of 720,000 for the whole of Scotland. In the continuation classes of Lanarkshire, they had 14,310 scholars, and had one-seventh of the whole in that particular. In Lanarkshire they lad 2,000 children attending higher grade schools out of 18,000 for all Scotland; and they spent in rates £5,878, out of a total for Scotland of £37,000. Lanarkshire, therefore, by these details, showed that it was not only in population, in scholars and attendance the premier county of Scotland, but also in the amount it paid for education. In his opinion, the continuation classes were a most important method of education in the community, and ought to be particularly encouraged. He would perhaps be excused for referring to his own constituency. Hon. Members travelling from Glasgow or Edinburgh would remember a long stretch of hill and
170
dale, mountain and valley, between Carstairs and the summit. It was as thinly a populated district as was to be found anywhere in Scotland. Indeed, before this Bill was introduced, he had put before the Education Department a proposal to be allowed to drive children to school in conveyances, so great were the distances they had to go. Though the children had to travel great distances to school in South Lanarkshire, yet they got only 9s. 7d. per pupil in attendance, as compared with 17s. 4d. in a neighbouring county. In his county the highest point was at the village of Leadhills, where they got 9s. 7d., while at the highest point in Dumfries, Wanlockhead, they got 13s. 1d. For twenty or thirty miles Lanarkshire marched with Dumfries; there was no climatic difference, no river, no range of mountains, only an imaginary dividing line, on one side of which they gave 9s. 7d. and on the other, 13s. 1d. On its other side, Lanarkshire marched twenty or thirty miles with Peebleshire, where again there was no climatic difference, no river, no range of mountains, only an imaginary line, on one side of which they paid 9s. 7d. and on the other 20s. 9d. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] He did not know; he was asking for information. The right hon. Gentleman said the matter was complex. He had inquired into this subject, and he had read the big report of about 1,000 pages as well as he could, and he could find no reason why Lanarkshire, particularly in the thinly populated portion of it which he represented, should get 9s. 7d., while Peebles got 20s. 9. It might be that he had approached the subject from a personal point of view in. connection with his constituency, but if a man could not speak for his own constituency, whatever constituency was he to speak for? He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give this aspect of the question his serious consideration, and give them some reasons why the money was so divided.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid the hon. Gentleman had given them the particulars and circumstances of his own constituency, and it was, of course, the case that that part of Lanarkshire which he represented was dissimilar in character from the rest of the county in a very marked degree.

171
Under the power which at present existed, and which was given by Parliament, it was quite possible to reconstitute at some later date the district committees which were entrusted with the distribution of these funds, and it would be quite possible to consider whether the special circumstances of a district such as South Lanarkshire were not of sufficient magnitude to justify the creation of a special district committee for that special district. In the meantime they had to deal with the machinery at present in operation in Scotland, and he was asked to say a word on a scheme of distribution which had been put forward as likely to be adopted under this Bill. He asked the House to note that the scheme itself did not form part of this clause. They had had a very full discussion of the matter in Committee. He would not quarrel with the narration which had been given of the discussions or of the actions of the Government in this respect in regard to the two different illustrative proposals which had been put before the Scottish Members of the Grand Committee. Let it be noted also, that after a very full examination no new circumstance had been put before the House which was not present to the Committee, except possibly some local characteristics if the hon. Gentleman's own constituency.
MR. J. M. MACDONALD: I think my right hon. friend is wrong. It is our contention that the districts benefited are not necessitous in the sense in which they were said to be necessitous when the scheme was before the Committee.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid that might be the hon. Member's contention, but the facts were before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman might not take the view of the facts which the Government did, but the facts were there for him to judge of just as he could judge of them now. After very full discussion the Committee accepted the scheme of the Government unanimously. It was perfectly obvious to the Committee that the distribution of money on the first principle was absolutely impossible, and any scheme which deprived the existing local authorities of their present resources, and obliged them to curtail the education they were
172
giving, possibly to shut up schools or to discontinue classes, was quite impossible of acceptance. Local authorities in the first place had undertaken obligations to provide certain facilities for education. It was quite impossible that Parliament should step in and take away from them the resources upon which those facilities rested. If it was a good thing to do educationally there would be very strong Parliamentary opposition to it, and quite rightly in his opinion, because it would be a very false educational standard. Therefore, any scheme which did not guarantee to existing local authorities the resources which they at present employed for education was out of the question. That obliged them to curtail the application of the principle mentioned in the clause, because that was a full application of the principle to the whole sum at their disposal. Therefore they were obliged to modify, as he thought was the practical commonsense view of it, the application of the principle of the Bill, and instead of applying that principle to the whole sum they applied it to only a part of the sum. They applied the remaining part of the money exactly on the principle which one hon. Member had quoted, and which would be applied in respect of average attendance, or, what was much the same thing, to the population of the district. They went very far to meet their few critics. They still maintained by their scheme the application to a part of this money of the principle contained in the subsection. They were bound to do that. It was proper to do it from an educational point of view to aid the poorer districts. This money was obtained from the Treasury on the understanding that the money was wanted to develop education in the poorer districts of the country. The scheme of distribution had been announced, but it was not in its final form. Provision was made in this very paragraph of the Bill for the publication from time to time of a Minute setting forth the scheme of distribution of money available to this Education (Scotland) Fund. The first Minute would appear as soon as they knew the sums available under these various grants next year. They were obliged to be sure of the amounts which would become due and payable under the grants next year

173
before they could draw up the Minute. That delay gave a margin of time for consideration. He gave the assurance in the most clear and distinct terms that they were perfectly ready to consider any views and suggestions and proposals which were made to them between now and the time when the Minute had to be published provided these proposed modifications secured to each local authority not less money than they got at present, and that they secured for their proposals greater general assent than was secured by the scheme as it at present stood.
MR. PIRIEsaid that to a certain extent perhaps the House might consider the statement of the right hon. Gentleman satisfactory, but he expressed regret that he did not hold out some hope of modification at an earlier stage. At the last moment they were told the scheme was not absolutely final.
MR. SINCLAIR: It never was final in that sense.
MR. PIRIEsaid it was not generally understood so. That just showed the terrible danger, which every Scottish member must realise existed in the proceedings of the Scottish Committee, which were not known or realised in Scotland; so much so, that two deputations had waited on the right hon. Gentleman quite lately from educational authorities in Scotland directly opposed to this allocation, which they considered as intended to be final. He had met a member of the last deputation on its return to Scotland, and heard that all they obtained was a direct refusal, that there was no argument, and that the Secretary for Scotland talked round the question quite apart from meeting it in argument, and they went back more forlorn than when they came. It must be clearly understood that within a reasonable time they should have an opportunity of discussing the Minute which the right hon. Gentleman now promised, and that the Education Vote, not the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, should come on the first of Scottish Estimates next year. He had to regret that the second scheme of the right hon. Gentleman did not secure the desired result, but before passing
174
from it there were peculiarities, some of which had already been referred to, which deserved to be brought before the people of Scotland. It was only in that House on Report that they had any chance at all of speaking to the people of Scotland, and he refused to have his time restricted by threats that the Bill would not be passed. The result of the second allocation was lucky for certain constituencies, but unlucky for others, and though he did not in any way allude to the results as being in any way desired results, as another hon. Member had done, he did characterise them as regrettable and unsatisfactory. The Secretary for War was a great educational authority. He had wanted to discuss his views on Scottish education before now, but he had not had a chance. He hoped to have it on the Third Reading. But anyhow Haddington was to receive under the first allocation, £2,800. Under the second scheme it received £4,300. Perthshire, also represented by a front bench Member, was to receive £8,800, and it now received £14,600. Roxburgh was to receive £2,800 under the first scheme and £5,400 under the second. Edinburgh, which was closely allied by official connection with the hon. and learned Gentleman who represented parts of Roxburghshire, received £6,000 more under the new scheme than under the old. Such a state of things ought never to have been introduced except on a basis of clear principle laid down beforehand, and they were not doing their duty unless they took every opportunity of showing the people of Scotland that such a proposition was wrong. They wanted to have a radical change, and make sure that they would have their rights, and that they would have full discussion, and not a hole-and-corner discussion such as they had had in Committee, with no reporters and half the Members away on other Committees and other official duties. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that they as the House should not reverse the decision of the Scottish Committee. He was a strong advocate of the creation of these Scottish Committees on certain lines, but it was an evil day for Scotland—
MR. SPEAKER: This is quite beside the mark.
MR. PIRIEsaid he only brought it forward in answer to the argument of the Secretary for Scotland that it was settled by the Scottish Committee and that the House should have nothing more to do with it. He did not think it was necessary for his hon. friend to go to a division, because there were only about fifty or sixty Members present, although 200 or 300 hon. Members would come trooping in at the sound of the division bell and would vote according to the order of the Government Whips without knowing what had taken place in the debate. Therefore he would ask the hon. Member who moved this Amendment to be satisfied if he could get an assurance that this matter would be brought up on the Scottish Estimates.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid that before the Amendment was withdrawn he should like to have it clearly stated whether he was right in assuming that this was not in any sense of the word a permanent scheme. Were they to understand that, apart from the necessity of safeguarding the various district authorities in regard to spending, no other vested interest was going to be acquired under this scheme?
MR. SINCLAIRsaid that followed from what he had said.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that no new matter had been imported since they discussed this question in Committee, and that it was a blessed thing to have a principle to work upon.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid he did not say that.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was a great deal of advantage in working on a principle. When the Committee came to a decision upon this scheme, it was largely the direct result of the speech which the Lord Advocate made, and in the course of that speech, in advocating the second scheme, he said he did so—
"in order to help densely-populated places where there was not a large valuation. The
176
object was to get hold of the necessitous districts and relieve the populous districts which needed a great deal of money but which could not levy rates because they were so high already."
Since then, hon. Members had had an opportunity of going into the facts, and as regarded the districts which benefited under the scheme, out of twenty-two, eighteen, or 80 per cent. were not necessitous districts but areas where the school rate at the present moment was under the average for Scotland. In only four districts was the rate over the average, and in none was it more than about a halfpenny over the average for Scotland. Taking the districts which were prejudicially affected, of the whole seventeen no less than eleven, or 64 per cent., had got school rates in excess of the average for Scotland, and in some cases the rate was so high that it was something over 4½d. He thought it was time to revise the ideas upon which they arrived at a state of acquiescence in this scheme. If they worked out the figures they would find that these proposals would not hold water. The scheme might be justifiable from the point of view of expediency, but from the point of view of principle it was impossible to justify it. This scheme was so illogical that some districts where they had a high valuation, a low rate, and a small population would get more than districts in which they had a low valuation and a high rate and a large population. Any scheme which gave such results as those was illogical and could not be permanent. In fact, from the point of view of principle the system was entirely indefensible.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONinvited hon. Members whose constituencies would get large grants to exercise a little forbearance with those districts which would suffer under this distribution Although it was quite true that the distribution was not final, everyone admitted that it was one which was very powerfully supported by his right hon. friend and other promoters of the Bill. It seemed difficult to see how it could be modified or altered, so thoroughly had it been considered, and so impossible was it to reduce the allowance already given. He was not at all sure that with respect to the necessitous allowances

177
to some educational authorities there should not be some reduction of the amount given. He did not admit that that was impossible. He had known cases where the education grants were excessive as compared with what other education districts were receiving, and in such cases it was just to reduce those grants. It was indeed one of the things perpetuated under this Bill that there would continue to be an unequal incidence of the education rate. Therefore, this clause dealing with the distribution ought to be recast. The principle laid down was an admirable one, and they were all carried away with it on the Committee, but when it was said that no new facts had been elicited, he did not agree with that statement. Many facts had been elicited, not only since the Bill was in Committee, but since it had entered upon the Report stage. This scheme could never stand. He was not raising the question of his own constituency in comparison with Edinburgh, because the result was sufficiently obvious, but on the general principle laid down, and taking the general results, they were not only entirely antagonistic to the principle, but they would never be accepted by the majority of the people of Scotland. He did not think that much further discussion was required, because the Government had to reckon not with the House of Commons but with the constituencies in this matter, and they would insist upon a fair distribution in consonance with the general principles which had been laid down. Those principles could not be improved upon, but the principle of this distribution might be summed up in the words: "To him that hath shall be given even more abundantly." That was a principle which would not be popular in Scotland, and would not be accepted in this Bill.
MR. J. M. MACDONALDthought it would be for the convenience of the House if he withdrew his Amendment. He accepted the assurances given by the Secretary for Scotland, and he begged leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MENZIESmoved to leave out from the words "the districts" to
178
the end of the clause, and to insert the words "so as to give an equal amount, for every child in average attendance at their respective school or schools, to all school boards and other managers of State-aided schools, but that only after reservation of the sum of £25,000 to be given, at the absolute discretion of the Department, to necessitous schools or schools in thinly populated districts." This Bill proposed an unequal distribution of the money. He had no doubt whatever that the Secretary for Scotland and his draftsmen could draw up something better than the words of his Amendment, but he would be quite satisfied if he could get the substance of his proposal adopted by the Government. He had placed the sum at £25,000 for the necessitous schools, but if the Government suggested £26,000 or £27,000 or even £23,000 he would be quite agreeable to accept such a proposal. They could not change all the anomalies of the distribution which had been going on for years, and they could not abolish those anomalies without hurting somebody. Those districts were treated generously by the Department at the expense of the other districts, which only got about half. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give this scheme of equality some consideration. He was quite willing to accept the words of the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had given notice. He begged to move.
MR. DUNDAS WHITEin seconding the Amendment, said it seemed to him that some clear directions from the House ought to be given as to the principle on which such a large sum of money should be distributed, and that it should not be left to the sweet will of the Department. The Department had put forward a scheme which seemed to rest on no clear principle whatever. He would not quarrel with it if it worked well, but his point was that it did not work well. For example, Kincardineshire got at the rate of 15s. and Peebles-shire over 20s. per child in average attendance, while the industrial counties of Lanark, Renfrew, and Dumbarton got under 10s. per child in average attendance. It seemed to him that these

179
industrial centres, in many places overcrowded, ought to receive much fairer and more generous treatment than they were receiving under the scheme. The scheme which he and his friends were putting forward was that the number of children in average attendance at the schools should be subject to two qualifications. The first was that £25,000 a year should be set aside for specially necessitous districts, and the other was that no district should receive less than it was at present receiving, subject to the general qualification that the arrangement was sound in principle and would work well in practice.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 14, line 21, to leave out from the word 'district,' to end of clause, and to insert the words, 'so as to give an equal amount, for every child in average attendance at their respective school or schools, to all school boards and other managers of State-aided schools, but that only after reservation of the sum of twenty-five thousand pounds to be given, at the absolute discretion of the Department, to necessitous schools or schools in thinly-populated districts.'"—(Mr. Menzies.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'in,' in line 24, stand part of the Bill.'"
MR. SINCLAIRsaid the local authorities were, under the Bill, to get their share of the grant not as charity but of right. The hon. Member proposed to reserve £25,000. He himself was perfectly confident that such a distribution would not be in accordance with the general desire of the people of Scotland. What the local authorities wanted was to know what they would be sure to get, and not to be under the apprehension that, having the right to certain moneys, they could not depend upon them in future. That was an insuperable objection to accepting the Amendment. All these suggestions were fully examined and considered. He appealed to his hon. friend not to press the Amendment. The views of Members representing various constituencies were before the Government, and they would be carefully considered.
MR. MENZIESsaid that on the understanding that this would receive
180
consideration he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MORTONwho had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words, "in accordance with a scheme of allocation prepared by the Department," and to insert the words, "a fixed grant to be allocated to each county in the first place, the balance to be distributed according to population or in some other equitable manner," said that Sutherland was one of the counties which apparently under all the scales would suffer a diminution of what they at present earned. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the Department would not be bound by the scale mentioned and that in no case would they get less money than they were getting this current year, and that in all human probability, they must get more, as there would be more money to distribute. Under those circumstances, and being anxious that the Bill should be passed, he did not desire to move this Amendment.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONmoved an Amendment which, he said, was designed to give something of a safeguard in the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeen.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 14, lines 29 and 30, to leave out the words 'which scheme shall be laid before Parliament,' and to insert the words 'Provided that such scheme shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament if Parliament be sitting, or, if not, then within three weeks after the commencement of the next ensuing session of Parliament, and if neither House of Parliament within one month, exclusive of any period of prorogation, after a scheme has been laid before it, presents an address praying the King to withhold his assent from such scheme or any part thereof, it shall be lawful for the King in Council by Order to approve the same or any part thereof to which such address does not relate. The presentation of an address as aforesaid shall be without prejudice to the making of a further scheme under the like procedure. (4) A scheme under this section may be amended by a subsequent scheme made under the like procedure. (5) Any scheme approved by Order in Council under this section shall, as from the date prescribed in such Order, be of the same force as if it were enacted in this Act.'"—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 14, line 40, after the word 'parents,' to insert the words 'or guardians.'"
"In page 15, line 9, to leave out from the word 'of,' to end of line 10, and to insert the words 'income from all sources other than from school rate.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONrose to move, in page 15, line 9, to leave out from the word "income," to end of subsection, and insert the words "from fees and from grants made by the Department, which grants shall be paid on the annual average attendance of all scholars enrolled in these schools, provided that a course approved by the Department is followed by the majority of the pupils and that a full and definite course of secondary education is substituted for such as do not follow it."
MR. SINCLAIRasked whether the Amendment was in order. It was an instruction as to the disposal of a Treasury Grant, which did not come out of the Scottish fund at all.
MR. SPEAKER: I think that is so. We cannot deal with that on Report.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONmoved to insert, at the end of line 10, the words "except burghs and parishes which have made provision for their own scholars." He said the Amendment referred to an educational hardship which would result from the clause as it stood. Some Leith children went to Edinburgh High School, at a cost of £10 to £12 per head, and others went to Trinity Academy, at a cost of less than £3 per head. It seemed to him rather hard that the cost of children belonging to parents with social aspirations who attended Edinburgh High School, which had great educational traditions, should fall upon the poorer population of Leith, possibly dock labourers out of employment. Why should they have to contribute towards the cost of the education of the Leith child at the Edinburgh High School, amounting to between £10 and £12 in the course of the year? It was hard that they should have to pay for that child four times what the cost would be at Trinity Academy.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 15, line 10, at end, to insert the words 'except burghs and parishes which have made provision for their own scholars.'"—(Mr. Munro Ferguson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid that under the whole system of education in Scotland parents could not be compelled to send their children to any particular school. There was no such obligation in any preceding Education Act. The grievance to which reference had been made was not so bad as the hon. Gentleman made out. The cost of secondary education did not fall on the rates; it was provided for from other funds. In the second place, by this Bill, as his hon. friend knew, the burden of secondary education was laid not upon a particular parish, but on the district as a whole by a system of contributions from the school boards of outside districts which sent some children to the secondary school, and by the provision of bursaries. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he would not press the Amendment, but as the people of Leith found that they would have a hard case under the Bill he had brought it up.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 15, line 20, to leave out the word 'fund,' and to insert the word 'board.'"
"In page 15, line 21, after the word 'maintenance,' to insert the words 'after deduction of income from grants made by the Department or from fees, and of any sum paid to the school board under the immediately preceding subsection.'"
"In page 16, line 21, after the word 'aforesaid,' to insert the words 'or, in circumstances approved by the Department, at a supplementary course of not less than three years duration conducted in accordance with Article 21 of the Code of regulations for day schools of 1908 or under other regulations of the Department that may come in place thereof.'"
"In page 16, line 23, at end, to insert the words 'or training college.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. COCHRANEsaid that the Amendment standing in his name

183
to insert in Clause 16, after the word "board" the words "or the managers of any inspected school," was to meet another special case, that of Spier's School at Beith. That school was made a central institution for the training of junior students by the Scottish Education Department. It was governed by a body of el ven managers, of whom seven were elected by the school boards of the district, and these were called upon by the Department to increase their accommodation in order that they might receive the additional grant. The managers spent £4,500 in providing an admirable science and art equipment; and what they desired was that there should be some power by which this school, and others similarly situated, should get back some part of the capital expenditure on equipment in the same way as by subsection (8) of the clause school boards got contributions in aid of capital expenditure for class-rooms, laboratories, etc. He thought an economic way of providing for this class of education should be encouraged, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to add these words to the clause.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 17, line 26, after the word 'board,' to insert the words "or the managers of any inspected school.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid he had no doubt that Spier's School was doing most excellent work, but the difficulty of accepting the Amendment was that it would give a grant-in-aid of capital expenditure to increase the value of property held by private persons. He was sorry that that was a principle to which it was not possible to assent.
MR. COCHRANEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman misapprehended the case. There were eleven governors of this school, only one of whom was nominated and eleven were elected by school boards.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid he did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman. There might be a large share of representation
184
in the management of the school, but that did not alter the fact that the Amendment would involve the making of a grant-in-aid of capital expenditure on what was private property.
Amendment negatived.
MR. R. DUNCANmoved to add to the end of subsection (1) of Clause 20 the words: "Provided always that it shall not be competent under this section to annex a school board district having a population of over fifty thousand to an adjacent school board district unless the districts concerned are agreed in desiring such union." The object of this Amendment was to prevent the abuse of the system by which a school board might induce the Department to annex an adjacent school board against the wish of the latter. He represented a school board district with a population of 250,000 which had shown a progressive spirit ever since its establishment in 1872. Their school board was admitted to be one of the best in Scotland and they naturally wished to be safeguarded against a possible arbitrary Order from the Department to be united with the School Board of Glasgow. Unless both the school boards desired to be united it should not be done. He begged to move.
MR. WATTseconded the Amendment, which, he said, limited the power of the Department and made it essential that before one school board could annex another that adjacent board should give its consent. Large districts were apt to swallow up the small fry of neighbouring districts, as the city of Edinburgh had repeatedly endeavoured to swallow up Leith, and Glasgow, Govan.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 20, line 19, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided always that it shall not be competent under this section to annex a school board district having a population of over fifty thousand to an adjacent school board district unless the districts concerned are agreed in desiring such union.'"—(Mr. Robert Duncan.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid that this Amendment really only applied to Govan and he did not think that Govan would like to be called small fry, as had been suggested by the seconder. He could assure the hon. Member for Govan that he need have no apprehension in regard to the Govan School Board being united to the Glasgow district. He thought it would be undesirable specially to safeguard in a Bill of this kind a very large district such as Govan, which was perfectly able to take care of itself.
MR. R. DUNCANsaid as the right hon. Gentleman and the Government had satisfied themselves on this matter, it would be captious on his part not to accept the explanations. He would withdraw the Amendment.
MR. YOUNGERasked whether, in the case of the absorption of one school board by another under this clause, there were any safeguards as to the emoluments, etc., of the officials of the absorbed school board.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid an hon. Member had an Amendment down on that point, and the question had better be discussed upon it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SINCLAIR, speaking in regard to an Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. Cochrane, safeguarding the interests of the officials of the school boards in the event of an order uniting them being made, said that in the opinion of his advisers these officials were provided for, but he would reconsider the matter, as he desired to act in the spirit of the lines of the Amendment, and if it was necessary he would introduce a further provision.
MR. COCHRANEsaid that, of course, after the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he should not move the Amendment, but he would rather like the right hon. Gentleman to say how he proposed to give effect to his promise. There was
186
a power in the Bill to unite parishes and officials might be displaced. He had not been able to ascertain whether anything would be done for them, and he, therefore, put down this Amendment, which he had taken from the Local Government Act of 1889, adjusting it to meet the needs of the various classes. He thought some similar clause should be put in to safeguard the rights of the teachers. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman was thoroughly seized of the point, and wished he had been able to put the Amendment down sooner, so that he might have been able to consider it.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid he should like to have a free hand as to the way in which he dealt with the question if it was necessary. At present he was advised it was not necessary. Passing from that subject, he wished to move an Amendment omitting subsection (2) and introducing another dealing with the question of audit. A good deal of discussion, he said, had taken place on that subject since the Committee stage of the Bill, and therefore he proposed his Amendment which was now upon the Paper. The first Amendment which appeared on the Paper was that in the name of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire. That Amendment was very long, and practically restated the system which they had embodied in the Bill, by transferring a large portion of the Schedule into the actual substance of the Bill, and it provided for an appeal to the Court of Session, which was to be an appeal by a person aggrieved by the surcharge. The Government were very anxious to meet all reasonable criticism to their proposal. The House would see that there were Amendments down in the name of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs to this Amendment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire, and the real substantive portion of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs lay in the paragraph which dealt with the question of surcharge. The hon. Member proposed to insert—
"And in the event of any expenditure of the same nature as the payment so disallowed being incurred by the school board in any subsequent year, the Department if they shall be of opinion that the members authorising

187
such expenditure should be surcharged, may present a petition to either division of the Court of Session, craving to have such expenditure declared illegal, and the said members of the school board ordained to refund the amount of such expenditure in the event of it being declared illegal, and the Court shall before granting or refusing the prayer of such petition consider any representations made in answer thereto by the members proposed to be surcharged, and the Court shall have power to find that the expenses of said proceedings shall be payable by said members personally or out of the school fund as may appear just."
His hon. friend proposed that the Government should make it perfectly clear and explicit that there should be a dispensing power in the Department in regard to a first offence, so to speak, or the first illegal expenditure, and, as he himself said in Committee, frequently an expenditure of this kind might be incurred perfectly innocently, without any mala fides in the matter, and it had never been the practice of the Department to disallow any such payment. The hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs made this perfectly explicit in the Amendment which he had introduced to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire. That was his first point. His second point was that the Department should not have the power to surcharge itself, but if it wished to surcharge, it must go to the Court of Session, thereby laying the burden of determining upon that Court. The Department would have to go to the Court of Session and get the sanction of that Court to surcharge. He had had opportunities of consulting various bodies of critics of the original proposals of the Government as they were now contained in the Bill, on the subject of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs, and he had received assurances from them that the hon. Gentleman's proposal as amending that of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire met their views sufficiently, and thus bearing in mind the point of view of the Department, and the point of view of Scottish education, he had put down in his own name the Amendment which he now moved. It appeared a very long Amendment, but it was simply an embodiment of what the two hon. Gentleman he had mentioned just now proposed, and made one consistent Amendment, and showed the scheme of audit and surcharge which
188
the Government now proposed to the Committee. He thought he need not say anything more at the moment to explain further that system, but he hoped, as there was good ground for believing, that it met with approval outside the House, it might be equally fortunate to meet with approval inside it. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 21, line 7, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert the following: (2) The following regulations with respect to audit shall be observed (that is to say) (a) Before each audit the clerk of the school board shall, after receiving from the accountant of the Department the requisite appointment, give at least fourteen days notice in such manner as shall be prescribed from time to time, of the time and place at which the audit will be made, and of the deposit of accounts required by this section, and of the name and address of the accountant of the Department; (b) An abstract in duplicate of the accounts, duly made up, balanced, and signed as aforesaid, shall, together with all assessment books, account books, deeds, contracts, accounts, vouchers, and receipts mentioned or referred to in such accounts, be deposited in the offices of the school board and be open between the hours of eleven forenoon and three afternoon to the inspection of all ratepayers within the district of the school board liable to contribute to the school fund, as hereinbefore provided, for seven clear days before the audit, and all such persons shall be at liberty to take copies of or extcrats from the same, without any fee; and any officer of the school board duly appointed in that behalf refusing to allow inspection thereof shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, (c) For the purpose of any audit under this Act the accountant of the Department may, by demand in writing, require the production before him of all books, deeds, contracts, accounts, vouchers, receipts, and other documents and papers which he may deem necessary, and may require any person holding the same, or accountable therefor, to appear before him at any such audit, or any adjournment thereof, and to make and sign a declaration as to the correctness of the same; and if such person neglects or refuses so to appear, or to produce any such books, deeds, contracts, accounts, vouchers, receipts, documents, or papers, or to make or sign such declaration, he shall incur for every neglect or refusal a penalty not exceeding forty shillings; and if he falsely or corruptly makes or signs any such declaration, knowing the same to be untrue in any material particular, he shall be liable to the penalties inflicted on persons guilty of perjury. (d) Any ratepayer may make any objection to such accounts or any part thereof, and shall transmit the same and the grounds thereof in writing to the accountant of the Department, and a copy thereof to the officer concerned, two clear days before the time fixed for the audit, and any ratepayer may be present at the audit

189
and may support any objection made as hereinbefore provided either by himself or by any ratepayer, (e) If it shall appear to the accountant of the Department acting in pursuance of this section that any payment is in his opinion contrary to law and should be disallowed, or that any sum which in his opinion ought to have been, is not brought into account by any person, whether such payment or failure to account has been made matter of objection or not, he shall, by an Interim Report under his hand, report thereon to the Department setting forth the grounds of his opinion as aforesaid, and the Department shall cause such Interim Report to be intimated to the objector, if any, and to the officer or other person affected thereby; and after due inquiry the Department shall decide all questions raised by such Interim Report, and shall disallow all illegal payments, and shall allow all sums which ought to have been but have not been brought into account, and, in the event of any expenditure, of the same nature as any payment so disallowed being incurred by the school board in any subsequent year, the Department, if they should be of opinion that the members authorising such expenditure should be surcharged, may present a petition to either Division of the Court of Session craving to have such expenditure declared illegal and the said members of the school board ordained to refund the amount of such expenditure in the event of it being declared illegal; and the Court shall, before granting or refusing the prayer of such petition, consider any representations made in answer thereto by the members proposed to be surcharged, and the Court shall have power to find that the expenses of the said proceedings shall be payable by the said members personally or out of the school fund as may appear just. (f) Within fourteen days after the completion of the audit, or, as the case may be, after any proceedings under the immediately preceding paragraph of this subsection have been disposed of, the accountant of the Department shall report on the accounts audited, and shall certify on each duplicate abstract thereof the amount in words at length of the expenditure so audited and allowed, and further that the regulations with respect to the accounts have been complied with, and that he has ascertained by the audit the correctness of the accounts. He shall forthwith send one duplicate abstract of the accounts hereinbefore mentioned to the school board, who shall cause the same to be deposited in their office, and shall publish such abstract in the form prescribed in some one or more of the newspapers circulating in the district of the school board. The accountant of the Department shall also forthwith send the other duplicate abstract of the accounts so certified by him to the Department. Provided that, if the Secretary for Scotland shall so determine, such abstract may come in place of and render unnecessary a return of the receipts and expenditure of the school board in pursuance of the Local Taxation Returns (Scotland) Act, 1881. (g) Where any surcharge has been made as hereinbefore provided, or the accountant of the Department has made any interim Report or Report respecting the accounts or the receipts and expenses of the school board, the school board shall cause the
190
surcharge and Interim Report or Report to be printed and published together with the abstract of their accounts hereinbefore mentioned, and to be delivered to any ratepayer, as in this section mentioned, who asks for the same, and in case of default in such publication the Department may cause the same to be published, and the cost of such publication, to the amount certified by the Department, shall be a debt due from the school board to His Majesty, and the clerk of the school board shall be liable in case of default in such publication to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds. (h) Notwithstanding any thing in this section the Department may by minute prescribe rules modifying any enactment contained in this subsection as to the time and place of audit.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. COCHRANEsaid that his Amendment had been upon the Paper for some considerable time and he certainly felt somewhat prejudiced by the attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment which he had put down would have been very conveniently discussed had it been taken in its original form and the Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs could then have been discussed on their merits. But the right hon. Gentleman had taken a course which he occasionally adopted; he had thought fit to adopt his Amendment and put down one of his own which had precedence, and prevented him from discussing his own proposal. That, however, was merely a trifling matter and he had to deal with the substance of the proposal. No doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, his Amendment was somewhat lengthy, but the same criticism applied to that of the right hon. Gentleman. He put down his proposal because he desired that the Bill should be intelligible to the ordinary person, but the Bill as drafted by the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Local Government Act of 1889, and then other words were substituted for the words of that statute. That was a very clumsy and confusing way of carrying out the proposal, and he thought he would embody a clause in the Bill so that "he who runs may read." That was the only answer he would make to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that his Amendment was somewhat

191
lengthy. When they came to the substance of the two proposals he preferred his solution to that of the right hon. Gentleman's. In the first place they wanted to safeguard the bona fide school board, who would have many difficulties under this Bill. He wanted the House to see that the Department should give them that assistance which they were entitled to claim, so that when some new expenditure arose they would know how to keep in the right path. He had put down another Amendment on line 30 to which he wished to allude as part of his speech. That provided that any particular board or any member who was anxious to know whether they might incur an expenditure might apply to the accountant of the Department, and if he said it was legal no surcharge would arise. That he thought was a commonsense, wise provision. He had not mentioned the Secretary for Scotland as the official of whom the inquiry should be made, because if the right hon. Gentleman was to be the authority to determine the question, and there was an appeal through him to the Court of Session, such a course would have placed him in rather an impossible position, so he was obliged to make the person who would give the opinion whether it was or was not illegal, the accountant of the Department. If he declared that it was illegal it was then provided that the person interested might appeal either to the Court of Session or to the Secretary for Scotland. He thought that was a very complete scheme. What they wanted to prevent was misappropriation and illegal payments, but where a bona fide mistake was made they wished that there should be this dispensing power on the part of the Secretary for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with this matter by leaving out certain words and saying: "There shall be no surcharge on the first illegal" payment. That seemed to him rather to encourage illegal payments. How did the right hon. Gentleman justify his proposition? The first payment might be for a very large amount, but he condoned that offence. Such a way of dealing with the matter opened the door to a very undesirable state of things, nor was it consistent with the
192
other parts of the clause. Because in Section (d) it said—
"Any ratepayer may make any objection to such accounts or any part thereof."
What object could there be in the objection if there was to be no surcharge?
MR. SINCLAIRsaid the Department had no power to surcharge at present, it had only power to disallow certain expenditure. In future they would have power.
MR. COCHRANEsaid that at present the ratepayers might call attention to illegal payments, and there might be a surcharge but under this proposed clause, they might object to the payments, but could do nothing further. What was to take place after the objection? Here again the right hon. Gentleman had placed his Department in a difficult position. There was no surcharge on the first illegal payment. What was to happen on the second? The accountant of the right hon. Gentleman having already declared a payment to be illegal the right hon. Gentleman had to go to law to see if his accountant's opinion was right or not. The right hon. Gentleman had not improved his Bill by this clause. On the other hand, the Amendment which he himself had placed upon the Paper had the sanction of considerable precedent. It was adopted under the Act of 1902 in England, a most masterly work, which had adopted it from the Public Health Act of 1875. Under that provision any aggrieved persons who considered they had been unjustly surcharged, might appeal to the Queen's Bench Division, or to the Local Government Board. They nearly always appealed to the Local Government Board, because that Department had a power of dispensation. His Amendment would give the appeal to the Court of Session or the Secretary for Scotland, and the only objection he had heard to the appeal was on the ground of expense. But any aggrieved school board that desired to avoid expense had only to appeal to the Secretary for Scotland, and if the right hon. Gentleman thought the payment one that might be justified, he could dispense with the

193
surcharge. He ventured to think his proposal met the situation, and that the right hon. Gentleman's was far from meeting it. He was placed in a somewhat awkward position, because with a great deal of the right hon. Gentleman's clause he agreed, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman's method of getting out of the difficulty of the audit was the least possible one that could be devised.
SIR GEORGE MCCRAEdid not, having regard to the compromise offered by the right hon. Gentleman, intend to move his Amendment. At the same time he thought it would have been much better if the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the Amendment adopting the Town Council Act of 1900, on the ground of uniformity. He was now laying down a new procedure with regard to audit. The Report of the Committee on Municipal Trading, presided over by Lord Crewe, laid it down that a surcharge was no protection, and in his view it was better to leave the matter to public opinion and the Law Courts than to attempt to enforce it in this way.
MR. YOUNGERsaid the question of the surcharge was one he supposed strongly in Committee, and the school boards with which he was connected had agreed to his supporting the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, subject to there being an appeal of some kind against the autocratic power of the Department. He agreed that there should be an alternative appeal, but at the same time he thought the appeal to the Court of Session was too expensive. He, as a school board manager, would be much more satisfied in ordinary cases to take his appeal to the right hon. Gentleman than to the Court of Session or any other Court. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept some Amendment to provide for an appeal. He had grave doubts as to the dispensing power which the right hon. Gentleman took. He believed it would take away the rights of the ratepayers of taking legal remedies. It was extremely unwise to put a power of this kind into an Act of Parliament and prevent the rights of ratepayers being
194
exercised. Those rights ought to be protected.
MR. SINCLAIR: I am advised it does not take away those rights, and it is the intention of the Government that it shall not do so. It is our intention to affirm that more clearly.
MR. YOUNGERsaid if that was so he would pursue that point no further. There was one other objection. The first offence was condoned, and the second offence was to be surcharged. If the first offence was the supply of luncheons, and the second the supply of dinners, they were not the same offence. Were the first and second offences to be of a like character, or were they not? That was a matter the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having afforded him an opportunity of justifying the action that he had taken, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow an alternative appeal to himself.
MR. SMEATONrose to ask two questions. The right hon. Gentleman desired the appeal to be presented to the Court of Session—a most convenient tribunal for the Department, because the Court held its sittings in Edinburgh, where the Department had its branch offices. At the same time the inconvenience to the school boards, he would imagine, would be great, and the expense of an appeal to the Court of Session would be far greater than an appeal to the Sheriff Court. Why should not the appeal be to the Sheriff Court? The next question he wished to ask was with regard to the payment of costs—
"And the Court shall, before granting or refusing the prayer of such petition, consider any representations made in answer thereto by the members proposed to be surcharged, and the Court shall have power to find that the expenses of the said proceedings shall be payable by the said members personally or out of the school fund as may appear just.'"
What about the expenses incurred by the school board when the Department failed? Was the school board to pay in any event?
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was acceptable as to all the larger boards, but

195
as to the smaller ones, he thought that something was to be said for the modification which had been suggested, because the expense of going to the Court of Session would be considerable. It would be rather hard upon them to have the Court of Session flourished in their face by the Education Department who raised the question of surcharge. While he was quite ready to accept the Secretary for Scotland's proposal as regarded the larger boards he thought that there ought to be some modification in reference to the smaller boards.
THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,)said the point raised was well worthy of consideration, as was that put by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire. The cases would not be many and would arise mostly where there had been some error in law. It was most desirable to have such cases dealt with by the highest judicial authority so that their decision would be applicable to every school board in Scotland. He would point out that they might get an excellent decision by the sheriff in one county while in another they might get a sheriff's judgment which would necessitate the whole case being tried over again.
MR. RAINYsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper which he had put down because he had taken into consideration the question of expense, but after the explanation of the Lord-Advocate he did not propose to move it.
MR. COCHRANEpointed out that it might be in the power of the Education Board to drag any one of the 972 school boards in Scotland before the Court of Session. If the school board happened to be right, who was to pay the board's expenses?
MR. THOMAS SHAWwas understood to say that in the Scottish Department they were not troubled about the question of costs.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. JAMES HOPEwho had given notice of the following
196
Amendment to Clause 21—"to leave out from 'Department,' to end of subsection, and insert 'and any sum not shown to the Department to have been properly expended in giving instruction required or permitted by minute of the Department in force for the time being shall be deducted from the next grant payable to the school'"—said it raised a drafting point. As he read the words of subsection (3), the result of them was that the unfortunate managers of these schools would not be able to get any money paid to them until it had been shown that it had been properly expended, and the consequence would be that they might have to go on without it for many months. That he submitted was the construction of the words. He thought that if there was any doubt about them at all they ought to be set right When he raised the point in Committee the right hon. Gentleman promised to consider it, and he believed that the alternative words which he now suggested would perfectly carry out the intention which they had in view.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid the hon. Member's Amendment was not necessary. The words in the Bill would be better left as they were. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that no such ill consequences as he anticipated would follow. He had made inquiries on the point and could give him that assurance.
MR. JAMES HOPE: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is assured that there will be no such result as I have suggested?
MR. SINCLAIR: Yes.
MR. JAMES HOPE: In that case I do not move.
MR. COCHRANEin moving an Amendment providing that school boards might apply to the Accountant of the Scottish Education Department for advice as to expenditure to be incurred, said the object which he had in view was that school boards should be entitled to ask the advice of the Accountant of the Department as to whether any

197
item of expenditure which they proposed to incur was legal or illegal. He thought it desirable that a school board, if it was anxious to know whether it could incur any particular expenditure, such, for instance, as the feeding of school children, or any other point, should have the opportunity of applying to the Department for advice and assistance in the matter. Although the Department were undoubtedly very courteous, yet if any one approached them as to a point such as those to which he had referred, they invariably answered that it was a legal question and they were not qualified to give a reply. But the Accountant of the Department would surely have to decide whether an expenditure was legal or not, and if he were asked beforehand, he could give an opinion on the matter. His desire was that the Accountant's power to do so should be expressed in the Bill, thus giving the school boards the right to ask for an opinion before entering upon any expenditure which they had in contemplation, and about which they were in doubt.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 21, line 30, at end, to insert the words '(4) Any school board shall be entitled to make application to the Accountant of the Department respecting any expenditure which they may propose to incur. If such expenditure receives the sanction of the Accountant of the Department it shall not subsequently be regarded as an illegal payment liable to be disallowed or surcharged on the person or persons making such payment.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid the hon. Gentleman was perfectly right. It was a common practice for school boards to write asking the Department their view on a particular expenditure about which they had doubt, and the Department gave such answer as was in their power. But the Department could not take the responsibility of interpreting the law in some particular respect. Of course the present practice would continue, for there was no desire on the part of the Department to discourage the applications of school boards for help and guidance such as the Department could give. This Amendment was
198
part of the hon. Gentleman's own scheme, but there was difficulty in accepting it, because neither the Accountant nor the Department could give a decision as to the legality of a payment; that duty rested with the Court, and it would be very difficult for the Accountant or the Department to give advice, however willing they might be to do so, on some point of an intricate nature. Otherwise, they might express an opinion which afterwards proved to be contrary to the decision of the Court. He thought that on the whole the Bill would be better without the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONthought that the right hon. Gentleman might consider the proposal of his hon. friend in view of the fact that it was the Accountant who now set the machinery of surcharge in motion. If the right hon. Gentleman looked at the first words of the subsection he would see that they were—
"If it shall appear to the Accountant of the Department acting in pursuance of this section that any payment is, in his opinion, contrary to law, etc—"
He imagined that his hon. friend would really be satisfied if he could get that expression of opinion from the Accountant of the Department, not at the time when he was intervening and setting the machinery in motion for surcharge, but before the proposed expenditure was incurred.
MR. SINCLAIR: The hon. Gentleman attaches too much judicial weight to the Accountant's Department.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he could not agree with his hon. friend who had moved this Amendment, to which the answer was perfectly simple. The Accountant was not really an accountant in the ordinary sense. By the Act of 1872 the word "accountant" was applied to a man who was an auditor. Was it possible for a man who was an auditor as well as accountant to give an opinion beforehand as regarded the accounts? He remembered on one occasion, in connection with a large school, he asked the opinion of the auditor as to certain expenditure, and he received the reply, politely conveyed, that he was to use

199
his own judgment and that he would give his decision on that exercise of judgment afterwards.
MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid that in all his experience he had never known of an Act of Parliament which provided that they should be told beforehand whether what they were doing was right or wrong. That was a thing which they must risk.
MR. COCHRANEpointed out that local authorities constantly applied to the Local Government Board in Scotland for advice in similar circumstances to those he had in mind in connection with this proposal, and they always got a reply informing them whether a payment was legal or not. A great many of these 972 school boards were probably anxious to keep within the law, and if they could get advice by application to the Education Department it would make the matter easy for them. He, however, should not press his Amendment at that hour of the night, because there was a general understanding that they were to get the Bill through. He merely wanted the hon. Gentleman to understand that it was quite a sensible Amendment which might well have found a place in the Bill in order to keep small school boards in the right direction. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. JAMES HOPEwho had given notice of his intention to move the omission of subsection (1) of Clause 22, said his only object in putting down his Amendment was to call attention to the inconsistency between adopting the loan system for the school board and not adopting it for big national works like Rosyth. He would not press the matter.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 22, line 31, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'at each election after the election taking place in the year nineteen hundred and nine.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Renfrew† is beyond the scope of the Bill. By a side wind it would alter the system of local franchise.
MR. WATTmoved an Amendment which he said would have the effect of postponing the first election until 1911. At the last moment the Government had departed from their original position, and had gone back to the scheme of having the election in the spring of 1909. Preparations for such an election coming on so soon as April or May, 1909, would really be impossible. A roll had to be prepared, which took a very long time. November was the month usually allocated for the beginning of the making of the roll. That month was near its end already, and the Bill was not yet on the Statute-book. The preparation of the roll would be made more elaborate by the fact that under the Bill new electoral districts would be instituted by the Secretary for Scotland. In subsection (4) it was indicated that on the application of a school board the Department might divide a school board district into two or more electoral divisions, define the boundaries of such divisions, and fix the number of members. All these preparations had to be gone into before the rolls were elaborated and the election took place. On that account if on no other, it would be much wiser' to permit the present school boards to continue their existence until 1911, and thus bridge over the time. Under the Government scheme the school boards throughout Scotland would be elected in 1909, and would sit for two years. It was a well-known fact that even under the present law a new school board took at least a year to get into harness, and that with the changes brought about by this Bill the school boards would have much greater difficulty in getting to understand their work. The first year of these new boards would be spent in getting to
† The following is the Amendment referred to:—"In Clause 25, after the word 'district,' to insert the words 'Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, a married woman, otherwise possessing the qualification for being registered as an elector may be registered in respect of the same property as her husband; and.'"—(Mr. Laidlaw.)

201
know what they were to do. It was a notorious fact that during the last year of the lives of school boards they were in a condition of terror of the electorate whom they would have to meet, and they initiated very few new schemes. So that they would be deprived of the middle year of their lives when they really did some good for the country.
MR. PIRIE, in seconding, thought the House must be impressed by the reasonableness of the Amendment. Up to that morning it was the scheme in contemplation by the Government, so that there must be a great deal to be said for it. It was most dangerous in view of the new duties which would fall upon school boards that possibly a great number of men new to educational work might be elected to carry out these new regulations. It would be infinitely more judicious, and in the interests of educational efficiency, if the old members of the school boards had been allowed for the first two years to carry out the absolutely new methods which the Bill would bring into effect. He hoped, if the Government persisted in their attitude—
MR. YOUNGER: On a point of order, might I ask whether these words, having been inserted in the Bill on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, do not involve the necessity for an election in 1909?
ME. SPEAKER: I do not think so. Of course, it is a little involved, but the way I read it would be: "The electors in any election after the election taking place if there is one."
MR. YOUNGER: There is one by law now, and it must take place in 1909.
MR. PIRIEhoped, if the Government persisted in their attitude, the ratepayers would weigh the desirability of returning old members of the school boards to carry out entirely new duties. In any case it was desirable that the Amendment should be moved in order to get a full explanation of the extraordinary change of attitude of the Government at the last moment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 22, line 33, to leave out from the word 'district,' to end of subsection, and to insert the words 'Provided that an existing school board holding office at the passing of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, retain office until the first election of school boards under this Act, which election shall take place in the year nineteen hundred and eleven, being the year following the year of a parish council election.'"—(Mr. Watt.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the second word 'the' in page 22, line 34, stand part of the Bill."
MR. SINCLAIRhoped he should not offend his hon. friends if he asked them to be good enough not to press the Amendment. It was a point of some importance, but not of cardinal importance. It was quite true what they said, and there was a good deal to be "aid on both sides. It had been his duty to endeavour to arrive at a reasonable compromise on points which were not very vital or of essential importance in the interests of the measure as a whole. This measure had to be worked by people in Scotland. It imposed certain conditions and obligations on a large number of people in Scotland. In the ordinary course the present school boards would have exhausted their mandate by next spring. That was an argument of some strength, and it went rather against the arguments of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment. After making very careful inquiry, he had found himself in a minority, and he thought it his duty to withdraw from the position which the Government took up in Committee, and to leave the election to take place in its normal way in the spring.
MR. WATT: On that statement I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 22, line 34, to leave out from the word '1872' to end of line 38."
"In page 22, line 39, after the word 'election,' to insert the words 'after the election in the year nineteen hundred and nine.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. JAMES HOPE, in moving to leave out subsection (3), said the object of his Amendment was to preserve the cumulative vote which was necessary for the protection of minorities. He had no fear that any conscious or deliberate injustice would be perpetrated by school boards upon any minority, but they would feel it a loss and a deprivation, and indirectly they would be left out of the power of controlling matters which were of great interest and importance to them. Under earlier clauses of the Bill certain powers were given to school boards with regard to schools in their area but not under their control. He did not profess that the cumulative vote was an ideal system and he did not doubt that the system of the hon. Member for Ayr might be better had they time to discuss it. Under the English Education Act there was special provision for minorities in the constitution of the education committees. If the franchise was changed to the ordinary political franchise in Scotland there would be no room for these minorities. Speaking specially for his own coreligionists who did not like the other provisions of this Bill with regard to finance, if this cumulative vote was taken away from them they would feel that they were hardly and harshly treated. He did not believe that was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and he would lose nothing by keeping the cumulative vote in.
MR. WATTseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 23, line 5, to leave out subsection (3)."—(Mr. James Hope.)
Question proposed, "That the words of the subsection down to the word 'give,' in line 6, stand part of the clause."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid they approached this clause with two Amendments on the Paper, one to reinstate the cumulative vote and the other introducing the system of proportional representation. For his own part he regretted extremely that it was not possible to abolish the cumulative vote in Scotland. Very strong representations had reached him as to the inconveniences which would arise if
204
the cumulative vote was not passed into law. That being so, and holding the view that, after all, the education system, if it was to be worked for the benefit of the people of Scotland, must work without friction, the Government had been obliged, and thought it well, to re-consider their position in the matter. One alternative held out was contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire dealing with the system of proportional representation, and he thought that Amendment might have gone some way in the direction of satisfying the views of some of those who supported the cumulative vote. On the other hand, it could not be denied that it was a somewhat serious thing to adopt in an Act of Parliament by a side wind the principle of proportional representation, even though its application was confined to local elections. That was a new principle which he did not know that the House of Commons as at present constituted had ever had an opportunity of really discussing. On the whole he thought it was better to take the simpler plan, and as they could not secure unanimity as to the abolition of the cumulative vote the Government had decided to leave it in existence where it was. He was sorry for it, but he thought it was a necessity of the situation, and he advised his hon. friend on the Ministerial side of the House to take that view of the matter. There was other business to come on, and he suggested to the hon. Member for Sheffield who had moved the omission of this subsection—which course the Government agreed to—not to press his Amendment to omit the next subsection which the Government preferred should remain in the Bill. He assented to the Motion to omit subsection 3.
MR. JAMES HOPEthanked the Secretary for Scotland for meeting him so far, and he did not think it would be necessary under the circumstances to move his other Amendment.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONgreatly deplored the decision of the Government on this point. He said that certainly not from any want of consideration for hon. Gentlemen opposite who wished to retain the cumulative vote, but because

205
he thought their object could have been better attained by the proposal of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire in favour of proportional representation. The proportional system of representation would have provided them with a good voting system, whereas cumulative voting was a thoroughly bad one. The only really progressive section left in the Bill now was that relating to continuation classes. With that exception this was a reactionary Bill, and to go back on the cumulative vote was the most unfortunate step the Government had taken.
MR. BOLANDcongratulated the Secretary for Scotland on the line he had taken up, because he had tried to meet the views of those who had been contending for the rights of minorities. Subsection (6) of Clause 3 gave power to provide free stationery not only to board schools, but to voluntary schools, and if the cumulative vote had been abolished, it was quite possible in some districts where voluntary schools were not looked upon with favour that the school board might have withdrawn from voluntary schools the right to have free books and stationery, which the supporters of the Bill claimed was one of the great advantages given to voluntary schools by this measure. He thought it was absolutely necessary that the cumulative vote should be retained. The right hon. Gentleman had done the right thing by preserving for minorities the cumulative vote.
MR. BEALEassumed that the course taken by the Government rendered his Amendment in favour of proportional representation impossible because it took out the subsection to which that Amendment related. He might say that so far as the representation of minorities went he was delighted, although he was not satisfied that the course the Government had taken was the right one. After the speech of the hon. Member for Leith Burghs he had some hope that they would get before long a better system than the cumulative vote for attaining the same very desirable object.
MR. GULLANDsaid he was very much surprised at the statement of the right hon.
206
Gentleman, because he had hoped that the clumsy, antiquated, cumbrous and unsatisfactory methods provided by the cumulative vote would have been abolished. He thought the plan adopted in the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire provided a real solution of the difficulty of the representation of minorities in a scientific form. The cumulative vote was a most unscientific way of attaining that object.
MR. MORTONexpressed his regret that the Secretary for Scotland had given way on this point. He did not know whom the right hon. Gentleman had taken his orders from, but he had certainly not consulted the Scottish Members. He understood a few days ago that the right hon. Gentleman was going to stick to his Bill, and he regretted that he had not had the courage to do so.
MR. J. MACVEAGHexpressed his gratification at the decision of the Government on this point. His hon. friend opposite said he did not know where the Secretary for Scotland got his authority from. He would remind him that the Scottish Members upstairs were consulted and the Government very narrowly escaped defeat on this very subject. [Cries of "No."] The hon. Member who interrupted him evidently was not present when this subject was debated upstairs. Those who were present, however, were genuine Scotsmen and not Englishmen sitting for Scottish constituencies. He had listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dumfries who had described the cumulative voting system as clumsy and antiquated. That was not the first time that those words had bee, used, because the Opposition had frequently used the same words as applied to free trade. That, however, did not settle the question. The cumulative vote was the only system which could give fair representation to minorities, and the scheme with which the hon. Member opposite had fallen in love, namely, proportional representation, would not give fair representation to minorities. They were contending for a fair representation for minorities, and having regard to the fact that they had at the present

207
moment educational peace in Scotland he claimed that it was largely owing to the cumulative voting system under which representatives of all denominations could obtain seats on the Education Board. That system allowed the representatives of all denominations to sit around a common board, and in that, way they learned to know and respect one another. It was largely on account of that system that they had no religious differences in Scotland, and it would have been absolutely deplorable if the Government, finding that there was no religious controversy in Scotland, had proceeded by this Bill to create an educational difficulty and bitterness where none had existed previously. For those reasons he rejoiced at the decision of the Government, and if hon. Members opposite were only allowed to speak their opinions to-night he felt sure an overwhelming majority of them would declare themselves in favour of the decision at which the Government had arrived. [Cries of "No."] The Scottish Members to-night were not allowed to speak, because they had all been muzzled at the peril of their political existence. He felt sure if they were free and the Government Whips were not put on an overwhelming majority of Scottish Members would declare in favour of this fair representation of minorities in Scotland.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid they had now reached a very important stage of this Bill, because they were called upon to settle the principle upon which the representation of school boards should be based. The present system offered some advantages for the representation of minorities, but they were now considering the whole system de novo. They were putting new provisions on the Statute-book, and surely that was an occasion when they might consider whether cumulative voting was the best means of obtaining results which they all desired. He regretted to find that upon an occasion of this sort, for reasons which he could not understand, the proper discussion of the question at issue was being burked" He was extremely anxious to hear the views of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire upon proportional representation. He
208
was anxious to hear what were the objections to which the cumulative vote was open. [Cries of "Agreed."] If muzzled Members of the Liberal Party below the gangway were agreed, he wished it to be understood that there was no such muzzling on his side of the House. Regret would be largely felt in Scotland that this occasion had been allowed to pass without a discussion of the principle embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.
MR. MCCALLUMsaid he desired to join those who had thanked the Government for the course they had taken in this matter. As one who had often taken advantage of the cumulative vote, he thought it was only fair that the minority should be considered. Catholics and Nonconformists had surely some rights as ratepayers, and under the system provided by the cumulative vote they were able to obtain representation which under other methods they would not be able to secure. The Government had acted wisely and with great advantage to the cause of education in making a graceful surrender.
MR. R. DUNCANsaid it had been constantly reiterated that there was very great harmony between Catholics and Protestants in Scotland. The reason for that harmony was that there had been a desire on the part of the people to remember the fundamentals on which they were agreed, and to try to forget those matters on which they were not yet agreed. They would be taking a backward step if by abolishing the cumulative vote they were practically to disfranchise the Catholics in Scotland. Ninety per cent. of the people of Scotland were Protestants and Presbyterians, and he thought nothing need be done to render Catholics less powerful than they were now. He was glad the Government had come to the decision to retain the cumulative vote, which, although in some respects a clumsy method, was a means by which minorities of the ratepayers could obtain representation.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONmoved to insert the words "before granting or refusing the prayer of the petition and complaint" after the word "shall" in line 30. He said this was merely a drafting Amendment designed to clear up the question whether the function of the Court in dealing with defaulting governing bodies was purely ministerial or to a certain extent judicial. The Secretary for Scotland would as a matter of law state whether the words were unnecessary. He wished to get a public assurance on the point from the right hon. Gentleman.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 23, line 30, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'before granting or refusing the prayer of the petition and complaint.'"—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRassured the hon. Gentleman that the words were not necessary to obtain the purpose he had in view.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 25, line 3, after the second word 'exceeding,' to insert the words 'seven hundred pounds per annum in the case of endowments the revenues of which before the passing of this Act might be applied to purposes in two or more counties, or in any other case not exceeding.'"—(Mr. Watt.)
Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs communicated with him on the subject of this Amendment. He was sorry that he was not able to accept the Amendment. The clause was very carefully considered and the protection of endowment authorities was sufficiently provided for. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 25, line 12, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that the governing body of any intermediate or secondary school administered under a scheme approved in terms of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1882, or under any Act or any Provisional Order confirmed by Act of Parliament, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any scheme,. Act, or Order, have power, with the sanction of the Department, to administer that part of their annual revenue, presently applicable to the granting of bursaries, in conformity with the requirements of Section twenty-eight thereof without the necessity of applying to the Court of Session or to Parliament.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRreferred the hon. Member to page 25, lines 5 to 8, where there were the words—
"Notwithstanding any provision of the scheme hitherto regulating the number, amount, conditions of tenure, or method of award of the bursaries, be applied by the governing body to the granting of bursaries in conformity with the general scheme for the district as aforesaid."
He was advised that these words fully met the point of the hon. Member's Amendment. He would give the hon. Member the undertaking that if they did not fully cover it the words would be accepted.
MR. COCHRANEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 25, line 40, after the word 'council,' to insert the words 'or county education committee.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid the Amendment had been moved no doubt because of an apprehension that the interests of servants were in danger under the Bill That was not so. They would be in the same position under the secondary education committee as under a county council. The same protection would be extended to them, and there was no need for the Amendment.
MR. COCHRANEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GULLANDmoved to insert in Clause 32—the interpretation clause—after the word "Department," the words "which in future shall be called the Scottish Education Department." As between the words "Scotch" and "Scottish," one word was wrong and the other right both officially and unofficially. He would call the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to the fact that the Scotch Education Department was housed in the Scottish office, that it had charge of the Royal Scottish Museum, and that this Bill was considered and amended by the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills. That was a sufficient reason for his Amendment. He had consulted the Edinburgh Directory and found that there were in that city 123 Scottish societies and three Scotch; while in the Glasgow Directory there were 122 Scottish Societies and three Scotch. They ought to use the word "Scottish" where it ought to be used. He begged to move.
AN HON. MEMBERseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 26, line 10, after the word 'Department, to insert the words 'which in future shall be called the Scottish Education Department.'"—(Mr. Gulland.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he wished that they had a little time to discuss this Amendment. As a temperance reformer, the mover of the Amendment had an objection to the word "Scotch." He did not agree with those people who wanted to call themselves Scottish. The real authority on all things Scotch was Robert Burns, and one of his best poems was about an "Auld Scotch drink." Then there was Byron's poem about "English bards, and Scotch reviewers." Every author of eminence—Burns, Byron, Scott—would have been affronted at the idea of their attempting to get the word "Scottish" in two syllables when they
212
had the strong, sensible, and suggestive word "Scotch" in one syllable.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 20, line 25, to leave out the word 'Third,' and to insert the word 'Second.'"
"In page 27, line 17, to leave out the word 'Fourth,' and to insert the word 'Third.'"
"In page 29, to leave out Schedule 2.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendments agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MR. PIRIEsaid that some of the features in connection with this Bill were unparalleled in the annals of Scottish legislation. It might be said that he was exceeding his rights in saying a word on the Third Reading, but he did not think so. He asked the House to consider the time given to this Scottish Education Bill as compared with the time given to the English education measure. When the Scottish Members asked for time to discuss the Bill on Report and on the Third Reading stage, they were told a fortnight ago that it was a non-contentious Bill, and that it should go through the House in the course of one sitting including the Third Reading. On the first day of the Report stage it was discussed from four o'clock in the afternoon to two o'clock in the morning. Since that time a great number of new Amendments had been placed upon the notice paper by the Government, making changes in the Bill, and most of them were good. What would have happened to the new Amendments had the original idea been carried out? Those Scottish Members who had revolted against the treatment meted out to Scotland had surely been justified in their attitude from the fact that many of the Amendments which had been put down had been accepted. He had had twelve years' service in the House, and in all that long experience he did not think he had ever known Scottish business to be so treated as it had been during this session and the last. It was becoming more and more apparent as time went on that this House was not the proper place to manage Scottish business. [Cries of "Home Rule."] In

213
another statement the Prime Minister said that the Bill was non-contentious. Were the Scottish Members under the Party system not like a poor starving dog which must take what was thrown to it without complaint? That was why Scotland was anxious to get this Bill. It had been said that the Bill was closely connected with the old-age pension scheme for teachers, and that it was important from a Treasury point of view that the Bill should pass that day. That brought him to a matter the like of which he trusted would never happen again. The rumour had been sedulously circulated in the Lobby yesterday that unless the Bill was passed by 8.15 that night, it would be dropped, and he had had a letter written to him saying that it was necessary that the Bill should be passed by a certain time. That was holding a pistol at the head of the Scottish Members telling them to pass the Bill, or else they were not doing their duty. He hoped such a thing would never be repeated. He did not know who was to blame, but it was clear that the party whips had regarded party alone; and not the interests of Scottish legislation. The Scottish Members had every right in doing their duty, indignantly to repudiate such treatment, and to declare that they would have none of it. There was one other feature to which he would like to call the attention of the House. The Bill had been before the Standing Committee for fourteen or fifteen sittings. Scotland, at the present moment, had the advantage of possessing ten or twelve Members who sat on the Treasury Bench. Those Members were naturally among the ablest of the Scottish representatives. They were men whose opinion would be of some value in shaping Scottish legislation, but by the system of Scottish Grand Committees they were debarred from and had not actually taken any part at all in the discussions of this measure in Committee. That meant to say that ten or twelve Scottish constituencies were practically disfranchised. [An HON. MEMBER: Shame.] Some of those hon. Members were eminent authorities on Scottish education, including the Secretary for War who, when this Bill was before the last Parliament had taken a prominent part in the discussions in Committee. There was one great blot
214
on the measure—it was a matter which he had brought up on the Second Reading stage—and that was, that the opportunity had been lost of transferring the Scottish Education Department from London to Edinburgh. He had always thought that was a most vital point, and that the people of Scotland had a right to manage their own educational affairs in their own country. In his preface to a valuable work on Scottish educational reform, the Secretary of State, who had been a Scottish Member for upwards of twenty-two years and who was a member of the Education Committee of Scotland, expressed the view that the administration ought to be centred in Scotland and not at Dover House, many hundreds of miles away. Having written that, it was the bounden duty of the right hon. Gentleman to support in Committee an Amendment to that effect, and to forward his views in the House of Commons. Until this change was effected the administration could not be effectively carried on. There were fifty Scottish officials of the Scottish Education Department in London and 118 in Scotland, and it stood to reason that where the latter number was the headquarters of the Department ought to be. The amount of the salaries of the Scottish officials in London was £13,000, and in Scotland £40,000, and it stood to reason that where the salaries of the officials were the most numerous, the head of the Department ought to be. All the other Scottish boards, eight in number, were practically centred in Scotland. Surely it was a strong argument that the Education Department should be in Scotland that the Local Government Board was carried on there, because the latter had more administrative work to do than the Education Department, and that Board was both legislative and administrative. What would his hon. friends from Ireland say if the Irish Education Department were to be situated in London, and surely Scotland had a right to ask that she should have the same advantages as Ireland. Take the question of the legal officers. Parliament did not sit during a great part of the year, and during that period at least they ought to be in Edinburgh to control the legal work. It was not treating the Scottish school boards fairly in the

215
management of their business, unless they were given a close personal association with the Department, and if the office was in Edinburgh it would lesser the number of deputations from Scotland to England, and also reduce the correspondence. As to the ostensible reasons given against the change by those who professed to wish for it, it was a case of "save me from my friends." They said they were in favour of it, if they were given a Parliament in Scotland, and had Home Rule first. He said that if they transferred the Education Board to Scotland, Home Rule would necessarily follow. The Secretary for Scotland said they would transfer the Department to-morrow if they could also transfer the power of Parliament to control it, but Parliament did not do so. It had been the curse of Scotland—this alleged control of the Education Department by Scottish Members, and the influence of Scottish Members in the House was a myth and an illusion. The control of Parliament was wholly illusory, and the Department was dominated by the officials. It was said by the Secretary for Scotland that the Scottish Education Department being one of the largest spending Departments should be located close to the Treasury in order that negotiations to get more money might proceed. He never heard of such an argument being put forward by a Minister. They did not want to get any money by back door influences, but they wanted what they were entitled to, and no more. Then they were told that the officials of the Department had established themselves in London, and had long leases of their houses, and it would be rather unfair to disturb them. He was perfectly ready that the change should only take place in five years time. There was one thing they had gained by discussion, however, because they now knew that this change could be brought about by administrative action. He could assure the Secretary for Scotland that they would leave no stone unturned until the Scottish people realised the importance of this matter. He asked hon. Members to put the question firmly and straightforwardly before the democracy, and it would not be long before the change was brought about. They had had thirty-six years
216
of this Department; for that period no great educational reform had been carried out in Scotland, and he thought that such a state of things was lamentable. He was pleading not only with the members of the House, but with the Scottish people to say that as it was the inviolable right of a private individual that he should be able to take an active interest in the education of his own off-spring, so it was the great duty of a nation to take an active interest in the education of its own children. In insisting upon that they were fulfilling one of the most sacred duties that could fall upon any nation. He pleaded for this change as he had never pleaded for anything in the House before, and he held that it was in the highest interests of Scotland and its education that she should have the right which he advocated. The result of this Bill, he was sorry to say, had not been to free Scotland from the Education Department, but to rivet the fetters upon her, but he looked forward to the time when the many obstacles which prevented Scotland from controlling her own education and her own affairs would be removed.
MR. BOLANDsaid the members of the Irish Party for whom he and the hon. Member for South Down had been acting had hoped that before the Bill emerged from the Report stage the financial arrangements would have been settled satisfactorily, and it was with great regret that they came to the Third Reading, and found that they were practically in the same position as they were when they started. The House would remember how, when the Report stage was under discussion, they moved that the Bill should be re-committed so that Clause 15 might be discussed again, and that the Catholic, and in fact, all the voluntary schools in Scotland should have some opportunity of competing, not on level terms, but on fair terms with the school boards in Scotland, and the House would remember how after three hours discussion it was disclosed to them that there would be a residue of 2s. per child for voluntary schools in Scotland. He willingly conceded that the Secretary for Scotland had met their claim about the cumulative vote in a generous manner,

217
but he did not consider that the financial arrangements of the Bill were satisfactory, and consequently they must take a division against the Bill. Under the English education scheme which was now before the country the Catholic schools would get a minimum of 46s., rising to a maximum of 55s. per head. The utmost the Catholic schools in Scotland received was 40s. 5¾d. per head, and even though they got the additional 2s. which was promised them recently, the grant would not reach even the minimum proposed in England. The grant of free books might mean another small amount, but it did not give the minimum grant which was given in England to contracting-out schools. He mentioned this to show that the Roman Catholics of Scotland for whom he had the honour of speaking did not think they had been fairly treated, and he would only say in conclusion that as the financial clauses of the Bill were unsatisfactory, for that and for no other reason it was necessary to divide on the Third Reading.
MR. MORTONagreed with his hon. friend the Member for the Northern Division of the City of Aberdeen that Scotland had not had fair play, so far as legislation in this House was concerned. It was useless to complain, however, because a Liberal Government, largely composed of Scottish Members, was against them and utterly neglected Scotland. This was the only Bill which they had got through or nearly through, except the Tobacco Act, which the Government had opposed. He regretted that the religious question had been raised by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He thought that in Scotland they had got beyond that, yet Irish Members unfortunately, notwithstanding the support Scottish Members had given them on
Irish affairs, interfered in the purely local affairs of Scotland. Ireland perhaps was not in as good a position as Scotland, and not so well-governed; but that was their own fault. If they had given England a Bannockburn 100 or 200 years ago they would not now be in the position of a conquered country—which Scotland never was—and be governed as such. He hoped that the Bill would be passed, and that Scotland would get something, if not all that she ought to have. In this matter he noticed that the Members of the Treasury Bench—with one exception—had got for their constituencies the larger share of the money, but that as usual they had neglected the poorer constituencies However, he was thankful that the people of Scotland were to get something, as much as the front bench would allow; and he had no doubt without the help of the Irish Members they would be able to show the people of the United Kingdom how to carry on the education of the Scottish people, and he hoped that the Irish Members would profit by it. Surely Scottish affairs should be managed by and in the interest of the Scottish people.
MR. BELLOCsaid that if the hon. Member opposite would put himself in the position of a Protestant minority in a practically self-governed Ireland, and assume that the Protestant children there were compelled either to go to a Catholic school or contract out, and that if they contracted-out they had to find something like 25s. a head, he would see that the humanitarian point of view was rather at fault.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 195; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 415.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bright, J. A.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barnard, E. B.

Brodie, H. C.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bryce, J. Annan

Alden, Percy

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Beale, W. P.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Atherley-Jones, L.

Beck, A. Cecil

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

Clark, George Smith

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Clough, William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bramsdon, T. A.

Clynes, J. R.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brigg, John

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Renton, Leslie

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

Hodge, John

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

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

Holt, Richard Durning

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Cowan, W. H.

Jackson, R. S.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cox, Harold

Jardine, Sir J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Jenkins, J.

Rowlands, J.

Craik, Sir Henry

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Scott, A H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Kekewich, Sir George

Sears, J. E.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Laidlaw, Robert

Seely, Colonel

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Delany, William

Lamont, Norman

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

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Simon, John Allsebrook

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Lupton, Arnold

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lynch, H. B.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Erskine, David C.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Summerbell, T.

Essex, R. W.

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Maclean, Donald

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Fenwick, Charles

Macpherson, J. T.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Ferens, T. R.

M'Callum, John M.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Crae, Sir George

Thompson, J. WH. (Somerset, E)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Findlay, Alexander

Marnham, F. J.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Foster, Henry William

Massie, J.

Walsh, Stephen

Fuller, John Michael F.

Menzies, Walter

Wardle, George J.

Gill, A. H.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Middlebrook, William

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Glover, Thomas

Molteno, Percy Alport

Waterlow, D. S.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mond, A.

Watt, Henry A.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Montgomery, H. G.

Weir, James Galloway

Gordon, J.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Grant, Corrie

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

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Myer, Horatio

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Gulland, John W.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Wilkie, Alexander

Gurdon, Rt. HnSir W. Brampton

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williamson, A.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Nuttall, Harry

Wills, Arthur Walters

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Partington, Oswald

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Paul, Herbert

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Younger, George

Haworth, Arthur A.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Yoxall, James Henry

Hedges, A. Paget

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

Helme, Norval Watson

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

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

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Radford, G. H.

Henry, Charles S.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Higham, John Sharp

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Hills, J. W

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Killop, W.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Gretton, John

Meagher, Michael

Boland, John

Halpin, J.

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

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hayden, John Patrick

Muldoon, John

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hogan, Michael

Murnaghan, George

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jordan, Jeremiah

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Cross, Alexander

Joyce, Michael

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Cullinan, J.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Nolan, Joseph

Dillon John

Kilbride, Denis

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

Farrell, James Patrick

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Fell, Arthur

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Ffrench, Peter

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

O'Doherty, Philip

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

O'Dowd, John

220

221

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Reddy, M.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Redmond, John E.(Waterford

Young, Samuel

Question put, and agreed to.

PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL.
As amended by the Standing Committee, considered.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The proposed new clause† in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green is beyond the scope of the Bill.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he would like to draw attention to the title of the Bill. It was "to make better provision for the prevention of crime and for that purpose to provide for the reformation of young offenders and the prolonged detention of habitual criminals and for other purposes incidental thereto."
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that the words "other purposes incidental thereto" did not mean any Amendment of the Prisons Acts the hon. Member might desire to move. The proposed new clause was an Amendment of the Prisons Acts, not of this Bill.
MR. RENTONsaid the Amendment he rose to move referred to the treatment of persons under the Borstal system. It would be a great pity to lay down any hard and fast rule such as was laid down in the Bill as to the discretion of the Judges, and he wanted to urge that the Court should be given unlimited discretion as to those whom they might sentence to undergo imprisonment under the Borstal system. Such discretion was already given under Clause 3 to the Home Secretary. Surely the Judge who tried the case, saw the prisoner and heard what he had to say, and who had all the facts before him and could ascertain the antecedents of the prisoner, was as good
† The following is the clause referred to:—
"On the occurrence of the next vacancy in the office of Prison Commissioner and Director of Convict Prisons a woman shall be appointed to the office, and thenceforward one Prison Commissioner and Director of Convict Prisons at least shall always be a woman."
222
a judge as to who should or should not be sent to a Borstal institution as any official could be. Under the Bill, no person over twenty-one years of age could be sentenced for detention under the Borstal system, but he thought it would be recognised that in some cases a lad of eighteen might be a more hardened criminal than some lad of maturer age fresh from the country. It might be said that unless they had a hard and fast rule as to age of Borstal prisoners, administrative difficulties would ensue, but it would not be difficult to send elder prisoners to one institution, others to a second, and the younger prisoners to a third institution. The Home Secretary had power to create more Borstal institutions if they were needed. He failed, therefore, to see that any administrative difficulties would ensue. If the system was good for boys, surely it was good for young men. He thought it would be a disaster if they laid down a hard and fast rule that no young criminal over the age of twenty-one should be sent to a Borstal institution and they should not leave it to the discretion of the Judge as to who should or who should not go to a Borstal institution. The system had been more or less of a success and he anticipated that in future years it would have far greater success. A good many people said it was a failure, that it was only urged by sentimentalists, and that it would not have had its even present success had it not been for the splendid committee who administer it. 189 prisoners were discharged from Borstal institutions in the last year for which they had figures, twenty-three of them were recommitted, and twenty-seven were reported as not doing well. He would venture, however, to point out that out of the 189 dealt with, no less than 151 had an average of four previous convictions. The system should be given a good chance. If it were, he was convinced they would have no need whatsoever for Part II. of the Bill. Supposing Judges found that it was a failure, they need not sentence any more to detention under the Borstal system. They could re-

223
vert to the old system and sentence prisoners to hard labour or penal servitude. If the system, however, was good, as they had every reason to believe it was, it should be extended. The penal system in this country was, he believed, the most rigorous of any civilised nation, and by the second part of this Bill it was admitted to be a failure. It neither reformed nor did it deter. He begged the House, therefore, to give the Court every discretion in the trial of prisoners so that, if a Judge thought any man would be reformed by being sent to a Borstal institution, he might so order. He firmly believed, from his own knowledge, that the Borstal system would be far cheaper in the end, and at all events it would be far more humane than the system of punishments which obtained in the country at the present moment.
MR. RAWLINSONseconded, not for the reasons given by his hon. friend, but rather for the peculiarity of the regulation drawn up in the section. The Judge who tried the case had the simple power to send a person between sixteen and twenty-one to a Borstal institution, but by the latter part of the section the most extravagant power was given to the Home Secretary to extend the age if he thought fit to twenty-three. He rather objected to that system of legislation. If they wanted to make the limit twenty-one, let them, say so, and if they wanted to make the limit twenty-three let them make that limit. Again, the Home Secretary was to have power to deal with anybody up to any age. Though a Judge had not power to send a man to a Borstal institution, and, therefore, sentenced him to a year's imprisonment, the Home Secretary, in exercise of his extraordinary power under Clause 3, might come in and, if satisfied that the person sentenced might with advantage be detained in a Borstal institution, authorise the Prison Commissioners to transfer him from prison to a Borstal institution. It was perfectly clear the Home Secretary was to have unlimited discretion to send anybody of any age to a Borstal institution. That was, on the whole, right, but surely the Judge who tried the case ought to have
224
the same discretion. It was a monstrous thing to give absolute power to the Secretary of State to send any person of any age to a Borstal institution whilst tying the discretion of a Judge to the cases of persons between sixteen and twenty-one years of age. He, therefore, seconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 10, to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 1."—(Major Renton.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,)said the hon. and learned Member objected to the discretion which was left to the Home Secretary.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he distinctly stated that on the whole he thought it was a good thing that the Secretary of State should have discretion, but the Judge who tried the case certainly ought to have an equal discretion.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he did not quite understand the hon. and learned Member. He had great sympathy with both the mover and the seconder of the Amendment, but he must point out what the effect of it would be. They had found in the working of the present informal Borstal system a great difficulty in inducing the Courts to send to the Borstal institutions in all cages the right kind of persons. Many Courts were cognisant of the working of that system, but for one reason or another mistakes were being constantly made and the wrong kind of persons were being sent to the institutions. He would read from the Home Office Circular the description of the kind of person they thought might go to a Borstal institution. It was as follows—
"The class of persons for whom the Borstal system is devised is not first offenders or novices in crime, but young recidivists guilty for the most part of acts of larceny, and rough, undisciplined lads, of the lounging and hooligan types, who are apparently drifting towards a career of crime."
Those were the persons they wished to get hold of. He would point out that the first part of the Bill related to young offenders, so that in a sense the Amendment was out of order having regard to the

225
title of the Bill. He understood the hon. Member wished to remove the restrictions.
MR. RENTON: No; surely youth is not limited to twenty-one years. Many people are youthful after twenty-one.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he understood the hon. Member wanted to remove the restriction on the age of sixteen as well as twenty-one.
MR. RENTONsaid he imagined a Judge would not sentence anybody under sixteen to three years in a Borstal institution. He would send him to a reformatory or somewhere else.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid his point was that it was not desirable in any case to send to the Borstal institution lads under sixteen. They ought to be dealt with either under the Children Act or the Reformatory Act. It was desirable to give reasonable directions to the Courts as to the kind of person who ought to be sent to Borstal. They said sixteen was the lowest age at which he ought to go. Then why not insert the limit of sixteen? Then they came to the limit of twenty-one. All he could say was that this matter was very carefully discussed. They considered whether they ought to give the Court free discretion to send to a Borstal institution persons above the age of twenty-one, and had come to the conclusion that on the whole it was not desirable, because if they mixed up different classes of men and juvenile adults the result must necessarily be harmful to their training and the general discipline of the institutions. Therefore, they thought there ought to be a definite limit imposed upon magistrates who perhaps did not quite know the working of the system, to keep them from the error of committing to Borstal institutions persons so far above the age of twenty-one that they were totally unsuitable for the institution. On the whole twenty-one was a reasonable age to fix. Then why, he might be asked, did they take power to raise it to twenty-three? For one reason they did not with to plunge too far into this matter at first. This was a new system. They did not know to what extent the Courts would avail themselves of it, and if they were to make it higher than twenty-one
226
they might have too many cases to deal with before they were ready to receive them. As it was they would have largely to extend the Borstal prison.
MR. STAVELEY-HILLsaid his reason for supporting the Amendment was that he thought discretionary power should be done away with. At any rate, if any discretionary power were given at all the same power should be given to the Judge or person who tried the prisoner as was given to the Home Secretary, for this very obvious reason—that if there was anyone who was capable of exercising a discretion it was the Judge who saw the prisoner, tried him, and knew all the facts of the case. The Home Secretary had said that under this Borstal system the wrong prisoners were sent, or that he never got the right prisoners.
MR. GLADSTONE: I never said that. I never said that we never got the right prisoners. I said sometimes the Court sent the wrong prisoners.
MR. STAVELEY-HILLsaid it amounted very much to the same thing. But that was not the point. Apparently, the difficulty was to get the right prisoners. It was far more likely that the right persons would be sent to the institutions if the age were fixed at twenty-three or twenty-five. It often happened that when the Judges were trying prisoners who were suitable in every way for the Borstal system the age-limit crept in and the Judges said that their discretionary power had ceased. Often between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-three these young men were suited to that particular treatment, and he suggested that the Home Secretary should make one age of twenty-three and give no discretionary power to the Secretary of State. That would meet the objection of his hon. friend and make the system much better and more workable than it was.
SIR F. BANBURYthought the right hon. Gentleman did not quite understand the motive which had induced his hon. friend to move the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said it was almost out of order, because it would deal with any age, whereas this section was only

227
for the reformation of the young offender. Under Clause 3 the Secretary of State might send a man of eighty to a Borstal institution, so that if the Amendment was out of order this clause was out of order. There might be an explanation, but he could not see it. The right hon. Gentleman said under subsection (2) of Clause 1 the age could not be increased to twenty-three unless the Home Secretary laid an Order upon the Table for thirty days, and the House could move an Address to His Majesty objecting to the Order. But why was it limited to twenty-three? The two things were absolutely incompatible. Under this clause, unless the Amendment was carried and subsection (2) left out, the result would be that the Judge could only send a person to a Borstal institution provided he was between sixteen and twenty-one, but the Home Secretary could send him there if under twenty-three, provided he got an Order not objected to by the House of Commons. The difference, he supposed, was that this particular person must have been sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment. He could see no other difference. In the first case, he might not have been sentenced. In the second, he must. The object of the Amendment was to give the Judge the same power that the Home Secretary possessed. He understood the right hon. Gentleman thought the Home Secretary's power should not be greater than the Judges'.
MR. GLADSTONE: The object of Clause 3 is to give the Home Secretary power to correct a possible mistake by a Judge or magistrate from want of full knowledge of the particular man with whom he is dealing, and to transfer him from prison to a Borstal institution. The object obviously is that only persons of the same classes and ages who are admitted to Borstal institutions shall be so transferred from prison. We are perfectly ready to put in an Amendment in another place to meet that point.
SIR F. BANBURY: Then I will not press the point, beyond saying I think the Amendment should be put in in this place.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid the hon. and learned Member for
228
Cambridge had advanced the very best reasons why the Amendment should not be accepted, because he had pointed to those sections in the Bill which provided the elasticity that was desired by the mover of the Amendment. When the matter was being considered upstairs they had all these suggestions and arguments put before them and they adhered to the clause because they knew they were at the same time going to preserve that elasticity which would be placed in the hands of the Home Secretary. They had considered very closely whether it would be desirable that men over twenty-one indiscriminately chosen by Judges who had not the proper opportunities of considering the characters of these men should be thrown in under the Borstal system amongst a lot of young persons of immature age and upon whose minds there might be a very bad impression made. They decided, therefore, that it was better to have some limit but at the same time that there should be placed in the hands of the Home Secretary a discretion to be exercised according to his judgment upon full consideration. Therefore the subsection was introduced raising the age of twenty-three. But that was not all. Clause 3 said the Secretary of State might, if satisfied that the person sentenced either before or after the passing of the Act to penal servitude or imprisonment might with advantage be detained in a Borstal institution, authorise the Prison Commissioners to transfer him from prison to a Borstal institution. Here were two methods of exercising judgment on the part of the Minister, who would have ample time and opportunity under circumstances not open to the Judge, of seeing whether the man could be with advantage transferred. The Amendment would unquestionably have his support if this elasticity were not contained in the Bill, because from his own experience he was in favour of anything which would extend the discretion, either on the part of the Judge or of the Minister, in favour of the prisoner. At the same time, he was restrained from supporting the Amendment by the fact, that under the hasty judgments that came to his own observation day by day in Courts of Law, most undesirable men might be

229
thrown in amongst young people whom it was the intention of the Bill to reclaim. For that reason he was constrained to support a humane Amendment—the principle of which they had discussed upstairs. He was sorry he could not follow his hon. friend into the Lobby if he went to a division.
MR. CARLILEregretted that the right hon. Gentleman, in giving the grounds on which he refused to accept this Amendment, should have given as his last reason for its rejection that the Bill as drafted would provide the authorities with all the cases they anticipated being able to deal with. That, of course, was a reason which it was extremely difficult, without a great deal of technical knowledge of the details and circumstances of the criminal classes in the country, for anyone to estimate. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there would be within the ages of sixteen to twenty-one as many cases as he thought the authorities were likely to deal with.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he did not want to extend the area too much, in case there might be too many.
MR. CARLILEthought that was a very good ground. In moving this Amendment his hon. friend had in mind a desire to see the system extended, not as something which had not been tested, but as an institution which had been tested and had shown excellent results. Consequently, the Home Secretary was not now entering upon an undertaking which was purely experimental. Surely the authorities who had to deal with the imprisoning of a large number of criminals would, in any case, keep them in confinement in some sort of prison, and they might so adapt some of the convict stations and prisons that they might be able to take in a very considerable number largely in excess of what the right hon. Gentleman now proposed. Why should an application have to be made to the Home Secretary in every case, and why was it necessary to go through all that machinery? Surely the Judge might receive instructions from the Home Secretary to guide him in the selection of likely persons. Men changed in their tendency even among criminals at
230
different periods of their lives. It did not follow that because a man was not reclaimable between sixteen and twenty-one he would be irreclaimable after that. It was often found in practice that prisoners were reclaimable at all periods of life. Why should this system, which was well known to be efficient and good, not be made applicable to persons above twenty-three years of age? He hoped his hon. and gallant friend would go to a division on this Amendment. He was sure that many hon. Members would feel that it was the right thing that this principle should be extended, and that the powers now given to the Home Secretary should permit of a considerable extension of the system. If this were done, the result would be that a vast amount of good would be done, and many men, whose lives would otherwise become permanently criminal, would be set upon the right path, and make good, healthy sound citizens. He begged to support the Amendment.
MR. LUPTONurged, in regard to the objection that sending older people to the institution would interfere with the treatment of the younger, that the two classes might be received in different departments or prisons.
Amendment negatived.
SIR P. BANBURYmoved to leave out the words "apparently under such age." This was really a drafting Amendment. He thought that was a simpler way of putting into the English language the desire of the Home Secretary. If this Amendment were adopted the right hon. Gentleman would have power to extend the system to people under the age of twenty-three. Why it was necessary to put in the words "apparently under such age," he did not know. He begged to move.
MR. CARLILEformally seconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 7, to leave out the words 'apparently under such age.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEpointed out that cases could be dealt with if a person

231
appeared to be under the age of twenty-one.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Home Secretary could not do anything if they were under the age of twenty-three.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the provision was intended to give the power to the Court if a person appeared to be under the age of twenty-one.
SIR F. BANBURYasked what would happen supposing a person was over twenty-one when he was convicted.
MR. GLADSTONEreplied that the Court had to decide whether a person appeared to be under twenty-one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GLADSTONEmoved an Amendment in Clause 3 (power to transfer from prison to Borstal institution) providing that the Secretary of State may, in the case of a person sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment "being within the limits of age within which persons may be detained in a Borstal institution," authorise the Prison Commissioners to transfer him from prison to a Borstal institution.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 31, after the word 'imprisonment,' to insert the words 'being within the limits of age within which persons may be detained in a Borstal institution.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. RAWLINSONsaid the Home Secretary's Amendment answered his point, and he should support it with his whole heart.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that Clause 4 gave power to the Home Secretary to establish Borstal Institutions in different parts of the country. The Amendment he proposed would limit those establishments to three in number. He thought the Home Secretary would be ready to admit that Borstal institutions were still in the experimental stage, for they had dealt with only about 200 cases, and, therefore, they had not gone very far up to the present. He thought they ought to proceed gently in giving a boundless
232
discretion to the Home Office to extend and build a large number of these institutions before the experiment had been carried through satisfactorily. When one was pleased with a new work it was so easy to run into unnecessary expense in bricks and mortar, and his object in inserting this Amendment was that the Home Secretary should be allowed to build only three Borstal institutions. Of course the existing prisons could be used for this purpose, but the object of this Amendment was simply to limit the powers of the Home Secretary in regard to the creation of
SIR F. BANBURYseconded the Amendment. He said it was no consolation to the taxpayers when asked to find a large sum of money to be told that the Home Office had not spent much. He thought some limit should be put to the reckless expenditure which was going on. This was a new system, and it might be all right, but if it was found to work satisfactorily, it would be easy to bring a Bill to authorise the building of more institutions.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 40, after the word 'establish,' to insert the words 'three.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'three' be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEhoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. If the Borstal institutions were limited to three, what would be the result? Naturally that they would be abnormally large, and if they were, the very evil which the hon. Member anticipated would have to be faced. If this movement was to succeed, it would be a pity to limit it in any way. If it was to fail, the Amendment was unnecessary.
MR. RAWLINSONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. RAWLINSONmoved to leave out Clause 7, for the purpose of getting an explanation from the Home Secretary. It was a somewhat new departure that the Home Secretary with the approval of the Treasury should be allowed to give

233
unlimited subscriptions to any private society, however desirable it might be. He was aware that grants were sometimes mysteriously made to private societies, and he had wondered under what power it was done.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 29, to leave out Clause 7."—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
Question proposed, "That the clause proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid there was a precedent for what was proposed here. In this particular case he would remind the House that the most essential part of the Borstal system was what was known as the "after-care system," in connection with which immense labour was bestowed by those most excellent workers who looked after the class with whom they were dealing. The Treasury had sanctioned an annual grant of £500, which, recently had been raised to £1,000 for this excellent purpose. It would hardly be worth while going on with the work unless some provision was made for a financial subsidy. He asked the House to pass the clause.
MR. RAWLINSONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESmoved to omit Part II. of the Bill, which deals with the detention of habitual criminals. He said he perfectly recognised that this was a futile task, because even if he were able to persuade hon. Members present—a number inconsiderable as compared with the number elsewhere—he knew that when the division bell rang those who were now absent would come in and overwhelm the votes of those who had heard the debate. He much regretted that the benches opposite were vacant when they were discussing this matter affecting the liberty of the subject. He could conceive no more grave invasion of what had been the unbroken constitutional practice in this country, with regard to the trial and sentencing of prisoners, than that which now emanated from a Liberal Government. With the details of the Bill he would
234
not concern himself. What he was concerned with was the question of the inspiration of the measure. He did not know on what authority it was inspired. There was a proposal that it should be in the power of a chairman of quarter sessions to sentence to an indeterminate period of imprisonment, dependent on the good will of a prison warder, a man convicted three times of, possibly, a trivial offence over an almost unlimited period. That was a most startling-proposition, and had no warranty in the criminal jurisprudence of this or any other country. Moreover, this indeterminate period of imprisonment could not be inflicted unless, as a condition precedent, a sentence of penal servitude was passed. The Bill, therefore, compelled the presiding Judge to pass a sentence of penal servitude which, but for his desire to inflict the indeterminate period, he would probably not pass. Certain preliminary safeguards had to be taken before a man could be charged with being an habitual criminal, and an absolute right of appeal was conceded. He had to be found to be an habitual criminal, and he was to be so found on evidence of reputation given by police officers, gaolers, and persons of that description—the most dangerous kind of evidence known to lawyers. He spoke from long experience, and he did not wish the House to understand that he regarded that evidence of no moment at all, but it was certainly not evidence which should have much, if any, weight attached to it for the purpose of imposing a sentence which was to entail such grave consequences as this part of the Bill contemplated. Assuming that the tribunal had not made a mistake, but had got hold of a goal-bird—in his comparatively small experience he had seen many persons who had alternated between the prison and the dock—he quite admitted that if human justice were infallible, and if human nature were capable of unerring judgment, it would be justifiable that such persons should be separated from their fellow creatures; but it was because he did not believe that human judgment was infallible that he objected to this proposal in the Bill. Assuming that the man had been rightly sentenced, where did he go to? He went

235
to penal servitude for three, tour, or five years or more, and after that penal servitude was over he still remained in penal servitude, although another name was given to it. Although the Home Secretary had chosen to say that the man might be confined in another part of the prison and under modified conditions, yet this man was to be kept in prison for ever—[An HON. MEMBER: Oh!]—Yes, for ever, except that after a period of ten years it would be obligatory upon the Home Secretary to make a special report to Parliament. These reports to Parliament—he spoke from experience—were not worth the paper they were written upon; they were absolutely ineffective to assist Parliament to action. Assuming that the Home Secretary did his duty—he did not think any human being would suggest that the present Home Secretary, and he said this without any desire to flatter the right hon. Gentleman, did not do his duty—assuming that the Home Secretary strove his best to do his duty, this unhappy man would, while in prison, be subjected every six months to the torture of being brought before the board of visiting justices, inspired with the hope of the opportunity to escape being afforded him. On whose guidance, counsel and advice would the Home Secretary act? On the report of the Committee and the gaol authorities. The board of visitors would go to the prison, would talk to the prisoner, would accept or reject what they thought fit in his statements; but the real people who would give advice which would influence a decision would be the warders, the subordinate officials of the gaol, and upon their advice the Home Secretary might on licence discharge a prisoner undergoing preventive detention if satisfied that there was reasonable probability that he would not again engage in crime. That was sheer irony. All experienced prison, officials would agree that the man most likely to be releated from prison under this provision was not the sincerely contrite and penitent prisoner, but the hardened hypocrite, who was cunning enough to escape prison discipline, and was able to ingratiate himself with the warders. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, did he really believe that there was any
236
effective means available by which they could test whether a man was a reformed character or not? He noticed with some amusement some time ago a list of the marks for good conduct which had been obtained in a certain convict prison by certain notorious criminals-and most dangerous ruffians, in the sense of their being the greatest danger and pests of society—men convicted as fraudulent trustees and directors of public companies. These were the men to ingratiate themselves with the prison officials, and who made themselves agreeable to the warders. They were removed into the hospital, or put playing-the organ if they had musical ability, as many of them had. These were the men who earned the full number of marks, and of whom the Home Secretary would get good reports as well deserving to be let out on licence. He objected to giving to any human being, however high a judicial officer he might be—he should shrink from exercising any such function himself, and would regard it as a grievous burden—the right to confine another human being for the rest of his days on the arbitrament of the Home Secretary, acting on the initiative of prison warders. He maintained that the system embodied in this Bill was a new departure in the science of penology; it was an invasion on the principles of punishment which had been applied in any other civilised country. He felt very strongly on this matter, and although he did not anticipate that he should succeed in getting official support from that side of the House, he was sure that he would have the support of some hon. Members who considered that after all the good of the State was not the only thing to be taken into account, but justice to the individual. He begged to move.
MR. BELLOCseconded the Amendment. Those who thought with his hon. and learned friend and himself wished, he said, to get rid of the principle underlying the second part of the Bill, and if possible expunged from other legislation. They considered it to be immoral and fraught with much serious danger in, this and other departments of legislation. If he were asked why a Member of Parliament should oppose the second

237
part of the Bill, he should reply—although many people might regard it as somewhat doctrinaire—it was because that without doubt if the provisions of the measure were clearly put before the English people they would be almost unanimously rejected. If the measure were made a first-class Bill it would be even more unpopular than was the Licensing Bill. In considering a measure of this kind, what was called a criminal class had to be pre-supposed. Whatever set of laws was made by the State, there was certainly a type of man likely to break these laws. The offences dealt with in this Bill were mainly offences against property, or minor offences which were morally petty, but the method of dealing with them imposed what the poor regarded as the worst pain which could be inflicted. He remembered during the Second Reading of the Bill that a Member of this House, who was also a member of what were called the governing families of this country, made some jokes about an old lady who stole some bacon, and he wondered what the noble Lord thought of those countries where they punished those who stole land? The noble Lord appeared to think that because an old lady who stole bacon was a nuisance, therefore there should be an arbitrary right to put her in confinement for a period which might perfectly well, if she were guilty of any violence, extend throughout her life. Then there was another point, so general that he was not sure how far it would carry conviction, though it was very plain and real to him. In this proposal they were cutting themselves apart, and for the first time, from the whole traditions of legislation, morals, and jurisprudence of civilised Europe. It was not an unimportant thing that for the first time, even in a small measure of this kind, they were turning their back upon what had been the theory of jurisprudence of this and every other civilised country. It seemed to him a matter of considerable doubt. There was a phrase as old as the Romans which said that a man "purged" his sin. A due punishment was weighed against his offence, and, after enduring it, he was free again, and a responsible citizen again. That conception had run through the whole of our morals and jurisprudence for 3,000 years, and it was at the bidding
238
of pseudo-scientists with broken-down reputations like Lombroso's that they were going to turn their backs on the whole of that tradition. When he heard appeals to new countries—America, and the Colonies, and heaven knew where—he feared that the Members who used them had lost their sense of things European and traditional. The Bill would probably become law because there was not a single Member in this House, and not even in the other House, who could by any conceivable set of circumstances be inconvenienced by its proposals. Would any man who regarded these things lightly ask himself how his conscience stood in the matter of right and wrong? They of the well-to-do classes knew that they stood in little danger from the laws, If they could apply the indeterminate sentence to the type of evil which well-to-do men commit, there would be no chance of its passing into law in this House, and still less in the other. It was almost certain to pass into law, and that was why he spoke with violence. When it was passed into law they would have entered for the first time into that path which all modern pseudo-sociology was trying to force them into, at the end of which they had the tyranny of bureaucrats. He begged to second.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, lice 6, to leave out Part II of the Bill."—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'whether' in page 5, line 7, stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid he made no apology to lawyers as a layman for taking part in a debate of this kind, because the Home Secretary, on the First Reading, said it was not for lawyers only but every layman was entitled to have a full voice in the new policy of this Bill. He gave the Second Reading of the Bill his support because of Part I. and he had hoped that Part II. would disappear or be modified. It would be remembered that this measure was introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule, read a second time at a Friday sitting, and then it went to the Standing Committee, where

239
he gathered from The Times newspaper that there was great difficulty in keeping a quorum, as there were many interruptions by counts. Therefore, he thought this House ought to discuss fully this grave and important change which it was proposed to make in the criminal procedure of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had distinguished between Part I. and Part II.; he said it—
"undoubtedly raises new questions upon which there may be serious and, perhaps, strong differences of opinion."
He (Sir W. J. Collin) claimed to have had some experience in these matters, because he was on the board of visitors of a convict prison for five years, and became acquainted with the interior of such places. Under the Act of 1898 he opened the first certified inebriate reformatory of the London County Council, and he also visited the Aylesbury State Reformatory and the asylums of the London County Council for ten years or more. He, therefore, had had some opportunity of studying this question of recidivism in criminals, and he would give the House his experience as a humble student of criminology. He agreed with the mover of the Amendment that it was desirable to know whence had come the proposal which they were now discussing. What was the genesis and origin of this Part II. of this Prevention of Crimes Bill? It had been stated in previous debates that the origin of this Part II. was the result of the Report of a certain Committee which sat in 1894, but he would ask the House to compare what it recommended with the provisions of this measure. The recommendation of the Committee of 1894 contemplated the—
"Segregation of habituals for long periods of detention, during which they would not be treated with the severity of hard labour or penal servitude, but would be forced to work under less onerous conditions."
They did not advocate penal servitude first, with detention afterwards, but less one ous can i ions from the first; in other words they regarded these criminals, not as incorrigibles, but as having some hope of redemption. They did not recommend eternal damnation or indefinite detention at the pleasure of the Home Secretary. The right hon.
240
Gentleman said, with regard to these criminals, that hope and not fear was the best antidote to criminal habits, and he was bound to say from what he had observed of those undergoing penal servitude, that their eager hope was to get release, but if they were to have the penal servitude to expiate the crime first and an additional indeterminate detention at the end of it, he thought it would engender not hope but despair, and the words of Coleridge would apply—
"Work without hope draws nectar in a sieve,
And hope without an object cannot live."
He thought that this would be the result of this additional preventive detention which they too would have to forward to. He should have thought it was a case of—
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here."
What was the origin of this plan? It would be found, not in the Reports of any independent Committee, but it emanated from prison officials, and would be found in the Report of the Prison Commission of 1901–1902. He knew what good work the Chairman of that Commission had done, but he thought he was undoing it by the Amendments he had pressed upon the Home Office. These were the results of the Reports of a bureaucratic Commission, and not of any independent inquiry. It was said to be easy to draw the line between the mad and the bad, but he ventured to submit that it was exceedingly difficult to do so. Those who took cognisance of these matters recognised a large class of borderland cases where it was difficult to say if the people were mad or bad. He recalled the case of a woman who had had numerous short sentences in Holloway and graduated thence to a certified reformatory and thence to the State Reformatory where, after repeated confinement in the punishment cell, diet punishment and straight waistcoat, she was reported to be insane and sent to an asylum where the medical officer reported—
"She has been extremely morose since her admission here, and puts one in mind of a wild animal at bay. Last night she attempted suicide in a very determined manner by tying some thread tightly round her throat. If asked to give a name to her mental condition, I should be inclined to describe it as moral

241
Insanity and suicidal impulse, and I think the prognosis is very unfavourable."
These cases of moral insanity he thought our system failed entirely or very largely to weed out from our prisons. In all cases of reclamation or in any system of the allotment of rewards and punishments, they must postulate the existence of a will amenable to such influences as were brought to bear in the process of reclamation, amenable, that is, to the ordinary motives of conduct. Unless one had the co-operation of the individual one was really fishing in fishless waters in attempting to get any man or woman to improve. He was not surprised to hear the Home Secretary say that anything was better than the present system, because in the Committee upstairs the right hon. Gentleman said—
"The prison authorities now had no responsibility for the prisoner's moral condition or future welfare put upon them by law, and they were not bound to turn him out a better man than he went in."
Under these circumstances one was not surprised that 50 per cent. returned again, when no effort was made to turn a man out better than when he went in. But a far more important matter was the aspect of the mental condition of these persons. The Home Secretary himself said, when this question was raised on Second Reading, that many of these persons were mentally deficient.
MR. GLADSTONE: Not the class we are dealing with in this Bill.
SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid the right hon. Gentleman said they made a distinction between "habituals" and "professionals."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he quite agreed. They made a distinction, but they distinguished, not as regarded their state of mind, but with regard to the class of crime committed. The class his hon. friend designated committed mostly the small offences, petty larceny, small depredation and were generally vagrants. He particularly said that that was not the class they were dealing with under this Bill.
SIR W. J. COLLINSreferred the right hon. Gentleman to the Report of the Prisons Commission, which stated
242
that with regard to Parkhurst Prison many persons had been found insane, after many months of imprisonment, against whom every class of crime was recorded. It was true, as the right hon. Gentleman had said on the Second Reading, that this question of mental deficiency was a great problem, and ought to be dealt with; but, continued the right hon. Gentleman, they could not deal with it under this Bill. They would have to await the Report of the Royal Commission on the Feeble-minded before they could deal with it. Since the Second Reading, that Commission had reported, and he found in the pages of that Report ample corroboration of what he had been saying. That Report teemed with evidence that showed that even under the pro sent system there were many cases besides those who were certified as insane who were mentally defective and not amenable to prison discipline. They say—
"At the house of detention a large proportion are feeble-minded or lunatic. Of these weak mindeds (according to Dr. Scott) a number are sent to prison. … Many who are only partially responsible are punished … this complicates the administration of justice."
The same is true at Pentonville—
"Dr. Parker Wilson said that in that prison about 100 prisoners a year were so far mentally afflicted as to be quite unfit for prison discipline. … Besides these there are not leas than 20 per cent. of the prisoners who show signs of mental inefficiency."
And again, as Dr. Smalley says—
"Though the less grave forms of crime predominate, there is a potentiality in the feebleminded class for crimes of a more serious character; many are eventually sent into penal servitude."
He could quote page after page to the same effect, but he would only give one more quotation. The authors of the Report were perfectly familiar with the Home Office Rules, and the Report said—
"These regulations, good as they are, do not suffice. The conditions of committal and discharge will have to be altered if remedial reforms are to be made. …In regard to those committed to convict prisons the same evils obtain … here they are treated as this reiterated evidence shows, without hope and without purpose. … This is an evil of the very greatest magnitude."
And they recommend that Courts of Justice should be empowered—
"To order the detention of a convicted mentally defective person in a suitable insti-

243
tution instead of pronouncing a sentence of imprisonment."
That justified the statement that he had made, that very little discrimination took place to find out those who were bad and those who were mad. He deeply regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have associated his honoured name with this portion of the Bill. It was not an advance in the direction of ameliorating prison conditions, but was tending to undo the great work done by John Howard and Sir Samuel Romilly, and he should go into the lobby against it.
MR. DILLONsaid as he had been in his past life an habitual criminal he took some interest in this question, and he was bound to say he could not understand how any English House of Commons could for a moment entertain such a proposal to leave the liberty of these unfortunate people at the mercy of the Judge. The proposal that they should be detained for an unlimited period was a scandalous and retrograde one and absolutely inconsistent with the trend of modern legislation. He had often noticed the want of due appreciation among people generally as to the punishment it was for a human being to be deprived of his liberty. It was often regarded as a very slight matter in this House, whereas it was in fact a terrible punishment. No matter how humanely they might treat the prisoners, the very fact that they were not at liberty but were locked in cells under the orders of warders and were compelled to forfeit the sunlight and air, the freedom which the poorest tramp enjoyed, was a very great punishment indeed. He had known people in England and Ireland express surprise that the poor preferred to sleep out in the open rather than submit to the restraint of workhouses, and he did not wonder at that, because of all the privileges that man enjoyed in this world the dearest was that of liberty. He said, having endured it himself, that there were few punishments more severe than that of living under the direction of other men, unable to leave a room 8 feet by 4 feet for hours in the day without getting
244
permission to do so. It was a terrible thing to invite a Judge to deprive a human being of his liberty for an indefinite period, not only on account of the offence for which he was charged, but because of some police record of his past—a record which was often exceedingly false, because those unfortunate people, who were more or less outcasts of society, were in a most indefensible position with regard to the record of their past lives and very much at the mercy of the police. When one was imprisoned, his-mind naturally fixed itself upon the hope of release. The one redeeming consideration in the term of imprisonment was that there was a term to it and that the prisoner's mind was always working in the consideration that he might get out; and the most humane provision was the power given to the prisoner to earn a shortening of his sentence. It was now proposed, lightly and without grounds, to take away that one gleam of hope. It was proposed that there should be indefinite preventive detention after the sentence of penal servitude or imprisonment. Of course, he might hope sooner or later, before he died, that the Home Secretary would let him out if he behaved well; but there was no definite time at which he had the right to get out. That appeared to him to be a most extraordinary exacerbation and increase of the punishment of imprisonment. He would point out also the crimes for which a man or woman might be sentenced to this preventive detention. The expression "crime," the Bill said, meant in England and Ireland any felony, or offence of uttering counterfeit coin, or getting goods or money by false pretences, or offences of conspiracy to defraud, or any misdemeanour under Section 58 of the Larceny Act. That-extended, he presumed, to petty larceny and small offences; and for these small, petty offences an unfortunate wretch might be sentenced to this preventive system, during which time he was to be subjected to the same treatment as under penal servitude or ordinary imprisonment. There was nothing at any rate to ensure that he would not be. He was bound to say that the present treatment in the gaols of this country was, in his opinion, a great reproach to the

245
Government of the country. They were accustomed to find fault, and be extremely critical of Russia, France, and other foreign countries; but it was his deliberate conviction—and at one period of his life he had opportunities of obtaining information on the subject—that, on the who le, the prisoners of most European countries, including Russia, were far better treated than the prisoners of this country. He did not say that in most cases the prisons were so sanitary, because he would say that the prisons of England and Ireland were kept in an extremely sanitary condition and that the death-rate had been reduced to an exceedingly low point; but, so far as the mental sufferings of the inmates was concerned, he believed the Russian system was infinitely superior. There was more association and less of that awful system of shutting a man up for a year and not allowing him to speak to his fellow men—a system which, in his opinion, was largely responsible for those cases of semi-lunacy. It took a very strong mind to undergo imprisonment in this country for a prolonged period and remain sane. There were many men who had gone into prison perfectly sane and who had emerged from it semi-insane after some years of this suffering. This was, therefore, in his opinion, a retrograde clause which ought not to have been introduced into a Bill which had for its main object the reform of the prison system. He was a great believer in the possibility of so reforming the prison system—and he believed it was the duty of everybody to endeavour so to reform it—that it might not only be punitive but curative. The main object of prisons ought to be curative rather than punitive. He did not go so far as great thinkers such as Tolstoi who held it a great crime to imprison any man. He believed it was sometimes a duty to society to do so, but society owed prisoners a duty scientifically to adjust the system so that as far as possible it might be curative. The system at present was not curative; it was a maddening system. The first thing they ought to do was, not to give their invitation to Judges to pass indefinite sentences, but to humanise the whole system and turn the prisons into some-
246
thing more than places of restraint. He remembered once going into the great prison of New York. There were more than a thousand prisoners there. They were engaged in useful labour, associated together like rational human beings, though no doubt they were watched by armed guards and every precaution was taken to prevent any outbreak of violence. If anyone offended he was quite properly removed to the disciplinary prison. They were all leading rational and human lives, associated and working together during many hours of the day. He came away from that prison without the impression of horror which was left after an investigation of our solitary confinement system. It was a pity that in a Bill of this character such a retrograde clause should be inserted.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had listened with great interest to the speeches that had been made. With regard to the hon. and learned Member for Durham, his speech was in all respects a travesty of what was proposed by the Bill. He had drawn a picture of a retired grocer as Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, without any check, ruthlessly sending one prisoner after another for indeterminate detention, but he omitted to tell the House how many restrictions there were upon that. The hon. Member for Salford did not leave him much to answer, because, as he said, he did not concern himself with details. He said only criminals were competent to deal with great subjects of criminal jurisprudence.
MR. BELLOC: I do not think I ever said anything as silly as that in my life.
MR. GLADSTONEwas sorry if he had misrepresented the hon. Member, but he understood him to say that no Member of that House or of another place was in the least competent to deal with the question, seeing that not a single Member in either House had any chance of personal experience of what was provided. He thought that was the disqualification in the hon. Member's mind, but he passed from that. The last two speeches that they had heard had been distinguished for one thing above all others, and that was that they had denounced and criticised in the most ruthless terms the

247
present system of penal servitude and imprisonment. He agreed with them to a considerable extent, and it was because he agreed with his hon. friends that the Government had brought in this Bill. He maintained that the Bill was in no sense what the hon. Member for East Mayo described it to be. It was right enough to say that the one great element of hope in the mind of the prisoner was the thought of release. That was why the Government had brought in the Bill in the form in which it was, and also because they wished to see the man who was committed to this indeterminate detention have constantly in his mind the prospect of release as soon as he gave satisfactory assurance that he was ready to lead an honest life, and that he had in his own hand the key of his own release. He was afraid the hon. Member had not read the Bill all through, and hoped he had not altogether made up his mind. He maintained, in the first instance, that the policy of long, fixed sentences had absolutely broken down in this country. That was his first position. He would give a few typical cases of the kind of man they had in their mind, and with whom the system would deal. A., thirty-eight years of age, received his first conviction at twenty-five; had served sentences of two and six years penal servitude for forgery; now undergoing ten years for the same offence; time actually spent in prison, seven and a half years; a well-educated man, a professional forger. B., forty-five years of age, received his first conviction at twenty-nine; served three terms of penal servitude and eleven sentences for stealing; now undergoing three years penal servitude for stealing and receiving; eleven and a half years in prison. C., forty years of age, received first conviction at twenty-seven; served thirteen sentences for stealing and housebreaking; now serving five years for larceny; nine years actually in prison. D., thirty-one years of age; first conviction, eighteen; served nineteen sentences for stealing and shopbreaking; now serving three years penal servitude for stealing; seven and a half years in prison. These were no ordinary cases. They were not men who had fallen into crime in their youth, who were bred up among evil surroundings. Except the last man, they began
248
their criminal career when nearly thirty years old, and then took to it professionally. As they took to it, so, if they chose, they could leave it. How were they to deal with them? Were they going to continue the ridiculous system as it existed now, founded on retaliation, to which the hon. Member for Salford seemed wedded—the long fixed sentence of ten, fifteen or twenty years, the slow dragging time that crushed a man, body and soul, with no prospect of release, till the end of the fixed period with no hope in him but dull savage determination when he came out to have his revenge, so far as he could, on society? He agreed that they ought to fight against the notion that there was a class of stereotyped criminal who must exist whatever they did; and what they had to do was to try to stop crime at its source, as they had done in the Probation Act and in the Children Act, and as they proposed to do in part of this Bill. But as things were, they had a large number of men who were professional criminals, with no intention of being anything else unless proper coercion, or proper reformation, was applied. What was the present system? How could there be any true relation between the measure of a man's guilt and the measure of the suffering and the punishment which he endured under a fixed sentence? What justice was there in it? It was tragic in its effect on prisoners. If they came to short sentences—he was speaking now of this distinct class—what good did it do? These men laughed at it. The present system was cruel and dangerous—cruel because under these fixed sentences it gave no hope to a man, and it gave no incentive to the prison authorities to use the best means to reclaim them. It was dangerous because it was ineffective. Recidivism was increasing notwithstanding the spread of education. In 1903, out of 2,041 prisoners, 73·9 per cent. were previously convicted; in 1908, out of 2,376 prisoners, 82 per cent. were previously convicted. This class was increasing. In dealing with this class the present system was a failure. It did not reform them, and was cruel. It was important the House should bear in mind that this new institution—he would not call it a prison—was to be different and distinct from prisons as they now

249
existed. Technically it would be a prison in that prison rules and forcible detention would apply, but in its working it would be essentially different. It would be built in a different and selected type on a site specially suitable, on a design carefully and specially thought out, and its inmates were to be treated in a special manner. It was urged against the Bill that its worst part was that it proposed that a man should first go through a sentence of penal servitude. The reason for the preliminary sentence was that this new institution was to be different in its whole spirit from the ordinary prison. His design was that it should be a place for reformation as well as of detention. If a place of that sort was organised, it was necessary it should be kept from some of the characteristics of the ordinary prison life. If there was no preliminary sentence, and a man taken in some horrible or disgusting offence, some brutal robbery with violence were sent straight into it, it would ruin the whole conception of the place. He would go in red hot from crime, without any period for reflection, and, perhaps, with the determination to make things as unpleasant as possible. It was necessary, therefore, that these men should go first for a period of detention in prison. The man. would have to be punished for the crime of which he was convicted. It was necessary that a man should first undergo a period of penal servitude. That had been the opinion in the Colonies where the indeterminate system had been adopted. Three of the Australian Colonies had adopted the indeterminate sentences preceded by a period of imprisonment. It was necessary that the man should recognise clearly the distinction between the punitive period in a convict prison and detention in the reforming institution. This period of detention would last as long as the man persisted in his intention to lead a criminal life. If he gave reasonable undertaking that he meant to turn over a new life and lead a life of honest work, he would have a chance of carrying out his intention at the end of one, two, or three years; that he could settle for himself. And it was important to remember that the preliminary period of imprisonment would have an important bearing on the man's
250
future. During that period he might by his conduct earn remission, the Home Secretary could shorten the period and by good behaviour he would have an earlier transfer to the detention institution. That was to take the place of the present system—doing time, that hateful phrase, with reversion to crime ta the end of it. Under the Bill the man would know when he entered prison that he would afterwards go into detention and would be detained until he gave reasonable guarantee that he would turn over a new leaf.
MR. DILLON: How can the man give a guarantee?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he would deal with that point later. At the moment he was trying to link up the two forms of detention. In the convict prison the offender would recognise facts, he would understand that the State, having got hold of him, would not allow him to revert to his life of crime, he would recognise his position, and though it could not be said that all would do so, certainly a great number would see, either through awakening of conscience or working of reason, that it would be to their interest, that it would pay them better to give up crime and try to settle to honest ways of life. Therefore, he hoped he had made clear that the period of preliminary imprisonment and the period of the indeterminate detention must be taken together and worked together. It might be said: "How do you deal with the criminal who has been sentenced to a long term of penal servitude? It is a monstrous thing that a man who may have been sentenced to ten or fifteen years penal servitude should have to undergo an indeterminate term of detention after that." He agreed there might be a danger. He did not for a moment think that such a harsh sentence would be imposed. If such an extreme case happened it would be perfectly easy for the Home Secretary to adjust the matter if it required adjustment. But what would the Judges do? The Judges, he was sure, would administer the Act wisely and well. In the case of a man who had three records against him and was convicted of the fourth qualifying offence, the Judge would not proceed to sentence

251
him forthwith; the prisoner would be further charged with recidivism, and if he were found guilty of that by the jury the Judge would then pronounce Sentence. The Judge in imposing that sentence would obviously have regard to the whole case and to the prisoner's character and record. If he thought the man were more sinned against than sinning the Judge would make his penal servitude short, so that he might soon reach the indeterminate period, and so obtain an early release. Safeguards were provided against the harsh working of the Bill. In the first place the Public Prosecutor had to sanction any proceedings, and to that provision he attached great importance. He would tell the House why. That provision would avoid the danger to the individual which might result from a zealous policeman who was too eager to proceed against some inconvenient person in the locality, and who did not take enough trouble to find out whether he was a man who ought to be treated in the way proposed. The duty of finding out would be put on the Public Prosecutor who would have to satisfy himself carefully as to previous records and as to whether the person concerned was a proper subject for being dealt with in this way. His hon. friend the Member for West St. Pancras seemed to think that half-witted people, those on the road to insanity, would be put into these places without any restrictions. That would not be so at all. Precautions would be taken against prisoners who were mentally deficient being dealt with under this part of the Bill as habitual offenders.
SIR W. J. COLLINSasked if the measure provided for any improvement in the present arrangements for ascertaining whether a prisoner was mentally deficient.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid it was impossible to provide in set terms for the particular medical examination that each individual should receive; but his hon. friend might take it from him—and he spoke, not only for himself, but for the Office which he represented and for the Prison Commissioners—that all engaged in the administration of the Act would in each case of the indictment
252
of a person for being an habitual offender carefully look into it from the point of view of the character of the man. The personality and the circumstances of the accused man would be considered. No mentally-deficient person would be placed in the category of the habitual offenders. Such cases would at once be brought to the notice of the proper officials, who would take care that they received the best treatment that could be given in the circumstances. Let the House also remember that in addition to the safeguard through the Public Prosecutor, the jury had to be satisfied that the man was an habitual offender. The Judge had to be satisfied, likewise, and in the background there was the Home Secretary who would exercise in this, as in other cases, the prerogative of mercy. The man had also an unqualided right of appeal. Then if Clauses 12 to 14 were carefully looked at, it would be seen that it was the duty of all concerned so to treat these people that they should be discharged as soon as they were capable of earning an honest livelihood; and that when they were discharged on licence they were put under supervision, personal or of some society, so that when they left prison they would get a lift which would induce them not to go back to criminal associations, as now happened. Subsection (2) of Clause 12 made it mandatory on the Secretary of State to discharge a prisoner at the expiration of ten years unless he had definite reason to believe, on information given by the police, that the prisoner would relapse into crime. He would remind the House that if they were going to undertake a work of this kind they should make it complete. He maintained on the authority of many criminologists in America and elsewhere, that the fact of there being an indeterminate period of detention was of great assistance in steadying down hardened offenders Some men if they knew there was a fixed date for release would persist in defiance of reformatory influences. They should know from the first that persistency in criminal intent can be of no avail. He wished to hasten the process of reformation. He did not suppose that this power of enforcing an indeterminate sentence would be used except in rare and exceptional

253
circumstances. He did not believe that these men would stay in prison for more than three or four years, hut, supposing that there were some prisoners who knew that they must go out at the end of ten years, and who pretended that if they were allowed to go free, that they would live an honest life and not go back to their old game of forgery or housebreaking, they might only do so in order to have six months or a year of the old life which they thought was much greater fun than being honest. Suppose that was known—and such things did get known in prison—there ought to be some power to detain these men in prison instead of allowing them to go free. The House would remember that when special cases arose these would be laid before Parliament. He had every reason to know from personal experience that these cases were taken notice of in Parliament. Having regard to the practical necessity of keeping these men in prison, this one small reservation was advisable. The House could be satisfied that in fact the Act would compel them to release these men as soon as they possibly could. It had been said that there was no guarantee for milder treatment under this new system. All he could say was that they bound themselves to what he had said in the House; and he called attention to the Amendments which he had put on the Paper to insert at the end of Clause 11 to the following effect: "Persons undergoing preventive detention shall be subjected to such disciplinary and reformative influences, and shall be employed on such work as may be best fitted to make them able and willing to earn an honest livelihood on discharge." They were going to establish a different system. His hon. friend the Member for West St. Pancras had quoted words which he had used upstairs in Committee, with regard to our present prison system and the responsibility upon prison warders and officials. Their obligation now was to keep the prisoners under detention, but there was no obligation upon them to reform them, and the average man shapes his conduct according to that duties and responsibilities put upon him. These officials were very often very kind friends to the prisoner; many a kindly act even of a warder
254
had been of great use to a prisoner, but there was no system in it at all. It was a system of rigid detention modified by the recent provision of progressive stages and remission for good conduct. They intended that the higher responsible staff in this new institution should be specially trained to new work, and their work would not only be judged by their success in keeping people under detention, but by their success in discharging them week by week, month by month, and year by year. Active work would be done by the special committee and others concerned for training and reforming the prisoners, so that at the earliest moment these men, trained to work, might be found capable of having their discharge and, under proper supervision, having every opportunity of becoming honest men. That was the great and vital distinction between the two institutions. Passing to the question of how they would know when to discharge these men, he said that the prison authorities often did know when a man ought to be discharged. He knew cases of men in regard to whom the prison governor could say: "That man will never commit another offence." He had heard that from them himself.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that in quite a number of cases it was a mistake.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid it was so, for they were all liable to mistakes, but they had to exercise the best judgment they could. There we e many cases of doubt, and as regards these they had to take their chance.
MR. DILLONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman really defended this proposition that the liberty of a man was left at the mercy of another man's opinion of his acts.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that, put in that way, of course the question did not admit of an affirmative answer, but he might point out that the Home Secretary on the advice of a single individual under the present system could release a man.
MR. DILLONpointed out that he could release a man, but he could not prolong his imprisonment.
MR. GLADSTONEurged that surely this was a merciful provision, this power of release, and the fact that they could release on licence enabled them to release earlier. If they could not release on licence they would not be able to release if they were in a state of doubt. Supposing one was in a state of doubt, was it not perfectly fair to say to a man who had been an outlaw against society: "If you will give me this guarantee, I will let you out on licence earlier than I would if I had not the power to release you on licence"? Was it not fair, and was it not a merciful way of acting? He should think it was better than fixed imprisonment, of which hon. Members were so much in favour. They were adopting a merciful system which would enable a man to turn over a new leaf, and setting up machinery to keep him straight in any path that he had chosen. He apologised to the House for occupying them so long They proposed to put the process of regeneration within the power of these men. They were to have the key of their own release. If they would consent to become honest men they would be let out on licence. Was that wrong, harsh, or cruel, or a reactionary step? If this was what an hon. Member called a reactionary step, he would take it, but it was not reactionary. It was, he said, a step in the right direction, and he believed that this method of dealing with criminals would be found the chief secret of prison reform. They did not attempt to deal with the whole of prison reform in this Bill; this was an instalment, and the experiment would be watched carefully by the whole of the world wherever interest was taken in these matters. It was because he believed that the Bill was merciful to criminals many of whom would reform if given an opportunity, that he asked this House to reject the Amendment.
MR. FORSTERsaid the House had listened with very great interest to the exhaustive speech of the right hon. Gentleman and he thought it had done so with a good deal of sympathy with what he said, but at that late hour he did not intend to give a detailed criticism of the measure or to examine
256
the argument of the right hon. Gentleman in support of it. What he rose to do was to suggest that in view of the lateness of the hour the debate might be now adjourned, because it was obviously not a proper time of the night to enter upon a detailed discussion of so important a measure. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that they only began discussion of the Bill at a late hour, 9.30, whereas it was hoped to have taken it at an earlier hour of the evening, and he thought it was not at all the fault of those Members on the Opposition side of the House that they were prevented from carrying out the arrangement which had been arrived at. He did not think it was necessary for him to labour the point any further, and he would simply move that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Henry Forster.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he of course recognised the fact that the beginning of the debate was made later than was anticipated by the prolongation of discussion of the Scottish Education Bill, but he might point out that there was full discussion on the Second Reading, when all these matters were discussed at very considerable length, whilst he would respectfully suggest that not much more time was necessary to discuss the particular Amendment under consideration. But having regard to the feeling expressed by the hon. Member opposite, and to the fact that he himself had taken up a very considerable portion of time, he should not like to press the House to sit longer, and therefore accepted the Motion.
Debate to be resumed upon Friday.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.

FAIRFAX PEERAGE.
Ordered, That at the future meetings of the Peers of Scotland, assembled under any Royal Proclamation for the election of a Peer or Peers to represent the Peerage of Scotland in Parliament, the Lord Clerk Register, or the Clerks of Session officiating thereat in his name, do call the title of the Lord Fairfax of Cameron according to its place in the roll of Peers of Scotland called at such election and do receive and count the vote of the Lord Fairfax of Cameron claiming to vote in right of the said Barony, and do permit him to take part in the proceedings in such election.
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill.—Leave given to the Select
2
Committee not to sit again till Monday next.
Liverpool Corporation (Streets and Buildings) Bill.—Reported, with Amendments.

PETITIONS.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour of: Of Ealing Women's United Temperance Association; Leeds United Working Men's Temperance League; Friar Street Adult School Temperance Society; Carshalton and Wallington United Temperance Committee; Temperance Societies of Longton, Staffordshire; Ilkeston Free Church Council, Public Temperance Meeting; Cynidr Tent, No. 2602, of the Independent Order of Rechabites Friendly Society; Penzance Temperance Federation; Meeting at Bank Street Unitarian Sunday School, Bolton, 19th November, 1908; The following Tents of the Independent Order of Rechabites Friendly

  3
  Society: Beacon, No. 1502, Victoria, No. 1715, Vale of Usk, No. 3502, Castle, No. 1767, Enig, No. 2484, Mynydd Troed, No. 2094, Cynog, No. 2688, Trfon Valley, No. 3109, Walton, No. 1571; Highgate Park Baptist Church; Townspeople of Goole; Wesley Brotherhood and Sisterhood, Liverpool; Chard Baptist Christian Endeavour Society; Inhabitants of Bootle; Helsby Wesleyan Band of Hope; Helsby Wesleyan Church Society; Helsby Wesley Guild; Helsby Wesleyan Sunday School; Bray Shop Band of Hope Society; United Methodist Church Meeting at Carlingcott, in the county of Somerset, on Sunday, 22nd November, 1908; United Methodist Sunday School Meeting at Carlingcott, in the county of Somerset, on Sunday, 22nd November 1908; Belper Temperance Society; Bristol Central Weslyan Mission Band of Hope Committee; Church of Christ, Fulham Cross; Yorkshire Quarterly Meeting of the Society of Friends; South Manchester Free Church Council; Salisbury and Southampton Temperance Committee; Saron Congregational Church, Aberaman; Free Church Council of Brixham; Members of Church of Christ, Ismailia Hall, Ismailia Road, Fulham; Gunners' Safeguard Lodge of the International Order of Good Templars; Colne Valley Lodge, No. 1,148, of the International Order of Good Templars; Advance Lodge, No. 3,036, of the International Order of Good Templars; Vale of Dovoy Free Church Council; Peoples' Bethel Mission Total Abstinence Society; United Meeting of Society Classes of Collingwood Street, Wesleyan Church; Council and their friends of the Poplar Liberal and Radical Association; Meeting of Women at Tiverton Hall, Garridge Street, Westminster Bridge; Kelvedon Women's Liberal Association; Devon Union Women's Liberal Associations; Hull Associated Shipwrights' Society; Congregational Church of Balham, in the county of Middlesex; Excelsior Lodge International Order of Good Templars; Halifax Citizens' League; Some inhabitants of Liverpool; 12th (Liverpool) Company of the Boys' Brigade and Supporters; Meeting at Cecilville House, Hornsey; Children's Mission Ragged School, Delwood Street, Camberwell; Meeting at Kennington Park; Members
  4
  and Adherents of Calvinistic Methodist Church at Shrewsbury; Wesleyan Methodist Society and Congregation at Ratcliffe; Committee of Primitive Methodists of the District of Sheffield; West Sleekburn and Stakeford Temperance Festival Association; Barnard Castle Branch of the United Kingdom Railway Temperance Union; Stockton-on-Tees Temperance Society; Liverpool Ladies' Temperance Association; Gospel Blue Ribbon Mission of Derby; Temperance Workers of Babington Ward,. Derby; Queens' Road Temperance Society, Wallington; Lowesmoor Temperance Society; Worcester Total Abstinence Society; Dewsbury Temperance Society; Bishop Auckland Temperance Society; Liverpool Unitarian Temperance Association; Society of Friends, Char bury; United Free Church Presbytery, Kirkcudbright; Calvinistic Methodist Church and Congregation, Philadelphia, County Glamorgan; Calvinistic Methodist Church and Congregation, Nazareth Llangammarch Wells; Independent Methodist Church, Crewe; Risley Independent Methodist Church, Warrington; Original Grand Order of the Total Abstinent Sons of the Phœnix, Star of Willenhall Lodge; The International Order of Good Templars (Retford Branch); The United Methodist Church, New Road, Grays, Essex; Upper Wincobank Chapel, Sheffield; A Meeting in the Mission Hall. Leytonstone; A Meeting at the Ossett Temperance Hall; The Ossett Temperance Society Committee; The Wesleyan Men's Bible Class, Bromley; The Guild of Christian Endeavour, Chester; The Committee of the Bromley Women's Liberal Association; A Meeting of the Northampton Women's Liberal Association; The Newquay (Cornwall) Women's Liberal Association; The Congregational Young People's Union, Liskeard; The Whitby Liberal Club; The Bridlington and Quay Temperance Society; The Clifton Temperance Society; The British Temperance Society's Gospel Temperance Union; The South Nutfield Temperance Mission; The following Temperance Societies: Liskeard, Rye, Lake, Chiqual, Tredriggick, Christ Church, Westminster Bridge Road, Bolton, Linacre, North-amptonshire Temperance and Band of Hope Union, Canterbury, Lychett Minster;

  5
  Of the following Public Meetings at Wesley Chapel, City Road, Marsh Lane, Preston, Pointon, Folkingham, Rafferton, Driffield, Wolverton, Bucks, Loppington, Salop, Dilston Road, Newcastle, Dewen Heath, Salop, Millon, Cumberland, Hodnet, Shropshire, Greenhill, Derby, Victoria Street, Temple Hall, Taunton, Vale Royd, Tunbridge Wells, Mevagissey, Cornwall, Mount Hawke, Cornwall, St. Ives, Cornwall, Falmouth, Cornwall, Nanclearn, Penzance, Lelant, Crantock, Cornwall, Heamoor, Heswall, High Green, Chapeltown, Thetford, Brandon, Tattershall Bridge, Stratford, London, Crows Nest and Menheniot, Liskeard, Wesley Hall, Shildon, Blyton, Neath Abbey, Swansea, Soar Chapel, Talserran, St. Paul's Church (Welsh), Ampthill, Bedfordshire, Newbottle Street, Houghton-le Spring, Crewkerne; Of persons signing at St. Buryan, Penzance, St. Just, Cornwall, William Street, Swindon, Tamworth, Stafford, Rookhope, County Durham, Daventry, Northampton, Swindon Circuit, Burnhope, County Durham, Wearhead, County Durham, Greers Norton, Northampton, Tredegar, Monmouth, Callington, Cornwall, Wesley Chapel, Nottingham, Tredegar (Eastern), Monmouth, Eastgate, Durham, Weardale, Durham, St. John's Chapel, Durham, Brigg, Lincolnshire, Friskney, Lincolnshire, Protas, Cornwall, Pontypridd, Glamorgan, Netherton, Worcester, Brentwood, Essex, Hartford, Cheshire, Lostock Gralaw, Northwich, Acton, near Northwich, Station Road, Northwich, Sandway, Northwich, Little Budworth, Northwich, Over Winsford, Northwich, London, Northwich; Brunswick Society Class; Tranmere Band of Hope; Brunswick Men's Society Class, Sisterhood and Brotherhood, Birkenhead, Pleasant Tuesday Evening, Hind Street, London; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Truro; Executive Free Church Council, Mevagissey; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Walton-le-Dale, Preston; Trustees and Leaders Wesleyan Church, Hucknall Torkard; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Newtown, Wigan; Men's Bible Class, Blackood, Chorley; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Standishgate, Wigan; Temperance Society, Archway Road, London; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Poynton Green; Society Class, Ellerdine; Wesley
  6
  Guild, Kirbymoorside; Wesley Guild, Cattle Fields, Shrewsbury; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Brynmawr, Nantyglo, Blaina, Beaufort Hill, Abertillery, Cwmtillery, Abergavenny, Crickhowell, Clydach, Llanelly Hill, Llanelly; Tranmere Branch of Wesley Guild; Men's Bible Class and Society Class at Birkenhead; Wesleyan Methodist Meeting, Hugas; Wesleyan Methodist Church, French; Band of Hope, Ebenezer, Plymouth; Missionary Meetings at Market Weighton (2); Bible Class, Standishgate, Wigan; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Hurstbourne; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Overton; Anchor of Hope Club, Whitchurch; Ebenezer Wesleyan Church, Bramley, Leeds; Wesley Guild, Teignmouth; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Aber, Penmaenidcwm; Wesley Guild, Redditch; Band of Hope, Horseshay; Wesley Guild, Madeley; Band of Hope Committee, Earlestown; Stewards of Wesleyan Church, Earlestown; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Haydock; Society Classes at Rodington, Poynton Green; Mothers' Meeting, New Cross; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Tamworth Street, Earlestown; Presbyterian Church, Tamworth Street, Earlestown; Band of Hope, Cefn Coed, Tydvil; Society Class, Wellington; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Bispham, Warsley and Standish, Wigan; Society Class, Hadley; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Standishgate, Wigan; Band of Hope, Old Bolingbroke, Spilsby; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Pendry Mold, Mold; Wesley Guilds at Admaston, Southampton; Society Class, Horsehay, Salop; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Pyke Street, Barry Dock; Wesley Guild, Cowes; Band of Hope, Plymouth; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Worsley; Wesley Guild, Old Elvet; Wesleyan Methodist Churches, Cardiff, Annfield Plain; Temperance Society, St. George's; Wesley Guild, Waltham Abbey; Quarterly Meeting, Central Hall, Birmingham; United Band of Hope, Landrey, Barnstaple; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Chisterton; Sons of Temperance, Hall-gate, Coltingham; Wesley Guild, Brompton, North Riding; Gospel Temperance Society, Prince of Wales Road; Office Bearers, Methodist Church, Prince of Wales Road; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Pevensey Road, Eastbourne;

  7
  Band of Hope and Society Class, Lanley Bank; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Machynlleth, Montgomery; Women's Society Class and Young Men's Society Class, Poplar; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Cubitt Town; Adult Bible Class and Wesley Guild, Poplar; Men's Meeting, Wesleyan Mission, Old Ford; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Lodock; Leaders Meeting and Circuit Temperance Committee, Nottingham; Women's Meeting, Wesleyan Church, Poplar; Wesley Guilds, Harley Square and Cliftonville, Margate; Society Class, Lawley Bank; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Denholme; Executive of Temperance Association, Coedpoeth, Wrexham; Band of Hope and Temperance Workers, Carver Street, Sheffield; Leaders Meeting, Haltwhistle; Band of Hope, High Street, Glossop; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Bonwell, Newcastle; Sunday School, Cottingham, Hull; Wesleyan Temperance Society. Muswell Hill; Wesley Guilds at Union Street, Accrington and Haltwhistle; Sunday School, West Lane, Haworth; Trustees Meeting, Wesleyan Church, Dorking; Temperance Committee, Methodist Conference; Sunday School Convention, Kilndown; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Shirwell, Barn-staple, and Wilsden; British Women's Temperance Association, Haworth; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Cross-in-Hand; Wesley Guild, Bevoirs Town, Southampton; Society Class, Ketting; Society Class, Blowick, Southport; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Bow; Wesleyan Literary Society, Suddleworth; Band of Hope, Stephen Hill, Crookes; Leaders Meeting, Sholton; Leaders Meeting, Wheatley Hill; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Denton Bum, Newcastle; Wesleyan P.S.A., Rushton; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Denbigh, St. Asaph, Much Wenlock; Ladies Meeting, Tweens Street, Morley; Sunday School Teachers, Gwennap, Redruth; Wesleyan Methodist, Lewisham and Brockley; Brotherhood Meeting, High Street, Plaistow; Wesley Guild, Madeley Wood; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Mount Gold, Plymouth; Men's Society Class, Weald-stone; Presbyterian Church, Houghton-le-Spring, County Durham; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Pontypridd, Hessenford, and Quethiock; Band of Hope, Dowlais; Band of Hope and Choir,
  8
  Gainsborough; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Ebenezer, Portmadoc, Elsecar; Barnsley, Barthygest, Portmadoc, Birtonwood, Newton-le-Willows; Wesley Guild North End, Newark-on-Trent; Primitive Methodist Sunday School, Earlstown; Society Class, Coton Crescent, Shrewsbury; Wesley Guild, St. Paul's, Bideford; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Lady Margaret Road, Kentish Town; Society Class (Ladies), Dawley; Men's Society Class, Wellington; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Lingfield; Trinity Free Church at Codsall, Stafford; Wesley Guild at Chatteris; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Barnsley; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Holme, Spalding Moor; Leaders and Society Class at Greenfields, Shrewsbury; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Newport; Bolton District Synod Commission at Rochdale; Of the following Wesleyan Methodist Churches: St Mawes, Philleigh, Par, Tywardreath, Fowey, Trenarren, St. Blazengate, Polgorth, St. Austell, Sangeth, St. Austell, Coombe, Sticker, St. Austell, St. Austell, Trewoon, St. Austell, Shalfleet, Freshwater, Galbourne, Merstone, St. David's, Dewbury, Hick's Road, Cambridge, North Cave, Hook, Broomfleet, Towyn, Aberdovey, Beeston, Barnstaple, Lumley, Tondu, Cardiff, St. Athan, Cardiff; Wesley Guild at Blackwater; Wesley Guild at Blackpool; Free Church Meeting, Talbot Road, Blackpool; East End Brotherhood, Clarence Street, Newcastle; Sunday School at Swansea; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Tavistock; Wesley Guild at Warrington; People's Own Meeting at Gateshead; Leaders and Trustees and Sunday School at Harpurhey, Manchester; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Llanfyllin; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Brithdir, Cardiff; Brotherhood Meeting at Stratford, Essex; Wesley Guild at Caistor, Lincolnshire; Sunday School and Band of Hope at Morriston; Executive Committee of District Liberal Club at Rhyl; Wesleyan Methodist Church and Wesley Guild at Beccles; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Society Class (2), Mutual Improvement Society, and Leaders and Stewards, Wesley Guild at Hastings; Wesleyan P.S.A. at Hollington, Derby; Wesleyan Sisterhood at Cardiff; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Longton, Stafford; Class Meeting at Market Drayton; Wesleyan

  9
  Methodist Church at Cardiff; Wesley Guild at Cardiff; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Radyr, Cardiff; Wesleyan Mission at Cardiff; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Cærphilly, Cardiff; Wesley Guild at Bedwas; Of the following Wesleyan Methodist Churches: Machen, Mon-mouth, Risca, Blackwood, Fleur-de-Lis, Cramlir, Port Llanfraith, Llanhilleth, Plas, Maes-y-cwmmer, Cardiff; Young Men's Society Class and Leaders Meeting at Southport; Free Church Council at Holsworthy; Men's Bible Class at Witney; Men's Bible Class at Warrington; Men's Meeting and Wesley Guild at Ports-wood, Southampto; Wesleyan P.S.A. at Bitterne; Liberal Association at Portswood; Wesley Guild at Bevois Town, Southampton; Pleasant Sunday Afternoon at Bitterne Park; Of the following Wesleyan Methodist Churches: East Grinstead, Crawley Down, Hayward's Heath, Ridgewood, Buxted, East Hoatley, Blackboys, Newhaven, Lewes; Class at Shrewsbury; Adult Bible Class at Waltham Abbey; Free Church Council and Wesleyan Methodist Church at Whitchurch, Hants; Wesleyan Mission at Portsmouth; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Carnarvon; Wesleyan Methodist Church and Wesleyan Temperance Society at Nottingham; Wesley Guild at Shanklin; Annual Circuit Meeting at Southport; Wesley Guild at Earlestown, Lancashire; Wesley Methodist Church at Ashton-in-Maker-field, Lancashire; Wesley Guild and Women's Temperance Society at Salford; Wesley Guild and Men's Meeting at Peckham; Primitive and Wesleyan Men's Bible Class at Earlestown, Lancashire; Young Men's Christian Association at Earlestown; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Iver; Wesleyan Church at North Wallbottle, Northumberland; Wesleyan Mission Band at Homerton; Society Class at Horsehay; Wesley Guild and Men's Meeting at Mapperley; Wesley Brotherhood at Beeston; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Bispham; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Newtown; Men's Bible Class at Standish; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Shrewsbury; Men's Bible Class at Chorley; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Llanarmon; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Lincoln; Wesleyan Bible Class at Wellington; Wesley Guild at Shifnal;
  10
  Wesleyan Methodist Church at Kirby Moorside; British Workmen's Band of Hove at Shifnal; Wesleyan Society Class at Waters Upton; Wesley Guild at Sedburgh; Wesley Guild at Levenshulme, Manchester; Wesley Guild at Heaton, Mersey, Manchester; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Thornton Heath, Croydon; Meeting at Clayton-le-Moors; Wesley Guild at Whitchurch, Hampshire; Wesley Guild at Andover, Hampshire; Band of Hope at Smethwick; Wesleyan Methodist Society at Wellington; Temperance Worker's Committee at Conisborough, Yorkshire; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Westerhope, Newcastle; Brotherhood at Salford; Meeting at Berwick-on-Tweed; Wesley Guild at Bridgnorth; Leaders and Stewards at Llandudno; District Convention at Llandudno; District Convention at Oxford; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Wrexham; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Barnstaple; Wesley Guild at Stockport; Wesley Guild at Northallerton; Wesley Guild at Clayton-la-Moors; Society Class at Sheffield; Wesleyan Methodists at Carharrack, Cornwall; Meeting at Thornley, Durham; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Newcastle-on-Tyne; Meeting at Oldham; Wesley Guild at Coalbrookdale, Salop; Wesleyan Methodist Church at New Shildon; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Stirchey, Shropshire; Wesleyan Methodists at Stithians, Cornwall; Wesleyan Methodist School at Peckham; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Old Barford, Nottingham; Wesleyan Sunday School at Diseworth, Derby; Wesley Guild at Leigh, Lancashire; Wesleyan Sunday School at Shardlaw; Adult Bible Class at Sheffield; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Castle Donington, Derby; Temperance Committee at Manchester; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Brunswick, Earlestown; Wesley Guild at Berwick-upon-Tweed; Adult Temperance Society at Frimley Green, Farnborough; Band of Hope, Hope Murton; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Clydach; Band of Hope, Pontardawe; Swansea; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Gower, Porteynon, Reynoldstone, Neath, Glyn-Neath, Skewen, Jersey Marine, Aberdare, Port Talbot, Aberdulais, Abergevynfi; English Wesleyan Churches at Aberaman, Mountain Ash,

  11
  Herwain, Treharris, Aberrynon, Trieynon; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Appleby Bridge, Wigan; Women's Meeting and Society Class, Bow Road; Men's Bible Class and Wesleyan Methodist Church, Lamberhead Green, Wigan; Church Class and Devotional Meeting and Wesley Guild, Bow Road; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Goose Green, Wigan, Wesleyan Methodist Circuit Committee, Rochdale; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Aspull, Wigan, Blackood, Chorley; Men's Society Class, Wellington; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Cronyelinfach, Ferndale, Bridgend, Cowbridge, Landore, Eaton Road, Swansea; Band of Hope, Mumbles, Swansea; Adult Band of Hope Skettey, Swansea; Men's Brotherhood, Croydon; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Hindley, Wigan, Rhiw, Pwllheli Wesley Guild, Mansfield Road, Nottingham; Men's Bible Class, Ince, Wigan; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Ingleby, Weston-on-Trent, Wigan; Wesley Guild, Plott Bridge, Wigan; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Nevin, Pwllheli; Wesley Guild, Conway Road, Cardiff; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Lee Moor, Platt Bridge Wigan; Wesley Guild, Appleby, Westmorland; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at New Spring Wigan, Little Danler, Shildon, Warwick. Redworth Road, Warwick; Wesley Guild, Standishgate, Wigan; Sunday, School Teachers, Diggle, Oldham; Society Class, Hinksley; National British Women's Temperance Association, Crewkerne; Band of Hope, Hollins Lane, Garstang; Men's Society Class Wellington; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Penrith; Women's Meeting, Wesleyan Mission, Old Ford; Society Class, Lawley Bank; Women's Meeting Millwall; Band of Hope, Souldren, Ban-ton; Wesley Guild, Sutton, Boning-ton; Sunday School, Sutton, Boning-ton; Wesley Guild, Castle, Donington; Wesleyan Methodist Church at Ratclifie; Sons of Temperance Friendly Society, Weston-on-Trent; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Diseworth, Shard-low; Band of Hope, Diseworth; Weslsyan Methodist Church, Belton; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Upholland, Wigan; English Wesleyan Guild, Holy-head; Primitive Methodist Church, Houghton-le-Spring; Wesleyan Church and Working People's Concert, West
  12
  Kensington, Park; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Merthyr Tydfil; Wesley Guilds as Herne Hill and Newark-on-Trent; Wesleyan Sunday School, Newton-le-Willows; Primitive Methodist Church Earlestown; Wesleyan Church, Leicester; Wesleyan Methodist Church Greenfields, Shrewsbury; Wesleyan Brotherhood, Victoria, Southport; Society Class Meeting, Watling Street, Wellington; Wesleyan Band of Hope, Troedyrhim; Wesleyan Methodist Council, South Staffordshire; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Burgess Hill, Brighton; Freemantle P.S.A., Howard Road, Southampton; Church Meeting Frodsham, near Warrington; Society Class, Victoria Chapel, Southport; Wealeyan Methodist, Pwllheli; Mission Tent, Brownhill, Walsall; Wolverhampton Band of Hope, Lewanwick, Launceston; Society Class, Lawley Bank; Society Class, Admaston; Society Class, Wellington; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Bracknell; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Fleets; Primitive Methodist Church. Bexhill; Brotherhood and Sisterhood, Chapeltown, Sheffield; Wesley Guild, Bramley, Brunswick; Wesley Bible Class, Standishgate, Wigan; Wesleyan Week Night Service; Men's Bible Class; Wesleyan Church Choir; Wesleyan Sunday School and Ladies Society Class Wealdstone; Wesley Guild, County Road, Liverpool; Wesley Guild, The Grove, Stratford, E.; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Pensilva, Dobwalls, and Upton Cross; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Driffield; Wesleyan Church, Park Road, Newcastle; Band of Hope, Keltey; Men's Bible Class, Wellington; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Albrighton; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Lorgparish; Temperance Meeting, Wellington; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Yealmpton; Trustees Meeting, New Cross; Wesleyan Mission, Newton-le-Willows; Congregation of Mission Hall, Brunswick Road, Earlestown; Tabernacle Wesleyan Church, Penrhyndendraeth, Monmouthshire; Wesley Guild, Misterton Nottingham; Brotherhood and Sisterhood, East Street, Southampton; Wesleyan Methodist Society, Broadoak, Lost-withhiel; Society Class, Wealdstone, Middlesex; Missionary Meeting, Sancton; Society Class, Old Park; Band of Hope, Coad's Green, Launceston;

  13
  Wesley Guild, Callington; of Primitive Methodist Churches and Temperance Societies; at Thorne, Gravesend, Oulton, Kirkbride, Silloth, Blennerhassel, Mealsgate, Crookdake, Thursby, West Newton, Alston, Nentsbury, Nenthead, Garrigill, Stainmore, Newbiggin, Tebay, Kirkby, Orton, Greenholme, Knowbury, Angel Bank, Cleobury, Mortimer, Ludlow, East Harrild, Ashford Carbonel, Orleton, Hopton Bank, Wyson, Middleton, Tenbury, Yarpole, King's Heath, Bristol Hall, Stirchley, Lord Street, Erdington, Handsworth, Aston, Nechell, Kidderminster (2), Stourport, Alveley, Highley, Chetton, Bridgnorth, Bishop's Castle (2), Asterton, Moor Street, Pinsuilt, Lower Gonnall, Wollaston, Hill Street, Lye, Harts Hill, Mount Pleasant, Kinner, Silver Street, Bint Street, Words-ley, Bromsgrove, Bluntington, Madeley Heath, Belbroughton, Bromsgrove, Birmingham Road, Catshill, Wildmoor, Bowenheath, Leominster, Pembridge, Shirlheath, The Hundred, Ivington, Priestfield, High Street, Parkfield Road, Salop Street, Parkfield, Daisey Bank, Leintwardine, Bucknell, Walford, Birtley, Adley Moor, Adforton, Aymestry, Twitchen, Wolverhampton (2), Reddal Hill, Old Hill, New Inventon, Church Stretton, Leemore Common, Cardington, Peaton Strand (2), Bloxwich, Chadsmoor, New Invention, High Heath, Upper Landywood, Newtown, Bridgtown, Hednesford, Cheslyn Hay, Hazel Slade, Cradley, Hayes Lane, Blackheath, Halesowen, Langley, Cockshed, Harborne, Quarry Hill, Richmond Hill, York Road, Garforth, Stankes, Holbeach, Joseph Street, Woodhouse Hill, Stourton Hill, Armley (2), Wortley, Low Wortley, Earmley, Belle Vue, Jubilee Terrace, Cardigan Road, Kirkstall, Horsforth, Belle Vue, Crigglestone, Yewmillerdam, Durkar, Dewsbury, Batley Carr, Ravensthorpe, Talbret Street, Thornhill Lees, Horbury, Thornhill Edge, Middlestown, Overton, Netherton, Heacham, Bircham, Ringstead Docking, Thornham, Anmer, Stanhoe, Flitcham, Syderstone, Sedgeford, Tring, Rudham, Burnham Thorpe, Norwich (7), Beetley, Westfield, Toftwood, Hockering, Swanton Morley, Swannington, Reepham, North Elmhan, Lyng, Whinburgh, East Dereham, North Tuddenham, Lenwade, Bawdeswell, Shipsham, Sparham, Elsing, Mattishall,
  14
  Garvestone, Sibton, Blythburgh, Westleton, Bramfield, Darsham, Barras Green, Coventry (2), Bromley Common, Crofton Wood, Penge, Basingstoke, Croydon (2), Thornton Heath, South Norwood, Sutton, Battersea, South Lambeth, Brixton, Kennington Park, Peckham, High Wycombe (3), Naphill, Lacey Green, Penn, Great Kingshill, Lee Common, Great Missenden, Wheeler End, Radnage, Downley, Abersychan, Pontypool, Swansea (3), Tredegar (2), Troedrhwogwair, Tirhowy, Great Doward and Penalt, Newton Common, Monmouth and Broadoak, Cwmcelyn, Nantyglo, Brynmawr, Blaina, Cwm-y-Gaish, Llangunllo, Lloiney, Knighton, Llandrinio, Neflach Wood, Deythews, Old Churchofold, Cwmbran, Pontnewydd, Pontnewynydd, Badford (8), West Bowling, Idle, Calverley, Greengates, Halifax (4), Denholme, Cloughs, Huddersfield (6), Brierfield, Otley, Rawden, Guiseley, Yeaden, Burley in Wharfedale, Ilkley, Pateley Bridge, Darley, Clapham Green, Glasshouses, Clayton West, Emlgy, Skelmanthorpe, Danby Dale, Bretton West, Emley Moor, Thurlestone, Penistone, Countersett, Mildleham, Shipley, Baildon, Windhill, Bingley, Ryecroft, East Morton, Wilsden, Harecrofts, Crossflatts, Colne, Trawden, Wycollar, Heckmondwike, Hightown, Littletown, Dewsbury Moor, Norristhorpe, Sowerby Bridge, Mytholmroyd, Norland, Warley, Barley, Barrowford (2), Wooldale Town End, Honley, Gate Head, Scholes, Broughton Rod, Bradley, Carleton, Cononley, Skipton, Settle, Nelson (3), Longstock, Stoke, Ashmansworth, St. Mary Bourne, Hurstbourne Tarrant, Vernham, Littledown, Leckford, Springbank, Turville Heath, Ibstone, Kingston, Stokenchurch, Beacons Bottom, Chinnor, Aylsham, Carpusty, Wood Dalling, Marsham, Wickmere, Aldborough, Satead, Itteringham, Cawston, Hevingham, Pickering, Lockton, Thornton-le-Dale, Middleton, Newton, Stape, Wrelton, Brawby, Kirby Moorside, Marton, Rosedale, Helmsley, Gilling, Nawton, Pockley, Ampleforth, Hull, Scarborough (7), East Ayton, Seamer, Ruston (Wykeham), Cropton, Hutton-le-Hole, Newton Dale, Levisham Dogsthorpe, Newborough, Yaxley, Whittlesea, Werrington, Thorney, Peterborough (2), Woodton, Workington, Pica, Harrington, Workington,

  15
  Weston Kills, Whaplode Fen, Manchester (2), Rusholme, Watton, Soham Toney, Thompson, Great Cressingham, Caston, Bodney, Ashill, Goatacre, Briaksworth, Wootton Bassett, Bushton, Grittenham, Cricklade, Braydon, Purton Stoke, Broadtown, Aston Reynes, Purton, Newbury, Wash Common, Leckhampstead Thicket, Snelsmore, Chieveley, Ashford till, Little Hungerford, Cold Ash, Hampstead Norris, Weston, Greenham, Houghton-le-Spring, New Lambton, New Pensham, Lumley Thicks, Blay-don-on-Tyne, Gritt, Norbury, Hyssing-ton, Mainstone, Netherton, Sedgeley, Dudley (2), Brownhills, Norton Bast, Walsall Wood, Clayhanger, Burntwood, Lichfield, Sheffield, Chasetown, Watling Street, Brownhills West, Leigh's Wood, Wisbech St. Mary, Marshland Smeeth, March, Elm, Button Bridge, Wisbech, Emnitlo, Tholomas Drove, Harrold Bridge, Walsoken, Leverington, Tydd St. Giles, Gurhirn, Castleford (4). Glasshoughton, Kippax, Fryston, Woaozer, Tingley, East Ardsley, Morley, Normanton (2), Beckbridge, Allofts, Sharlston Common, Ossett (3), Thornhill Coombs, Stanningley, Pudsey (2), Rothwell, Methley, Carlton, Murrow, Tydd St. Gile's Fen, Tydd Gate, Walpole, Tilney St. Lawrence, Cross Keys, Walpole Marsh, West Bromwich (4), Wighton, Hindringham, Walsingham, Great Swaring, Deasenham, Tittleshall Litcham, Little Dunham, Lexham, Shropham, Croxton, Thetford, Cambridge, Childerley Gate, Oakington, Marshland Fen, Outwell, Stow Bridge, Hilgay, Downham, Upwell, Ten Mile Banks, Walpole Highway, Walton Highway, Over, St. Ives, Manea, Lake's End, Welney, Exmore, Suspension Bridge, Chatteris, Hundred Feet Bank, Sawston, Haslingfield, Cambridge (2), Stowmarket, Buxhall, Wyversbone, Old Newton, Swaffham, Westacre, Castleacre, Sporle, Bradenham Hilhoughton, Wendling, Mileham, South Creake, Wreningham, Forncett St. Mary, Silfield, Pulham North Green, Hardingham, Kelsale, Orford, Theberton, Melton, Martham, Hemsby, Thurne, Catfield, Winterton, Repps, Hickling, West Somerton, Potter Heigham, Upper Dovercourt, Harwich, Wix, Great Oakley, Clacton-on-Sea, Kirby Cross,
  16
  Weeley Heath, Thorpe-le-Soken, Walton-on-Naze, Tower Kirby, Bressingham, Winfarthing, Wilby, Wortham, New Buckenham, Old Buckenham, Diss, Banham, Sherringham, Holt, Kelling, Beckham, Langham, Gresham, Weybourne, Blakeney, Thornage, Lether-ingsett, Cley, Hemsworth, South Elmsall, South Kirkby, Thorpe Hesley, High Green, Grimesthorpe, Ecclesfield, Shiregreen, Sheffield (9), Templeborough, Woodland View, Dungworth, Chesterfield, Driffield, Kilham, Bainton, Fimber, Weaverthorpe, Wetwang, Langtoft, North Dalton, Lockington, Lund Etton, Frodingham, Hull (5), Beeston Tarporley, Alpraham, Halmerend, Wrinehill, Madeley, Knutton, Onnerley, Black Bank, Silverdale, Whitchurch, Broxton, Hampton Heath, Bickley, Tilston, Crewe by Farndon, Tallara Green, Ogden, Burwardsley, Tattenhall, Malpas, Etruria, Longbridge Hayes, Dalehall, Sneyd Green, Burslem (3), Leek (3), Bradnop, Cellar Head, Rushton, Reapsmoor, Cheadle, Kingsley Holt, Hanley (2), Northwood, Bucknall, Abbey Hulton, Fenton, Welch Row, Burland, Chorley, Radnor Green, Sound Heath, Spurston, Bulkeley, Bunbury, Nantwich, Foxt, Waterhouses, Whiston, Froghall, Onecote, Kingsley, Talke Petts, Chesterton, Kidsgrove, Sunderland (7), New Silksworth, Malings Riggs, Southwick, Ryhope (2), Newcastle-on- yne, Hexham (9), Haydon Bridge, Acomb, Belsay, Ingoe, Langley-on-Tyne, Aydley, Talke, Eaglesea Brook, Miles Green, Uttoxeter, Abbots Bromley, Fole, Stanton, Oaka-nioor, Marchington, Stubwood, Wood Lane, Smallthorne, Spalding, Holbeach, Little London, Sutton, Gedney Drove End, Moulton Seas End, Holbeach Bank, Wheatley Hill, Haswell, Seaton Delaval, Burradon, Station Terrace, Cramlington, Dudley, West Cramlington, New Hartly, Bates Cottages, Dye House, Norhamon Tweed, Screwerston, Allerdean, Eye-mouth, Berwick-on-Tweed, Durham, Pittington, Carville, Gilesgatemoor, Sacriston, Framwellgatemoor, Sherburn Colliery, Bearpark, Leamside, Nevill's Cross, Edmonsley, Shotley Bridge, Castleside, Blackhill, Consett, Bradley Cottages, Darlington, Lanchester, Allendale Cottages, Catton, Allendale Town, Sparty Lea, Allenheads, Keenley, Whiteley Shield, Corry Hill, Low Fell, Swalwell,

  17
  Gateshead (2), Whitehall Road, Berwick Main, Kibbleswarth, Hetton-le-Hole, Easington Lane, Hetton Downs, Amber Hill, Bicker, Billingborough, Pinchbeck West, Gosherton Clough, Boston, Skeldyke, Anton's Gowt, Gipsy Bridge, Kirton End, Hubberts Bridge, Louth, Osmotherley, Brompton, Apple ton Wiske, Stockton-on-Tees, Thornaby-on-Tees, Fairfield, Newtown, Whitby (2), Danby, St. John's Chapel, Brotherlee, Lanehead, Rookhope, Frosterley, Westgate, Stanhope, Crook, TowLaw, (Wolsingham), Bowden Close, Roddymoor, Billy Row, Howden-le-Wear, Sunnyside, Mount Pleasant, Stokesley, Hutton Rudley, Great Ayton, Scugdale, Faceby, Great Broughton, Greenhow, Battersby Junction, Guisborough, Skelton-in-Cleveland, Margrave Park, Boosbeck, Lingdale, Dunsdale, Stanghow, Middleton, Hartlepool (2), Loftus, Runswick, Hinderwell, Staithes, Skinningrove, Carlin How, West Hartlepool (4), Plaistow Green, Burghclere, Wallingford, Ewelme, North More-ton, Park Corner, Brightwell, Chilton, East Hagbourne, Long Wittenham, Benson, Didcot, Abingdon-on-Thames, Quainton, Whitchurch, Aston Abbotts, North Marston, Aylesbury, Witney, New Yatt, Chilson, Wootton, Brize Norton, Fordwells, Minster Lovell, Curbridge, Northleigh, Stonesfield and Charlbury, Sherston Magna, Upton, Tetbury, Clevurton, Luckington, Brotton, New Skelton, Cilfynyde, Pwllgwaun, Tonyriafail, Porth, Abergavenny, Llantheny Skirrid, New Tredegar, Bargoed, Pontlottyn, Argoed, Marchington Harbrough (2), Grimsby (2), East Harlsey, Matlock, Starkholme, Matlock Moor, Hackney, York (2), Shire Oaks, North Anston, Fir Dale, Dinning-ton, Munsterley, Snailbeach, Salop, Pennerley, Wrothen, Perkis Beach, Pontes-bury, Aston, Meadow Town, Asterley, Rhosymedre, Rhosllanerchrngog, Pontyblew, Black Park, Vroncysyllte, Pontfaen, Bloxworth, Three Cross, Easton, Ropley, Baybridge, Alresford, Winchester, Withchurch, Barton Stacey, Sutton Scotney, Micheldever Station, Preston Candover, Upper Weild, Footon, Steventon, Cowes, Gurnard, Newport, Carisbrooke, Marks Corner, Southsea, Portsmouth, Portland, Bridgeford, Market Deeping, Stanground, Glinton, Northborough, Ruddington, Keyworth, Shelford, Not-
  18
  tingham (3), Greenhill (Croft), Smallbudge, Stubley, Shore, Folds Bolton, Handsacre, Salisbury (5), Southampton, Poole, Little Lonen, Corfe Mullen, Weston, Odicombe, Yeovil (2), Smallheath, Morgans Vale (Downton), Brenmore, Damerham, Whitsmey, Cranbourne, Mere, Zeals, Penselwood, East Knoyle, Hindon, Melbury, Enmore Green, Ludwell, Donhead, Alvediston, Cann Common, Tisbury, Paisley (2), Elderslie, Motherwell, Glasgow (7), Tranent, Cockenzie, Greenock, Banghurst, Charter Alley, Wolverton Common, Tadley, Silchester, Little London, Canterbury, Whitstable, Chartham Hatch, Pitham, Stelling Minnis, Boughton, Chilham Lees, Shalmesford, Shottenden, Faversham, Maidenhead, Great Marlow, Cookham Dean, Battersea, S.W., Wansworth, Fulham, Windsor, Bracknell, Winkfield, Chalvey, Slough, Sunningdale, Worcester Park, Forest Hill, S.E., Knights Hill (West Norwood), East Dulwich, West Norwood, Hamilton Road, Sheerness, Melton, Sittingbourne, Plumstead (2), Welling, Wickham Lane, Beenham, Quick's Green, Bradfield, Burns Hill, Theale, Redhill (2), Meadvale, Reigate, Yoxford, Wenhaston, Wrentham, Halesworth, Walpole, Rockland St. Peter, Hingham, Hadleigh, Trimley, Ipswich East Bergholt, Ipswich (2), Briston, Foxley, Binham, Edgefield, Bintry, Foulsham, Wood Norton, Fulmodestone, Colchester (2), Fingringhoe, Dedham, Brightlingsea, Leavenheath, Lexden, Fordham, Elmstead Heath, Langham, Crockleford, Great Bromley, Carlton Colvilie, Lowestoft (3), Toft Monks, Haddiscoe, Hales, Beccles, Bungay, Wymondham, Pulham Colgate End, Tibenham, Bunwell, Forncett St. Peter, Buncross, Sheffield (2), Chapeltown, Pont, Knockin Heath, Shrewsbury (2), Ditherington, Exford Green, Bayston Hill, Fords Heath, Longden, New Basford, Old Basford, Blue Bell Hill, Woodborough, Bulwell, Calverton, Oxton, Broughton, Baylestone, Egginton, Tutbury, Leicester (3), Anstey, Ilkestone, Heanor, Ilkestone, Langley, Derby (2), Melton Mowbray, Scalford, Asfordly, Long Clawson, Hinckley, Earl Shilton, Barlestone, Barwell, Newbold Verdon, Stoke Golding, Stapleton, Wirksworth, Bole Hill, Cromford, Brassington, Ible, Matlock, Ashley Hay, Ripley (2), Golden Valley, Crick, Pye Hill.

  19
  Codnor, Nether Heage, Westwood, Maishay, New Brinsley, Grantham (4), Stamford, Cottlesmore, Whissendine, Oakham, Kimberley, Eastwood, Awsworth, Eastwood, Langley Mill, Giltbrook, Kimberley, Long Eaton (2), Beeston, Stapleford, Breaston, New Sawley, Coalville, Whitwick, Heather, Emstown, Swannington, Hugglescote, Coalville, Ibstock, Porters' Buildings, Newstead, Tibshelf, East Kirkley, Annesley Woodhouse, Sutton-in-Ashfield, Bleak Hall, Edinburgh, Leith, Caledonian Road, N., Highbury, N., Camden Town, Tottenham, Wood Green, Edmonton, Custom House, Plaistow, North Woolwich, Beckton, Upton Park, Barking Road, Manor Park, Seven Kings, Ilford, Holloway, Woodberry, East Finchley, Dartmouth Park, Hounslow, Southall, Feltham, Brentford, Plaistow, East Ham, Forest Gate (2), Luton (7), Leagrave, Sharpenhoe, Barton-in-the-Clay, Harpenden, Redbourne, Bendish, Welyn, Paulersbury, Northampton (2), Abthorpe, Towcester, Northampton, Far Cotton, Bedford (2), Sterington, Oakley, Peterborough (2), Leighton Buzzard (2), Fenny Stratford, Blerchley, Linslade, Hitchin, Slotfold, Biggleswade, Shillington, Arlesley, Dunstable, Houghton Regis, Totternhoe, Toddington, Wellingborough, Rushden, Irchester, Raunds, Southend (2) Shoeburyness, Leigh-on-Sea, Great Wakering, Little Wakering, Southchurch, Westcliff, Longton (3), Twerton, Wellenhall, Tarporley, Whaplode Drove, Walham, Marshchapel, Holton-le-Clay, North Thoresby, Fulston, Alford, Cum-berworth, Trusthorpe, St. Leonard's, Wainfleet, Irbey, Mablethorpe, Skegness, Wainfleet Bank, Mumby, Ingoldmells, Skegness Bank, Wintertown, Wintringham, Buiton-on-Stather, Alkborough, Thealby, Appleby, Whitton. West Halton, Brigg, Hebaldstowe, Wrawby, Broughton, Scawby, Scawby Brook, Cadney, Howsham, Bishops Norton, Waddingham, Snetterby, Melton, Snetterby Carr, North Kelsey, South Kelsey, Barnetby, Chapel Hill, Donnington-on-Bain, Belchford, Horncastle, Mareham-le-Fen, Hagworthingham Spilsby, South Hetton, Murton, Low Moorsley, Shotton, Thornley, Ludworth, Wylam, Stocksfield, Walbottle, Lemington-on-Tyne, Elphing-ham, Seaton Hirst, Pegswood, Choppington, Linton, Hirst, Guide Post, Ashington,
  20
  Coxhoe, Quarrington Hill, Cassop, Kelloe, West Cornforth, Castle Eden Colliery, Wingate, Durham (3), Sunderland, Swallow, Satterlen, Penrith, Lazonby, Skelton, Cockermouth, Blindcrake, Broughton, Keswich, Kendal, Staveley, Beckfoot, Kendal, Whinfell, Haltwhistle, Cowburn, Henshaw, Greenhood, Coonwood, Dufton, Crackenthorpe, Appleby, Wigton, Bothel, Aspatria, Walverden, Earley, Barnolnswick, Bridghouse, Greetland, Elland, Greetland Wall Nook, Rastrick, Batley, Gomersal, Birstall, West Ardsley, Kilpin hill, Manchester (12), Pendleton, Manchester, Ardwick, Swinton (2), Higher Openshaw, Droylsden, Bradford, Clayton, Eccles, Salford, Pendleton, Oldham, Bolton (4), Oldham, Bradwell, Tideswell, Chapel-en-le-Firth, Castleton, Little Hucklow, Dove Holes, Whitehough, New Mills, Little Hayfield, Hayfield, Brook Bottom, Thornsett, Haslingdean, Rawtenstall (2), Leigh, Glazenbury, Platt Bridge, Abram, Bickershaw, Glazebrook, Leigh, Bacup, Stacksteads, Change, Buxton, Monyash, Flagg, Ladmanlow, Upper End, Paddington, Chelmorton, Buxton, Bolton (2), Little Hulton, Walkden, Bolton, Mosley Common, Walkden, Hyde (2), Haughton Green, Ludworth, Marple, Ludworth, Mellor, Lowton, Edge Green, Golborne (2), Ashton-in-Wakerfield, Bam-furlong, Stockport, Hyde, Greave Fold, Romily, Horwich (2), Horwich Moor Old Kent Road, Walworth, Walthamstow (4), Chichester, Bognor, Fishbourne, Horsham, Roffey, Marden, Goudhurst, Galleywood, Great Waltham, Chelmsford, Wolverton, Stantonbury, Deanshaven, Potters Puny, Woburn Sands, Wavendon, Husbourne Crawley, Lidlington, Buckingham, Gawcott, Great Horwood, Cheltenham, Shipton Ollesse, Ryeworth, Tam-worth, Warton, Alvecote, Glascote, Birchmoore, Folkestone, Chertsey, Shepperton, Ashford Common, Belfast (3), North Cave, South Cave, Elloughton, Newbold, Welton, Elleker, Gilberdeke, Newport, Hotham, Hull (3), Sheffield, Wells-next-Sea, North Creake, Coventry, Warwick, Buckington, Doncaster (2), Bentley, Armthorpe, Hatfield, Hatfield Woodhouse, Fishlake, Barnby Dun, Skyehouse, Stamforth, Winster, Youlgrove, Birchover, Elton, Northwood, Bakewell, Biggin, Retford, Clarborough, Lound, Ranskill, Rotherham, Eastwood, Parkgate,

  21
  Wickersley, Greabro', Hoyland, Hoyland (7), Wombwell, Staveley, Clowne, Chesterfield (2), Eckington, Bareborough, Poolsbrook, If ton Heath, Ruabon, Overton-on-Dee (2), Copperas, Welshpool, Barnsley, Claddia, Butlington, Trelystan, Wem, Bronington, Pool Head, Sands, Long Ditton, Norbiton, Kingston, Hampton hill, New Maiden, Welshampton, Noneley Bettisfield, Quina Brook, Coton, Welsh Ena, Shieffield, Stocksbridge, Sheffield, Hemingbrough, Riccall, Selby, Rubwish, Cliffe, Osgodby, Bridlington Quay, Haisthorpj, Bridlington, Flambrough, Goole (3), Rawcliffe, near Goole, Howden Dyke, Howden, Barmley Marsh, Bugthorpe, Market Weighton, Melbourne, Seaton Ross, Bishop Wilton, Goodmanham, Hayton, Pocklington, Hull (5), Preston, Hull, York, Bethesda, Coniston, Garethorps, Swinefleet, Whitgift, Little Driffield, Gembling, Kirkburn, Garsdon, Legbourne, Saltfleetby, Theddlethorpe, North Somercotes, Ludborough, Fotherley, Lincoln, Lincoln (2), West Firsby, Ingham, Ryland, Owmley, Grimsby (4), Cleethorpss, Laceby, Irby, Beaconthorps, Seghill, Annitsford, Cardiff, Startley, Hullavington, Inglestone Common, Eastbury, Lambourne, Aldbourn, Stratton St. Margaret, Blumsdon, Highworth, Lower Wanborough, Shaw, Swinton (9), Upper Stratton, Moredon, Strewkley, Drayton Parslow, Wing, Thornaby-on-Tees, Yarna on-Tees, Stockton-on-Tees (3), Northallerton, Phoenix Row, Bildershaw, Steinsdrop, Cockfield, West Auckland, Ramshaw, Tindale Crescent, Copley, Ingleton, Shildon, Heighington, Coundon Gate, South Church, Eldon Lane, Coundon, Close House, Middridge, Chilton Lane Ends, Leeholm, Spennymoor Ferryhill, Spennymoor (10), Bishop Auckland (7), New Tredegar, Mountain Ash (3), Penrhiwceiber, Abercynon, Kingstone, Madley, Dudley, Ploughfield, Shenmore, Lydbrook (5), Ruardean Hill, Abertillery, Cwmtillery, Blaeman, Abertillery (3), Cross Keys, Wattsville, Risca, Yynysdda, Crumlin, Leanbilleth, Wooleston, Lyaney, Ellwood, Clearwell, Llandaff, Cardiff, Gillingham, Reading (5), Wokingham, Witton-le-Wear, Whitwell, New Marske, Saltburn, Marske, Waterhomes, Redcar, Waterhouses, Middleton, Lunedale, Bowlees, Holwick, Harwood, Forest, Middlesbrough (7), Wellington, Newfield, Byers Green, Sunnybrow, Oakenshaw, Bin-
  22
  chester, North Skelton; of Park Road Wesleyan Church, Newcastle-on-Tyne Arthur's Hill Presbyterian Church, Newcastle-on-Tyne; inhabitants of Grimsby; twelve Tents of the Independent Order of Rechabites; Welsh Wesleyan Meeting of Treorky Circuit; Primitive Methodist Church at Dearham; Wesleyan Church, Scunthorpe; the International Order of Good Templars (1); Calvinistic Methodist Churches and Congregations in the County of Cardigan (21), in the Counties of Monmouth (8), Glamorgan (48), Carmarthen (15), Denbigh (39), London, Chester, Manchester, Liverpool (3), Dublin, Blackburn, Cricklewood, Calvinistic Churches in the County of Carnarvon (35), Mid Derbyshire Women's Liberal Association, Cheriton Fitzpaine United Band of Hope and Gospel Tempsrance Society, Devonshire public meeting at Goole, Presbyterian Church and Men's Society, Risca; Adults' School, Leeds; United Methodists, Sheffield; Primitive Methodist Churches (3); United Methodist Churches (2); and at Newcastle-on-Tyne. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Petitions against: Of inhabitants of South Lancashire (5), Dorsetshire, Somersetshire, Worcester, Nottingham and District (16), Aldford, Boston, and district, Grantham and adjacent districts, Grimsby, Berkshire (2), Portsmouth, Bedford, Wiltshire, East Kent, Maidstone and District, Dover, Gloucester (3), Folkestone and District Licensed Victuallers' and Beersellers' Protection Association, Justices of the Peace of the County of Worcestershire, West Riding of the County of York, of parsons signing (7), Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Statement as to Expenditure by local education authorities on the maintenance (as distinct from administration and loan charges) of public elementary schools, for the year ended 31st March, 1907.
  Correspondence relating to famine in the Busoga District of Uganda.
  INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879–1900.
  Report of the Inspector for Scotland, under the Inebriates Acts, for the year 1907.

  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT, 1876.
  Report to the Secretary for Scotland by His Majesty's Inspector for Scotland under the Act (in continuation of [Cd. 8847.]).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NAVY (DISCIPLINE, PRISONS).
  Rules and Regulations, dated 29th October, 1908, amending regulations for naval prisons, made by the Admiralty under the 81st section of the Naval Discipline Act.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 20th November, 1908, granting a retired allowance to Mr. William Stead, First Class Officer of Excise, Aberdeen Collection, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
  Order, dated the 12th of November, 1908, entitled the "American Gooseberry Mildew (Prohibition of Importation of Bushes) Amendment Order of 1908." Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. [No. 230.]
  POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  CATTLE IMPORTS FROM THE UNITED STATES.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture the following Questions, of which I have given private notice: (1) What number of vessels with cattle are on their way from ports in the United States the cargoes of which the Board of Agriculture have prohibited the landing;
  24
  (2) Whether any action is being taken by the Federal or State authorities to cope with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in America; (3) What is the extent of the trade between the prohibited ports and the United Kingdom; and (4) Whether the Board anticipates that the prohibition will cause a rise in the price of meat or add materially to the number of those unemployed in this country?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, the reply to the first Question is that since information of the existence of the disease in the United States was received four vessels have arrived and six are expected. The cattle on the vessels which have arrived are, I am glad to be able to say, free from disease. The animals on all these vessels, whether diseased or not, will be slaughtered without delay—the usual ten days' interval will not be allowed. The answer to the second Question is that last Thursday the Board were informed that 100 Federal inspectors and some United States veterinary surgeons were applying measures which were adopted in 1902, including the slaughter of suspected herds, the destruction of carcases, and the disinfection of operators. The United States are doing everything in their power to meet this country, and have met us in every possible way. Stringent restrictions on the movement of cattle are in force, and the Federal authorities have assured our Ambassador that identical restrictions will forthwith be imposed wherever the disease spreads, and the information will be cabled to the Board at once. Just before I came down to the House I received the following telegram from the Ambassador of the United States—
  "Reported outbreaks in Maryland and Michigan are not confirmed. Both States are being carefully watched."
  The answer to the third Question is that the total number of animals landed in this country from the United States were 168,380 odd cattle and 40,000 odd sheep. The number landed from the infected ports during the six months ended March 31st, 1908, was 63,849 cattle and 11,027 sheep. The reply to the fourth Question is that the live imports of cattle shipped from

  25
  the United States represent less than 5 per cent. of our total meat supply, home and imported, and if they were entirely stopped, though, of course, it would mean a serious stoppage of local employment, yet the price of meat should not be seriously affected.

  LICENSING BILL.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to give notice that on the Motion for the Second Heading of the Licensing Bill I shall move an Amendment in the following terms: "That this House, while ready to consider favourably any Amendments which experience has shown to be necessary in the law regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors, declines to proceed further with a measure which, without materially advancing the cause of temperance, would occasion grave inconvenience to many of His Majesty's subjects and violate every principle of equity in its dealings with the numerous classes whose interests will be effected by the Bill."

  NAVY—SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
  EARL CAWDORrose to call attention to the shipbuilding programme of the Government, and to the possible position of the country in 1911–1912, and to ask what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take in order to secure an absolute two-Power standard, with a margin for contingencies, against any possible combination of foreign Powers.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not think I shall be exaggerating when I say that there has been for some months past a considerable feeling of uneasiness throughout the country with respect to the condition of the Navy. It is a condition of anxiety not based so much upon the present position of the Navy, but almost entirely upon the view of the immediate future—upon the feeling which thoughtful men who study this question have that, however our naval supremacy may be assured at the present time, as I believe firmly that it is assured, there is no time to lose in the preparations that we must make if within a very short limit of time that supremacy is to be maintained. It is to this need for immediate preparation
  26
  that I wish to ask the attention of His Majesty's Government and of the House.
  For some years past there has been a great doubt as to the views of His Majesty's present advisers with respect to the two-Power standard. There have been halting, equivocal, contradictory, statements with respect to that standard, but within the last few days a statement has been made by the Prime Minister which has been received with a sigh of relief throughout the length and breadth of the British Dominions—a statement clear, distinct, and unqualified. The Prime Minister, in that statement, lays down the two-Power standard to be—
  "A preponderance of 10 per cent. over the combined strengths in capital ships of the two next strongest Powers."
  That is a standard which we on this side of the House have laid down for many years past. It is a standard which I had often hoped had been accepted by His Majesty's Government; but the contradictory statements we have had from time to time have shaken our faith in that matter. To-day I hope and believe that it is a standard which may be accepted absolutely by both sides—a standard not of party, but of naval efficiency at which the country means to aim. We shall hope to co-operate fully with His Majesty's Government in the maintenance of that standard, and I rejoice to feel that after this statement of the Prime Minister we need look no further, but may accept it absolutely and distinctly both in the spirit and in the letter—which is, I am quite certain, the way in which His Majesty's Government intend it should be carried out.
  It is of the utmost importance that the standard should be a general standard. There is to my mind the greatest possible objection to eliminating any Powers from that standard and to focussing in any way the standard we are building up for our naval supremacy as against one or two individual Powers. Assume, for the moment, that it was proposed to eliminate Power A on the ground that we had a treaty with that Power. Power B is an Anglo-Saxon Power; it is incredible that we should go to war with an Anglo-Saxon Power. Therefore, we also eliminate Power B. We come to

  27
  Power C, and we find that we have an entente cordiale with that Power. That Power would have to be eliminated, and then we should have arrived at this stage, that it would be perfectly clear to Power D that she was the only Power against whom we could possibly be aiming. That, I think, has been well and wisely dealt with in the statement made by the Prime Minister. He takes the general basis, and the general basis, I submit, is the only safe basis on which the country can go. The alternative was put before the country in 1906, when the late Prime Minister used these words—
  "When you talk of a two-Power standard, after all you cannot quite keep out of your mind who the two Powers are. When we have elaborate calculations made as to what France and Germany are building, is it really a very likely contingency that France and Germany should be allied and should go to war with us? I do not object to the two-Power standard as a rough guide, but this is a two-Power standard almost of a preposterous kind."
  My Lords, I trust we have done with qualifications such as that. We take our stand side by side with the Prime Minister and the Government, and we claim that we have now a standard of efficiency against any two Powers—whoever they may be—who represent at the time the strongest Powers in the world.
  I think it cannot be too often said that our policy of naval supremacy is merely a policy of defence. We have no desire for aggression, but we intend to maintain the safety of our own shores. We intend to defend, and to provide for, the safety of the food supply of our people, and for our commerce all over the world. That is a position which no foreign country has the slightest right to deny us or to object to, and, speaking a short time ago, the Prime Minister made a statement which, I think, bears out that view. He said—
  "There is not one of the Great Powers of all the world at this moment, I believe, without a single exception, which views with animosity, jealousy, or misgiving the Navy of Great Britain being maintained at what we call the two-Power standard."
  That surely emphasises and makes perfectly clear the point that the standard of our supremacy must always be absolutely a general standard. There is only one way in which we can maintain the absence of any feeling of jealousy by foreign countries, and that is by maintain-
  28
  ing this standard in the words which were so well laid down by the Prime Minister.
  Let us consider what is to be the burden of the maintenance of this standard. If we are to maintain our two-Power standard we shall have to complete, over and above the programme we have already taken up, by the end of 1911, six or seven first-class ships, and when we come to 1912 we shall have to provide very much the same number again. My excuse for pressing the subject upon His Majesty's Government is the shortness of time there is for making preparations in order to carry this out. The usual practice, after the introduction of the Budget and the decision taken in respect of the number of ships to be laid down, is that the ships are not laid down till a good many months later—often not until the end of the year, and sometimes not until the beginning of the next year. It takes something like two and a half years to build a first-class ship—sometimes less, but sometimes more—and I would ask His Majesty's Government not to pin themselves too closely in this matter. We have had many samples of the delay in shipbuilding due to strikes, labour troubles, and many other things, and after the Budget of next year there will not be a month to lose if you are to be absolutely sure of completing your six or seven ships within two and a half years, and if you are to maintain your standard of supremacy.
  I ask the Government to give some information in regard to their intentions in that respect—I think it is a matter on which the country feels very strongly and deeply—and I trust they may be able to allay any feelings of anxiety that may exist by a statement of what they propose. The Government are aware of the information at their disposal and of the time in which they can produce and complete the ships, as well as the dates on which foreign ships are likely to be completed. I am not pressing them as to dates; but I ask them, in casting their minds to the end of 1911, when the pressure of competition of the two-Power standard will become keen, to give an assurance that whatever may be needed in the way of

  29
  laying down ships will be done in order that the standard of supremacy may be secured. If that is not done, then in two and a half years our two-Power standard may disappear.
  Another point in battleship construction has reference to the guns and the gun-mountings. In the past allegations have been made that ships could not be ready owing to the want of guns, and I should say that the question of the gun-mountings is even more difficult and more pressing. You have to be further ahead with gun-mountings than with ships; and, moreover, only certain firms provide gun-mountings. Changes are sometimes made that are absolutely necessary for the efficiency of the latest ship which upset the arrangements made in the previous gun-mountings and delay the possibility of providing them within a reasonable time. I ask the Government, therefore, whether that question has been looked into, and whether arrangements have been made, or will be made at once, in order that there may be no delay in the completion of the six or seven vessels, or whatever number may be absolutely necessary, by the end of 1911 with respect to guns and gun-mountings.
  I pass to the question of finance. The financial burdens in respect of naval construction during the next few years will be very heavy indeed. I have no wish in any way to make an attack on the Government. Indeed, I am anxious to co-operate with them in every way I possibly can. I think that the new definition of the two-Power standard, acknowledged by the Government, puts upon us a burden to show as clearly as we can that we wish to work hand in hand with them. But we are obliged to look at what the cost of this heavy financial pressure will be during the next few years. A battleship costs not less than £2,000,000. Three years ago we calculated its cost at £1,800,000, but the size and the cost of ships have increased since that date. Six or seven ships between now and 1911, and six or seven more between 1911 and 1912, will cost a great deal of money.
  Before we Went out of office in 1905. as far as we could see, the ordinary
  30
  requirements of shipbuilding in battleships Would be about four a year. Thus four ships were laid down in 1905–6, but in 1906–7 three ships were laid down instead of four. I am not going to cavil at that. Without information as to expert advice, but speaking from what I could hear, I should say that the reduction of a ship in that year was probably amply justified by what was going on abroad. There had been a slackening-off in the battleship programme of foreign countries due to a new type of vessel. In 1907–8 there will be three ships instead of four; in 1908–9 only two ships would be laid down instead of four, which we thought were the ordinary requirements. It was then pointed out with great satisfaction that there would be a gain of £1,700,000 in two years of non-construction. But the construction Vote in that year is the lowest it has ever been for ten years. I had grave doubts as to whether it was the wisest policy to have the construction Vote cut down lower than it has been for more than ten years and to rejoice in the reduction of the Vote by £1,700,000 in two years, when everyone knew, and the Government better than anyone else, the enormous pressure that would be placed on this country in 1911 and 1912 in order to regain at a heavy cost and under much difficulty a supremacy which might have been retained had they looked a little further ahead. There was much talk at one time about naval savings. These savings were absolutely unreal, because they were nothing less than deferred liabilities. These things have to be faced, and one cannot help feeling that if three or four ships in the last three years had been laid down, the pressure to-day of securing and maintaining the two-Power standard in 1911 and 1912 would have been very different as far as the financial pressure is concerned from what we find it to be to-day.
  It has been said by the noble Lord the late Civil Lord (Lord Lochee of Gowrie) that battleship construction was the dominating item of naval expenditure. That is undoubtedly true; but there is a great deal more behind. A battleship is a thing that looms very big in the public mind. The "man in the street" can understand a battleship; but he knows nothing of the accessories and

  31
  necessities of the Fleet outside a battleship. A battleship without accessories is absolutely useless for any purpose. Battleships carry with them of necessity scouts, destroyers, submarines, men, and stores, and last, but by no means least, docks for the battleships. I believe that the Government are well aware of the need of scouts as eyes for the Fleet, and I believe that they are taking steps now to strengthen the Fleet in that respect.
  One word with respect to destroyers. In the early part of the year I expressed a strong opinion that we were counting too much on destroyers which were absolutely out of date, and in comparing them with the modern destroyers of foreign countries as if they were equally efficient. I feel this to be the case still, though I hope the feeling will be diminished by what has since been done. The late First Lord of the Admiralty gave us some information on this point in March last. The noble Lord said—
  "We expect to have ready at the end of this month, of ocean-going destroyers of 33 knots, 4; of the river class, 34; of 30-knot destroyers, 48; of 27-knot destroyers, 28; of coastal destroyers, 15—making a total of 129."
  The noble Lord also said—
  "So far as the two-Power standard is concerned, I think I have made a good case for the destroyers. We are going to lay down sixteen new destroyers. They will be of the last improved river class, still improved. They will do thirty-three knots."
  But a curious statement has since been made in another place in respect of these destroyers. I ask the Government to give us some information with regard to them. The statement made is that these 33–knot destroyers had never been decided upon and that there was some mistake in the statement. But the statement was a definite one made in a speech which I note was corrected by the late First Lord. It has been allowed to remain on record as the intention of the Admiralty until a few days ago. I should be the last in the world to press anyone if a mistake were made even in a matter so important as that, but I say that it is treating the country with scant consideration if a mistake was made in March last in the knowledge of the Admiralty and that no correction of the statement is made until two or three days ago. It is very unfortunate that the correction
  32
  should be so long delayed. Naturally it leads some people in the direction of thinking that this is one means of cutting down and scraping off some expenditure. I hope that is not the case, and, in any case, I think it is due to the country and your Lordships that we should be told, as far as possible, the reasons of the change, and what these sixteen destroyers are to be, what is their tonnage, and what their capacity in the way of carrying coal.
  Then I turn to stores. We have had a good many statements in regard to stores. In spite of the allegation that everything is well, I cannot shut my eyes to the perpetual rumours I hear from all quarters to the contrary. I hear perpetual complaints that the stores are not sufficient and not in a satisfactory condition; that vessels come in requiring stores and find none in dock. I hope that is not the case. I hope the Government will be able to give us some reassuring information on that subject, for no one is more anxious than I am that these rumours should be set at rest.
  I turn from the accessories of battleships to the all-important question, to my mind, of docks. The question of docks is not alone a question of repairs. You require a safe base in the North Sea not alone for repair purposes, but to which you may retire your battleships instead of leaving them out to be attacked, possibly, by forty or fifty destroyers during a winter night. I believe that in naval circles this is felt to be one of the great needs of the present day. Consider the position. In 1911 we hope to have eighteen or nineteen "Dreadoughts" or better than "Dreadnoughts," and these better than "Dreadnoughts" will be longer and will require more space and more accommodation. By 1912 we shall have twenty-five vessels of that class. Where is to be their base, and how do we compare with the great country that confronts us on the other side of the North Sea? The navy of that country is very well based for protective purposes as well as for repairs. I appreciate the difficulty; but the difficulty is one which must be faced if our battleship Fleet is to be efficient as a fighting fleet, and to be in a secure position in the North Sea in the next few years. We are told that Rosyth is to be partly finished in seven

  33
  years and rather more finished in ten. That surely indicates a rather serious position—that we are to raise our battleship Fleet to something like twenty or twenty-five vessels in the next three or four years and have no prospect of getting our first new naval base ready for seven or possibly ten years. I would ask the Government to consider the matter with all the earnestness they can, for, in my belief, it is one of the gravest questions we have to face.
  May I make an appeal to the Government not to pass us off on the plea that it is unconstitutional to tell us anything before the Navy Estimates are presented? This is an exceptional time. We see a battleship programme prepared by foreign countries of quite an exceptional character. We must take exceptional steps to meet it. I am most anxious that the Government should as far as they can take the country into their confidence in this matter, let them feel, as I feel and believe, that what they propose to do with respect to the two-Power standard is to carry it out in the spirit as well as in the letter. There are many people who are still doubting, and who, when you talk to them and say everything is well, reply: Why, then, do not they lay down some more ships? Two or three more ships laid down speedily will mean a great deal more than many words.
  A statement by the Government would be of the utmost value in settling and steadying foreign opinion abroad. It is of the utmost value to foreign countries to know that we are absolutely determined in this country on both sides of politics standing side by side, as I hope we always shall, to maintain the strength and supremacy of the Navy, that we have not the slightest intention of being caught, as we may be caught, unless great supervision and great care are exercised. In my belief, there is no greater safeguard for the peace of the world than the strength and supremacy of the British Navy. I ask the Government, therefore, to give us all the information they can, and I beg to assure them that I raise this question in no carping spirit, but with the firm and honest desire to co-operate with them in order to maintain always and under all conditions the naval supremacy of this country.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I will endeavour to the best of my ability to answer the questions put by the noble Earl opposite. I can assure the noble Earl and the House that the two-Power standard will be maintained as it has always been maintained, whatever party has been in power in this country But to state now what His Majesty's Government propose to lay down in next year's Estimates is a procedure which has never been followed by any Government in this country. The noble Earl expressed the wish that the Navy should be kept out of party politics. On that we are all of one mind. We look upon the Navy as our great asset; the whole safety of the country depends upon it, and it would ill become any Government to endanger its supremacy. The noble Earl went on to say that the Navy was to be used for purely defensive purposes. That, again, is a statement in which we cordially concur.
  As regards the position of this country in relation to other countries, at the end of 1911 we shall have eight "Dreadnoughts" and four "Invincibles." The "Invincibles" are included in the "Dreanought" class. The Germans will have thirteen. That is excluding the programme which we intend to lay down this year. The noble Earl complained that the Government had not laid down a larger number of battleships in 1906–7 and 1907–8. At that time there was really only a paper programme to meet. Germany had stated that she proposed to lay down certain ships. The life of a battleship is only some twenty years, and every month or two months there is some change in machinery or in fighting strength of which it is important to take advantage. The object, therefore, is to lay down ships as late as possible and to add to them any improvement that might have been thought of in the meantime. The intention of the Admiralty is in no way to stint the programme. If we find an acceleration of shipbuilding going on elsewhere, naturally we shall do the same for this country.
  The noble Earl referred to gun-mountings not being always ready when every other part of the ship was complete, and to the fact that it had to

  35
  be borne in mind that there were few companies in this country which manufactured armaments and mountings. I think my noble friend must trust us there. We claim that by the end of 1911 all the ships mentioned will be in commission. I therefore think your Lordships may trust the Admiralty to see that all fittings are ready for the ships when the time comes. The noble Earl then went into the question of stores and expressed his fear that they were not being kept up to the normal standard. That is in no way the case. All stores are now in sufficient quantity and in good condition. A great improvement has been effected in the store-houses and in the sale of redundant and obsolete stores, and there is now a standardisation of all necessary reserves. The noble Earl then went into the question of whether the torpedo-boat destroyers were adequate and compared favourably with those of other nations. At the present time we have 143 of these vessels built; there are tea building and also sixteen—
  EARL CAWDOR: Can the noble Earl give us the age of the 143 vessels?
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: I cannot give the age of all of them, but I understood that about 12 per cent. are not quite up to the modern standard. Ten are building, and there are in addition the sixteen new vessels of the new river class, The noble Earl has told the House that the contract speed of these boats was 33 knots. It is very unfortunate that a mistake in this occurred. There was never any intention on the part of the Admiralty to make these 33 knot boats. The contract was for 27 knots and that is what they were going to be made. Their tonnage will be 900. The boats of the old river class were designed for 25 knots. The advisers of the Admiralty are of opinion now that the river class, which have been in commission for some time, compare favourably in every way with ships of, perhaps, a higher speed. In all this class of design we have to consider sea-keeping qualities, durability of machinery, strength of construction, and radius of action, all of which means more weight to be
  36
  carried. Although we are told that foreign Powers have destroyers of 30 knots we know nothing of the conditions of the trials that have been carried out. As to the question of docks and the position of a fleet of "Dreadnoughts" on the East Coast, it is perfectly true there is no dock at present on that coast which would take a "Dreadnought," but there are places on the East Coast where they would be protected. Behind the boom at Sheerness, for instance, a lot of "Dreadnoughts" could be got in and Rosyth will be shortly a defended fortress.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Shortly? When?
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: We hope that the contracts for Rosyth will be placed in January, and that the work will be completed in seven years. A bonus is being given to the contractor in the hope of expediting the work. Of course on the South Coast there is ample dock accommodation. I only need add that the Government regard it as absolutely essential that the policy of the two-Power standard should be carried out; that is to say, that we should have a Fleet which would be capable of dealing successfully with two foreign Powers, and that there should be a margin of 10 per cent. above that. I do not think I can end better than by repeating the words of Sir Edward Grey, that there is no half-way house between safety and danger.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I am not satisfied with the Answer which has just been given by the noble Earl opposite. The noble Earl made no mention of cruisers; and if he had inquired of naval officers on the active list he would have found that a great many of them are of opinion that battleships are not safe at sea unless accompanied by cruisers. The battleship may be the king of the sea by day, but by night the torpedo is a dangerous and formidable pretender to its supremacy. The double standard should mean the double standard all the way down. Nothing short of that is sufficient. Nelson once said—
  "The want of frigates will be found written on my heart."

  37
  I hope no admiral or commander now on the active list will ever have occasion to utter a similar sentiment. Such things as supplementary Estimates have been repeatedly voted in comparatively recent times, as in 1885. I never heard of any firm of shipowners who tied the hands of their managers by insisting that no meeting of directors should ever come to a decision as to what ships they should order to be built except during one particular month of the year. Nor do any large business firms act on this principle when they have to consider questions of exceptional expenditure. Such a system would in many cases be suicidal, as it would give their rivals several months start, which is exactly what the Admiralty are now doing.
  Money is of value in war, and when making preparations for war, but time is often of greater value, and cannot be purchased when too late by any amount of gold. And yet with our recent experience of the fragility and piecrust qualities of treaties, while all Europe is simmering with anxiety, the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty deliberately throw away five months time. This is playing hare to the foreign tortoise with a vengeance. They deliberately go to sleep for five months, and then they say that they will wake up and tell us what they mean to do next Easter. They ought to tell us before Christmas. In the present fevered state of Europe nothing would have a more tranquilising effect, nothing would be more likely to maintain peace than a notice that the weakest state in Europe in proportion to its population had determined to take proper measures for its protection without delay. A supplementary Estimate for the purpose of building destroyers, more improved "Dreadnoughts," and docks on the east coast is what is required immediately. The destroyers, if commenced at once, should be ready for sea in a much shorter time than the battleships.
  I have seen in a newspaper that the Admiralty are delaying to give out contracts for shipbuilding because some firms are believed to have formed a ring to keep prices up. I have no means of ascertaining the truth of this; but, if it is suspected that this may be the
  38
  case, why are the slips in Government dockyards from which the "St. Vincent" and "Collingwood" were launched at Portsmouth and Plymouth, silent and empty? When on former occasions other ships were launched, fresh keels were immediately laid down, sometimes on the very same day. I believe in continuity of administration at the Admiralty, and I consider that the present Cabinet made one of the gravest financial mistakes ever made by a Government when it deviated from the Cawdor Programme. I was in Germany during the autumn of 1906, and found all Germans cock-a-whoop at the signs of weakness that England was showing which encouraged them to the further efforts they are now making. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he is looking out for more henroosts to rob. The henroosts that he has already robbed are the shipbuilding yards, both public and private. Those fine old hens, Portsmouth and Plymouth Dockyards, have hatched out and reared some very fine chickens on the building slips that gave birth to the "Collingwood" and "St. Vincent." Many of our other hens, however, have been unable to hatch out chickens, because the Government have robbed their nests of the golden eggs which alone car. produce them. There is, I am told, no large ship at present on the stocks at Chatham.
  The country that must always hold the command of the sea as a necessity of its existence should always allow for having ships under repair on the decisive day, whereas the nation that challenges her, knowing the day beforehand, can always arrange to put her whole strength into the balance at one particular time, but she cannot count on having all her strength always ready at any time, any more than the possessor of the seas that she is attacking. Take, for instance, the war with Japan. The Japanese did not know for certain when the Russians would sally from Port Arthur, and were, therefore, unable to make use of all their ships on 10th August. But when the Baltic Fleet came out they had ample notice of its movements, and were, therefore, able to put everything they had that could float and fight into

  39
  line at the Battle of Tsusima. In Captain Montagu Bu rows' "Life of Lord Hawke," I find the following remark on his victory off Finisterre—
  "There are no less than twenty-five line of battleships in this Western squadron, and nineteen of them were handed over to Hawke, yet he had only fourteen with him in his battle of October the 14th."
  So that the question of repairs was as much a problem in those days as it is now. Like the poor, we shall always have it with us.
  I have in my hand a Return, dated 31st July, of the number of days in the year that our more recent battleships and large cruisers were under repair. On examining Part II. of the Return I find that in 1905–6, twenty-six battleships were 2,197 days under repair. Adding one-sixth, that is 366 days, for Sundays, and dividing by twenty-six, gives an average of about ninety-eight days in dockyard hands for each ship. In 1906–7 a similar calculation gives an average of 114 clays under repair for twenty-eight battleships, an increase of sixteen days, probably due to the necessity of fitting cooling apparatus to magazines. Applying the same calculation to cruisers, I find that in 1905–6 thirty-one cruisers averaged 105 days under repair, and that in 1906–7 thirty-three cruisers averaged 135 days under repair, an increase of thirty days. With these figures before me I think I am justified in assuming that our battleships and cruisers are unavailable for service during at least three months in the year.
  I shall not say much about the necessity of keeping up a powerful Navy, because both Mr. Asquith and Mr. McKenna have used language fully as strong as any that I could use about the necessity of a sufficient Navy. If words could build ships, their utterances would be quite satisfactory. But what have they done? One expects deeds, not words only, from a Government. Words are the ammunition of an Opposition. Words alone will not build ships. It takes money to do that. Where are their supplementary Estimates? Are the Government going to allow six months more to pass without beginning to build their arrears in battle ships and destroyers? Or are they going to make fresh requests to other Powers
  40
  to cease shipbuilding? The policy of asking another country to stop her rivalry with Great Britain is a suggestion that one might expect to be made by a good little girl of about seven years old at a Sunday school. It is not a policy for grown-up men who pose as statesmen. This request encouraged the German Navy League to fresh exertions, as they saw England faltering at the first signs of being collared in the race.
  When Lord Goschen was First Lord of the Admiralty he once said his most important duty was that of a transmuter of metals—to turn gold into different forms and shapes of iron and steel. It is not the duty of a First Lord to restrict himself to the use of words. The Government have acted unwisely in reducing their War Estimates. I think they know it now, but they will not produce supplementary Estimates as they wish to save their faces. But why not save their faces by pleading that the perturbed condition of Europe and the unexpected violation of treaties are sufficient reasons for reconsidering the conclusions that they came to some months ago? I interpret the two-Power standard not only to mean a fleet equal to that of any two Powers plus 10 per cent., but also a fleet double that of any European Power. Mr. McKenna calls this an expansion of the two-Power theory. It is a very necessary one. The history of naval alliances shows the immense advantage possessed by a fleet under one command over two fleets under separate command. I think it will be even greater than formerly. At present men-of-war when in line are perpetually signalling to one another. Misunderstood signals will mean collisions and torpedo attacks on allies. Therefore, a fleet of twenty battleships and auxiliaries under one flag will be far more formidable than two fleets of the battleships, and two sets of auxiliaries, under two flags; in consequence of this we require double the fleet of any one European Power. As we want seven "Dreadnoughts," cruisers to protect them, and many destroyers laid down, it would be better for us to make up our minds and to announce our intention of doing so at once, to employ labour as soon as possible, and thereby kill two birds with one stone by lessening the number of the unemployed.
  LORD LOCHEE OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am sure I may with confidence appeal to your Lordships for that indulgence which you always extend to a Member who addresses the House for the first time. I do not know that I should have claimed that privilege on this occasion but for the fact that the notice of the noble Earl as it appeared in the Paper appeared to foreshadow an attack on the shipbuilding programme and the Estimates of the present year for which I was in a large degree responsible. I have no complaint whatever to make of the noble Earl's criticisms, but I would remind him that as regards the programme of the present year and the Estimates embodying it, it is a little belated, these being passed into law and there being nothing left now but for the Government to carry them into execution.
  After having been for sixteen years responsible for the conduct of naval debates either in office or in opposition in the other House, I may say that I do not remember any Estimates in any year that have been the subject of so much criticism as the Estimates of the present year and the shipbuilding programme which formed part of them. I have been authorised to say on behalf of our naval advisers that the shipbuilding programme which the noble Earl attacked was sufficient in their opinion to maintain the two-Power standard for the time being. I have some figures which I will read to your Lordships by-and-by in support of that statement, but in the meantime I will content myself by saying that of the criticisms to which our Estimates were exposed one section asserted that our figures were too high, and the other that they were too low. Those who said that our Estimates were too high, who said so in the spring of this year, I think would hardly venture after all that has happened to repeat the expression of that opinion now.
  The second part of the noble Earl's notice appeared to me to be open to objection on a totally different ground. In effect, what the noble Earl asks is a disclosure by the Government of the Estimates for the coming year. I do not take the point that the noble Earl anticipated that it would be unconstitutional to do so. It would be quite inconsistent on my part
  42
  to say anything of the kind, because on two occasions I have recently disclosed a considerable portion of the Estimates for the coming year, but I do take this point that it must be left to the Government of the day in the exercise of its discretion and responsibility to say whether such a disclosure can be made. I think on this point that the notice of the noble Earl is premature. He has himself been First Lord of the Admiralty, and he knows very well that in this month of November the officials of the Admiralty are grappling with the very problem which he is presenting to us to-night. This is a time above all other times when I think Parliamentary pressure, and even Parliamentary suggestion, should be withheld. After considerable experience of naval Estimates and naval matters, I think it tends to weaken responsibility in a Department to have pressure put upon it during this period of incubation, and premature disclosure may mean, and sometimes must mean, hasty decisions, and hasty decisions are to be deprecated more perhaps in the Navy than in any other Government Department.
  Then it is always to be remembered that there is a certain advantage in a Fabian policy, if I may so describe it, as regards shipbuilding. There is a certain advantage gained by what has been the custom of the Admiralty and the Government of this country in delaying, I was going to say, almost to the last moment, any announcement as to what their shipbuilding programme is going to be. It has been their practice to let other countries commence their programmes and to wait until they know what other nations are going to do, and then try to go one better. The noble Earl was responsible for a breach of this policy in the building of the "Dreadnoughts." I am not going to enter into any controversy or to make any controversy on that point to-night, but the noble Earl knows as well as I do, that there are high authorities for saying that the "Dreadnought" policy was premature, and the premature policy so described is responsible for a good many of the difficulties of the situation in which we now find ourselves.

  43
  Passing from these general observations, I come to the gravamen of the noble Earl's attack upon the Admiralty, if I may so describe it.
  EARL CAWDOR: I do not think that I made any attack upon the Government.
  LORD LOCHEE OF GOWRIE: Perhaps that was a slip of the tongue. I might use the word "critique." That phrase will perhaps better describe his case, but I was going to venture in these days of definition, to put his question in a form which was not the form in which he laid it before your Lordships. I conceive that the question he addressed to the Admiralty was this: "What do you propose to do? What steps do you propose to take, and when, in order to maintain in the year 1911–12 the absolute two-Power standard as recently defined?" I think that is a correct statement of the question which he addressed to this bench. I suggest that that implies as a preliminary, what I do not think it received from the noble Earl, and what I do not think he would venture really to give and what I certainly should decline to give, namely, an estimate of the international and naval situation as it will be in the period to which he refers. What is to be the situation of the various Navies of the world in the year 1911–12, which we are to take steps to guard against now? The noble Earl attempted no such description or definition, and if he had I should certainly have declined to follow him, because at a moment's notice, or even after a great deal of notice, one could not possibly arrive at any decided conclusion in the matter. But I am going to do the next best thing, and what I propose to do is relevant to the first part of the noble Earl's criticism as well as to the question with which he concluded. I am going to make an attempt to estimate the international position as it is to-day with reference to the two-Power standard. That is an easier query, but it is by no means an easy one, and I do not attempt to give anything like certainty in the matter, but I will tell your Lord-
  44
  ships what I propose to do. In the new definitions of the two-Power standard occurs the phrase "capital ships." The time is approaching, I imagine, when we shall be asked to define that phrase. I am not going to define it, but for the purpose of my present statement I am going to assume that by "capital ships" I may be taken to mean, first, battleships and, secondly, armoured cruiser.
  EARL CAWDOR: All armoured cruisers?
  LORD LOCHEE OF GOWRIE: Yes. I am not giving it as a definition of a capital ship. I do not know how that would turn out. The capital ship that I take for the purpose of making a comparison with regard to other Navies is this: I will take all the battleships and all the cruisers in the four principal Navies of the world which are less than twenty years of age, counting their age from the date of launching. I think the noble Earl will admit that that is perfectly fair as regards them all.
  EARL CAWDOR: Does the noble Lord take, as regards the two-Power standard, all armoured cruisers?
  LORD LOCHEE OF GOWRIE: I am trying to take the relative position with reference to the two-Power standard. By making the statement that I am now going to make it will be quite clear what I mean. I take the four great naval Powers—Great Britain, France, Germany and the United States, and I take, first of all, the whole of their battleships under twenty years of age, dating from the time of launching. I am also going to take in another table, too, the armoured cruisers of those Navies, and I will take their number and give their tonnage. I daresay the noble Earl will object that neither tonnage nor armour in itself is conclusive, and I do not say it is, but they are the two most important and most vital elements in a comparative statement. They stand for something; indeed, they stand for everything unless there is some great disparity in our ships, taken side by side with ships of other Navies, which I for one have never stated. In

  45
  the table from which I am going to read, the advantage, if any, or the disadvantage, if any, will be on the side of the British Government, because while there are ships included in the list of all the four Navies which it is now the custom to call obsolescent, the obsolescence is by no means confined to the British Government, but extends in a greater degree, I believe, to other Governments. I have had the benefit of the advice in this matter of a former colleague, whose opinion is cited in the words I have just used, and when I tell the House the name of my adviser and friend, they will see at once the importance of the statement which he, through me, really makes—I mean Sir William White, the late Chief-Construct or of the Navy, who is responsible for the building of the greater part of the Fleet now in being. If you will permit me to quote a few figures, they are these. The battleship list, limited as I have described it, is as follows: Of ships now completed under twenty years of age, Great Britain has 52; Germany, 24; France, 20; the United States, 26. Now let me apply the two-Power standard; against our 52, in numbers of battleships, if we take France and Germany together we have to meet 44—that is, as against our 52, and taking France and the United States together we have 46 as against 52.
  EARL CAWDOR: Twenty-four in Germany and 26 in the United States make 50, not 46.
  LORD LOCHEE OF GOWRIE: I was taking France and the United States, and, as I say, they are together 46, against our 52. I am just coming to Germany and the United States. These permutations and commutations really are a little confusing. I admit that Germany and the United States between them have 50 battleships against our 52.
  Now let me take tonnage. The tonnage of the British ships amounts to 753,900 tons; Germany, 282,700 tons; France, 230,200 tons; United States, 340,000 tons. Again applying the two-Power method, against our 750,000 odd of tons in battleships Germany and France have 512,900; France and the United States have
  46
  570,200; and Germany1 and the United States, which does become the second strongest Power, 622,700. The two next strongest Powers in battleships estimated in this way, give a tonnage 622,700 tons, against the 750,000 tons of Great Britain alone.
  Now I come to the armoured cruiser. The armoured cruisers in the list run as follows: Great Britain, 38 in number; Germany, 8; France, 20; United States, 15. Applying the two-Power method we have this result; against our 38, France and Germany have 28; France and the United States have 35; and Germany and the United States, 23.
  Now for the tonnage. If the House is not tired of these figures, I propose to give the tonnage. The armoured cruiser tonnage of Great Britain is 468,400. Against this we have in Germany, 78,500; in France, 185,000; and in the United States, 186,000. Applying once more the two-Power method we have against the 468,400 tons of armoured cruisers possessed by Great Britain, 263,500 in France and Germany, 371,000 in France and the United States, and 264,500 in Germany and the United States.
  I am afraid I have exhausted the patience of noble Lords, but I would like just to pursue the subject one little bit further. I am going to mass these all together, because the order of merit is not the same in cruisers, if I may use that phrase, as it is in battleships. But let us combine the two. Putting battleships and armoured cruisers in one class by themselves—call them capital ships if you please—this is the result: Great Britain, 90; Germany, 32; France, 40; United States, 41. Then the tonnage is this, the gross British tonnage in armoured cruisers and battleships is 1,222,300, against the following:—Germany, 361,000; France, 415,000; the United States, 526,000.
  Well, my Lords, those are the comparative figures of capital ships as I have described them estimated in numbers and tonnage at the present moment, and I venture to be thus detailed in my statement of figures for three reasons: first of all, because I submit to the House that it justifies the statement that I was authorised

  47
  to make by our naval colleagues in the spring, namely, that the shipbuilding programme of the present year, to which the noble Lord took gentle exception, is sufficient for the time being to maintain the two-Power standard. The second reason I may mention is this, that I think it confirms fully the statement made yesterday in another place by the Prime Minister as to the policy and practice of the Board of Admiralty for some years past. Finally, I mention it because I venture to think that it affords a satisfactory platform from which we may contemplate with composure the naval developments of the immediate future.
  I have just a few words more to say. I resist the temptation which has been spread before the House on this occasion by the noble Earl to discuss the question of standards. I am not going to enter to-night into the battle of standards at all. Of course, I do not criticise the definition of the two-Power standard which was accepted the other day by the Prime Minister. That is not my purpose at all. But if I might presume to do so, I was going to express to the House the caution which I always try to impose upon myself in dealing as I often had to do in another place with this very question. I saw or foresaw certain difficulties and dangers connected with the standard. I agree absolutely with what was said about it by Mr. Balfour in another place this very year. He said that it had no scientific basis at all, nor has it. That means that it has no logical basis, and if it were to be set as a problem in logical difficulties, it would prove embarrassing to experts, and to the man in the street as well. I have always thought it wiser where you are dealing with the standard, which everybody confesses to be not a matter of science, not a matter of logic, not a matter of arithmetic, not a matter of precision, that the least said sometimes the soonest mended. I am certain of this, that whatever definition may be accepted for the moment and however well justified it may be at the moment, there is no possible formula of standard power, and no possible definition of any such standard which can be said for a moment to be entitled
  48
  to hold water for all time. We do not know what circumstances may arise to lead to another standard and another definition having to be set up.
  The only other point to which I want to refer may appear to some of your Lordships to be a little wide of the main scope of the discussion to-night, but I think I can bring what I have to say within the limits of order, certainly in this matter, although it is a little wide of the general tendency of the discussion. I want to allude for a moment to the international rule, and to its bearing on the present debate, which permits the destruction and capture of private property at sea. I am, not going to discuss that rule on humanitarian grounds. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has expressed strong humanitarian views against the existing rule with which I entirely concur, but it is on naval grounds that I want to put the criticism that I am putting now, and on naval grounds bearing on the chief points raised by the noble Earl opposite. My Lords, apart from humanitarianism altogether, of which I take no account in these debates at all, I believe that the value of this rule as a weapon to us has been much exaggerated, and that its possible detriment to Great Britain is too much ignored. We have the largest target exposed to attack in this way of any country in the world. There is only one consolation that the surface we expose to attack is so vast that its vastness in a sense is almost its own protection. I do not, therefore, value the rule as a naval weapon, but after many years reflection on these problems I have come to the conclusion—that the existence in practice of this rule, by which a man's private property at sea is liable to be taken and destroyed, is the main cause of the large navies of the world. There is nothing in my judgment which more induces all nations to submit to the great burden, of naval armaments than that fact, and I cannot too strongly express the great regret that I have always felt that the late Hague Conference produced no reform in international law in this respect. That was due no doubt largely to the opposition and resistance made to the proposed reform by the Government of this country of which I was myself a

  49
  Member. I am not challenging the grounds on which that resistance was offered, but I want to state the naval consequences, apart from your standards and definition of your standards once you have got the standards. The existence and continuance of this rule in practice renders it necessary for this country to possess a Navy, which I will not call a two or three-Power standard Navy, but a Navy which is a huge one. It makes it absolutely necessary, in my opinion, that our Navy should be enormous and invincible. The Hague Conference is not a popular subject to dilate upon and I am not going to do it, but I would remind your Lordships of this, that the first Hague Conference was called together for the main purpose, assented to by all nations, of reducing international armaments. What has been the result? I have not the figures exactly in my mind, but I think I am right when I say that between the first Hague Conference and the second, naval armaments went up 50 per cent. all the world over, Great Britain included, and I look forward with some foreboding to the developments in store for us in the few years which must elapse between the second Hague Conference and the third. I have to thank your Lordships for the great indulgence which you hare extended to me.
  LORD LEITH OF FYVIE: My Lords, some time ago I formed an opinion, which I expressed, with regard to the repairs of our Fleets. At the time I expressed that opinion I could not possibly have spoken from the experience that the country has since had, but experience since has shown that what I outlined and what I was suspected was justified, and that our repairs have not been properly carried out; that is to say, that we had valuable machinery that we were spending a large amount of capital upon, but we were not keeping that machinery up, and that has been proved by the experience of the last three years, and more especially in the last year.
  Your Lordships all know that a discussion took place in the other House on the question of the repairs of the Channel Fleet and also of the Mediterranean Fleet and of the inefficiency
  50
  of those Fleets at the time when they are required. They had to go into dock to be repaired; the estimate was that only two line of battleships should be absent from the Fleet at a time in order that the Fleet should be kept in being. We have had an example which has shown us that although we have this enormous Navy we cannot keep the Channel Fleet or the Mediterranean Fleet in being, and our Home Fleet is acknowledged to be only one-half manned by nucleus crews. The consistency of this enormous expenditure in machinery without the proper ratio of expenditure in repairs is the most dangerous thing of to-day. What is the good of our large Fleets unless they are ready for action? We are told in both Houses that they are ready for action, but when they are tested in any sense by manœuvres or otherwise it is proved that they are not and that there is a large amount of repairs due on each ship which it is recognised must be done before they can go into action. Not only that, but our Fleets are not ready for action even to be able to steam full speed from the Channel ports to Gibraltar. When the Home Fleet two years ago was organised, and then exhibited with spectacular effect to the Members of both Houses, they had a manœuvre soon after. What was the effect? The Admiralty ordered that the maximum speed was not to exceed 12 knots because there were so many ships that were out of repair—that had such a large amount of repair due to them that they could not go more than 12 knots. That means that all this enormous expenditure on the Navy represents capitalisation without the proper amount of repairs being kept up. We have had to-day a statement from the representative of the Admiralty in regard to the stores and ordnance. Why is it that the gun carriages and the ordnance cannot be got when you require them? I will tell you why. It is because foreigners have taken up the output that the works of this country can supply, simply because the Government does not lay out its contracts at a time when the works are able to put the work in hand

  51
  and to produce what is wanted and have it ready for the Government when it is required. The same thing applies to stores. We are told by His Majesty's Government that stores are being supplied in full quantities. I would ask you to go and inquire from any captain of a ship or any admiral of a fleet what his experience is. His experience is that he is not getting enough; the stores are being most niggarolily served out; they are being supplied on the basis not of what is required, but what the Admiralty have decided they can supply. These estimates are all wrong for supplies and ordnance. You can get both, and you have no business to be niggardly with them. Why you should not be niggardly is because of the common-sense view that you own a large and valuable plant and machinery, and owning that plant and machinery you ought to keep it up to the very best advantage. If you do not keep it up, when you require it it will fail you. That is the position that all men who are practically interested in machinery, who have to do with building ships and building guns, take up—that repairs are not properly kept up. They are demanded by admirals, captains, and engineers, and put on a list, but they are not carried out. The small repairs are carried out exceedingly well by the repair ships of the Fleet, but when it conies to capital repair, to the repair of battleships so that they may be ready for any contingency, they are not carried out. Several questions have been asked and answered, but have the answers been practical? Two years ago, on the Estimates of 1906, the late Premier said the Estimates were reduced on the distinct recommendation of the Sea Lords. That was rather a change from what had been the custom of the Admiralty before. The Sea Lords had never been brought so prominently before Parliament as they were on that occasion, but since then I have never heard the Sea Lords quoted in the way of stating what they wanted or what they recommended. Undoubtedly at that time, as the noble Earl who brought up the question has explained to you, there were many questions of expediency that could not be met in a moment, but to-
  52
  day we have the Sea Lords perfectly silent on a most important question—one is the question brought up to-day, the homogeneousness of our Fleet, that battleships require cruisers, they also require destroyers, and these destroyers require torpedo boats, and beyond all the necessity of a dock and the planting of bases upon which all this valuable machinery can fall back in time of war. You have been told that there is a dock at Sheerness. I would like you to ask any admiral to take his fleet up to Sheerness in war time and take it into dock without buoys, which would have teen removed. The answer is that there is a dock there, that there is water at the mouth of it, but the entrance is impracticable. The same thing can be said about Chatham—that it cannot be got at easily by these enormous battleships which are on the increase in size, and which you must all recognise are not less than a £2,000,000 investment. The whole consistency of our policy must be considered from the battleships down to the dock. We have gone on building battleships for the last three years and we are proposing to increase the number of them, but what are we going to do about docks? We are going to build Rosyth in ten years.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: Seven years.
  LORD LEITH OF FYVIE: Take even seven years—we want the dock built within two years. Where shall we be in seven years? We shall have forty more line-of-battleships in the North Sea and no more docks. Let us see if it is not possible to get docks from the commercial side on cur coasts. Why cannot we subsidise those who build docks? Why cannot we subsidise a dock as well as subsidise a mail steamer? If we were to do that we should then have the benefit of a dock that was constantly in use and constantly paying for itself. I asked Lord Tweed-mouth when this discussion came up two years ago whether it was possible to suggest that as a practicable question, and I understood that the matter had been considered by the Admiralty but had not got far enough. Since then I understand that one dock has been opened at Sunderland on the East Coast, and it is the only practicable one on

  53
  that coast that will take in a ship like the "Dreadnought." It is only repeating over and over again what has been said before when I say that we are not carrying out a consistent policy. We are investing on top and not protecting the foundation. The foundation is from dock, destroyer, cruiser, up to battleship, and then when we have got the Fleets in being what we want is to know that they are practically employed. Are they practically employed? Has the Channel Fleet, or the Home Fleet been practically engaged in this last year? I say No, they have not. We ought to have had them properly employed so that as a combined Fleet they were defending the coast as it was the year before under Admiral Wilson. The experience of those Fleets in being under manœuvres and under night manœuvres and war tactics cannot be In any way estimated except by those who take part in them. In the past the Commanders-in-Chief down to the midshipmen have all had that experience, but this year they have not.
  LORD EVERSLEY: After the speech of my noble friend, Lord Lochee, I will not detain the House at any length, because I agree with him in almost everything that he said. But I should like to say a few words upon the question of the two-Power standard. I agree with my noble friend, Lord Lochee, that the two-Power standard has no logical basis; that it is a point on which you cannot lay down a standard as a matter of principle for all time to come. The noble Earl, in his opening statement, said that in the past the two-Power standard had been absolute and without qualification. I very well recollect the inception of the two-Power standard. I think that Lord George Hamilton was the first who suggested it as an alternative to the policy which had previously been adopted. For a great many years previous to 1887 or 1888 the standard of strength adopted for the British Navy was that of three to two, as compared with the French Navy. That, I believe, had been the standard adopted from the end of the great French War until the time I speak of, and as a matter of fact when either Power increased its Navy some-
  54
  what above that proportion the other was certain to follow suit, and that standard was considered sufficient by naval authorities and by successive Governments for many years until 1887 or 1888. About that time, however, the increase of the Russian Navy and the close alliance between Russia and France made it expedient and necessary to adopt another standard, and Lord George Hamilton was, I believe, the first to suggest the two-Power standard. The noble Lord said that it had been absolute and unqualified.
  EARL CAWDOR: I do not wish to interrupt. When I said the statement had been absolute and unqualified, I referred to the statement made by the Prime Minister two or three days ago.
  LORD EVERSLEY: I am going to show that it was not without qualification when it was first suggested by Lord George Hamilton. I have not been able to find the first speech in which Lord George Hamilton suggested the standard, but I find a reference to it in a later speech of his in the year 1893. In 1893 Lord George Hamilton made an important speech on the naval expenditure very much like the speech which the noble Earl has made to-night, namely, he called upon the Government quite late in the session, I think in December, to lay their programme for the next year before the House, and in that speech he dealt with a two-Power standard. He said that it was admitted to be a cardinal part of the policy of this country that the minimum standard of security which the country demanded and expected was that our Fleet should be equal to the combination of the two next strongest navies in Europe, namely, France and Russia, and in the same speech he went on to say—
  "When the late Government introduced the Naval Defence Act of 1889 they undertook that if a certain sum of money was placed at their disposal, in the year 1894 the British Fleet would be equal to the combined force of any two navies in Europe."
  That restriction to Europe is a very important qualification, and for my part I think it is a very wise one. Personally I should look with some dread at the inclusion of the United States in

  55
  any race of armaments with this country. I believe it is wise to exclude the United States Navy from any consideration of the two-Power standard. The point is not a very material one at the present moment, because, as the figures of my noble friend Lord Lochee show, the present strength of the British Navy as compared with either France, Germany or the United States, is very great, but in respect to the United States the question might become a material and important one in the near future, and I would put this point to the noble Lord opposite: whether if the United States Government should consider it desirable to increase largely their fleet with a view of having a large fleet in the Pacific, it would be wise for this country immediately to increase its own Fleet in the same proportion.
  I venture to say that that is a proposition about which I feel considerable doubt, and whenever the time comes when it may be the subject of discussion, all I can say is that I do not think it would be a wise thing on the part of this country to lay down as a proposition for all time to come that the United States should be included in the two-Power standard. My noble friend Lord Lochee has given figures to show the great strength of the British Fleet at the present moment. I think the noble Earl in his speech has hardly done credit to himself or to the Government of which he was a member. He, to my mind, has failed to recognise the enormous strength of the British Fleet as compared with the fleets of other Powers at the present moment.
  EARL CAWDOR: The noble Lord must pardon me for interrupting him again. I was perfectly definite on that point. I said that so far as the present supremacy of our Fleet was concerned I believed it to be absolute. I accepted it as being absolute at the present time, and therefore I did not pass it by.
  LORD EVERSLEY: Certainly the impression on my mind was that the noble Earl had not dwelt sufficiently on the present existing strength of the Navy, and I think it is right to mention that not only is that due to the noble Lord and to the great exertions of the late
  56
  Government during the ten years that they held office, but also the fact that our relative strength to other Powers has been enormously increased by their policy in regard to agreements with France and Japan which have enabled the concentration of our battleships in home waters. The figures of my noble friend Lord Lochee showed that in respect to the other three great Powers, the two-Power standard is enormously exceeded in all three cases, and as regards Germany the figures show that the strength of the British Fleet at the present moment, at least in battleships and armoured cruisers, is three times and possibly four times greater than that of Germany. That has, as I have said, an important bearing on the present question. If it were not for one important fact I believe it would be possible to make a considerable reduction in naval expenditure at the present time. That one fact I need hardly say is the prospective great increase of the German Navy. But we must recollect that that prospective great increase in the German Navy has to be spread over a considerable number of years. It is not to be completed until the year 1820. By that time no doubt Germany will have a very formidable fleet of these bigger vessels. During the same time France also has a considerable programme of shipbuilding, although not more than one half of that of Germany. It is part of the German programme to build the greater number of these vessels in the earlier years and the lesser number in the later years. If it were possible for this country to adopt the plan of the German Government and to have a definite statutory programme spreading over the next twelve years, to be completed by the year 1920, and to equalise the Votes during that period and spend rather a larger amount during the earlier years and less in the later years, to build a larger amount of tonnage in the earlier years, and a somewhat less amount of tonnage in the later years, it would be, I think, an easy matter to provide for the two-Power standard at the end of that period sufficiently to meet the programmes both of France and of Germany without any large addition to our shipbuilding Vote. But the difficulty arises from the fact that I have mentioned, that the additions to be made to the German Fleet

  57
  during the next four or five years will be much larger than in the subsequent years. It may well be, therefore, that during the next three or four years it may be necessary to make some addition to the shipbuilding Vote. I doubt whether it will be necessary to do so to the extent mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, but that is a matter that will have to be considered carefully by those responsible for the naval programme in the next year. I would venture to suggest this to the Government, whether if it be necessary to make a considerable addition to the shipbuilding Vote in the next three or four years it may not be possible to effect some reduction in other parts of the naval expenditure. I believe it is commonly considered that the great increase of expenditure upon the Navy during the last ten years has been wholly due to the shipbuilding Vote. That is very far from being the case. The total increase of expenditure upon the Navy during the last ten years amounts to no less than £10,500,000. Of that sum only £1,000,000 is due to the increase of the shipbuilding Vote. The shipbuilding Vote ten years ago was £7,000,000. It is now £8,000,000. Of the £10,500,000, £1,500,000 is due to the interest on Sinking Fund upon money borrowed for new works of all kinds—for docks and harbours and the dredging of harbours, and so forth—all over the world, and that perhaps ought not to be included in any comparison at the present moment with the expenditure of ten years ago. But of the remaining £8,000,000, £3,500,000 is due to the increase of wages and victualling of the men; something like £1,250,000 is due to the increased cost of repairs, and something like £1,000,000 is due to the increased cost of coal, and in that way we mount up to no less than £8,000,000 increase due to the personnel of the Fleet. During that time the personnel of the Fleet has been increased by 23,000 men; it has been raised from 100,000 to 128,000 men. At the present moment the number of men in the German Navy is 50,000, and the number of men in the French Navy is 56,000. It will be seen, therefore, that the two-Power standard is enormously exceeded in respect of the personnel of the British
  58
  Fleet. It has been often contended by men of very high authority in the Navy that it would be wise policy on the part of the British Admiralty to adopt more freely the short-service system and to pass a larger number of men more rapidly through the Service into the Reserve, and if this policy were adopted it would be possible without any real reduction in the efficiency of the Fleet to make a very considerable reduction in the wages Vote and other Votes for the Navy. It would also be possible, if that policy were adopted, considerably to reduce the number of vessels in commission, and consequently the cost of their repairs and coals. I venture to suggest for the consideration of the Government of the Navy Estimates and the programme for next year, whether, if it should be necessary largely to increase the shipbuilding Vote, it might not be at the same time accompanied by some reduction of other Votes. I would venture to point out to the House that of the total expenditure of this country a very much smaller amount is spent upon the building of new ships than is the case with either Germany or France. Of the total expenditure of Germany upon the Navy, namely, of £16,000,000 during the present year, no less than £8,000,000 is spent upon new ships, in other words, one-half, and the other £8,000,000 is spent upon their personnel. In the case of England out of a total expenditure of £32,500,000, only £8,000,000 is spent upon new ships, the residue being spent upon the personnel and the other matters to which I have adverted. Therefore, while in Germany one-half of the total expenditure is spent upon new ships, in England only one-fourth is so spent, and that seems to me also to point to the possibility of effecting a reduction in other parts of the naval service if we are called upon to spend a much larger amount upon the materiel. However, those are mattes which as I have said must be considered by the Government in determining the programme for next year. I join with all that has been said by my noble friends, Lord Granard and Lord Lochee, as to the inexpediency of forcing the hands of the Government to declare their programme in the month of November for next year. When we consider

  59
  that by the beginning of March it will be the duty of the Minister in charge of the Naval Estimates to state to the country what the programme of the Government for the coming year is, it seems to me that the wise course is to leave it there, and not prematurely to force their hands.
  I may remind the House that the last attempt made in this direction was in the year 1893. Lord George Hamilton then brought forward a Motion in the other House calling upon the Government to declare its programme for the coming year. The Motion was very strongly opposed by Mr. Gladstone in a very notable speech, and he made these remarks which I think are equally applicable to the remarks of the noble Lord opposite on the present occasion. He said—
  "We rest on the principle of annual account, annual proposition, and annual approval by the House of Commons, which we say is the only way of maintaining regularity, and that regularity is the only talisman which will secure Parliamentary control. If you resort to irregular periods, irregular proposals in moments of chance excitement without real danger, you destroy all powers which the House of Commons, pressed as it is by business from day to day, can possibly possess, of exercising efficient control over the executive Government."
  Those observations seem to me to apply equally to the present time, and to the speech of the noble Lord opposite, and for my part, although I think I have made some observations containing suggestions to the Government as to what they should entertain with a view to their programme of next year, I have done so with no desire to force their hands or to compel or induce them at the present time to state their programme. I have done so with a desire that these matters should be carefully considered before the programme for next year is finally resorted to. For my part I think looking back at the enormous increase of expenditure on the Navy during the last three years—it has increased by no less than £20,000,000 within the last twenty years, £10,000,000 of that increase being in the last ten years, and I cannot look but with dismay to the further increase which seems to be indicated by the noble Lord opposite. I believe that sound finance and light taxation and the power of borrowing money largely
  60
  whenever emergency occurs is at least as important to the safety and to the strength of the country as the multiplying of military and naval armaments and the multiplication of ships which probably will become obsolete in the course of a few years.
  LORD BRASSEY: My Lords, as the important subject which the noble Lord opposite who lately presided at the Board of Admiralty so fittingly brought before us has already been exhaustively discussed by previous speakers I have but very few words to offer to your Lordships.
  As to the superior position of the Navy at the present time no doubt exists. When we compare the amounts voted for construction for the Navy of Great Britain and for the Navies of other countries, more especially Germany, it is clear that we are falling behind. I find myself in accord with the noble Lord, Lord Cawdor, when he insists upon the necessity of laying down six capital ships if we are to maintain the two-Power standard in relation to construction—four ships to be laid down with as little delay as possible and pushed forward vigorously, and two ships to be laid down later on.
  The requirements for the British Navy are not limited to "Dreadnoughts" and their auxiliaries, and to the torpedo flotilla of which Lord Cawdor has spoken. The "Dreadnoughts" and the "Invincibles" are ships specially adapted for service on the high seas. The excellence of the designs of those ships for the service for which they are best adapted has recently been commended by all the foreign authorities who have discussed this subject. The value of the type is established by its universal adoption by all the maritime Powers for service on the high seas. In coastal waters big ships are exposed to grave risks. For the inshore squadron a type of ship quite different from the "Dreadnought" and the "Invincible" is required. It Would not be true to say that the Admiralty has neglected the in-shore squadron. That branch of naval construction should be pushed with more vigour. The naval experience and the professional skill which have given

  61
  us the "Dreadnought" and the "Invincible" should now be directed to the in-shore squadron. If a new type can be devised, possibly an armoured destroyer, the effect may be to cause some hesitation among all naval Powers as to the desirability of building ships of ever-growing dimensions for all purposes.
  Looking to the general position of the country, there is evidently nothing to justify a scare. The noble Lord, Lord Cawdor, has expressed his satisfaction with our present strength in ships. As my noble friend, Lord Eversley, has said, in manning we are far above the two-Power standard. Then, again, we have the great advantage of possessing a chain of foreign stations extending round the globe. Upon that point I would venture to observe that we are not destitute of places in which our Fleets may anchor on the East Coast. We have the splendid natural harbour of Cromarty, which is now the headquarters of our Fleets when at exercise in that part of the German Ocean.
  It is regrettable that in times of peace it should be necessary to impose large additional burdens on the taxpayers. It is desirable on political grounds that the laying-down programme in the next Navy, Estimates should be of an ample nature. If the laying-down programme is inadequate those discussions as to the strength of the Navy, which we all regret, will recur again and again. They do not make for friendly relations between ourselves and foreign countries.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I propose to occupy your Lordships only for a moment, but as by the rules of your Lordships' House my noble friend is unable to rise again, I should like to say that should the debate terminate with the statements which have been made up to now from the Government Bench, I fear there will be very considerable disappointment and dissatisfaction among those who are interested in naval affairs. Last night we had a discussion in which the Government were pressed to make a definite declaration on a matter of the most urgent national importance, and their apparent irresolution on that question will, I think, cause comment,
  62
  and has caused comment, as may be seen by those who have read to-day's papers, and in some degree we are in the same position to-night.
  I need hardly say that I take no exception to the manner or to the method of the noble Earl who speaks for the Admiralty in this House, and who always speaks, if I may venture to say so, with full command of every subject which he undertakes. But the noble Earl cannot go beyond the information which is supplied to him from the Admiralty, and in this case I think I should be inclined to say of him, as was said by the Yankee publican who saw Niagara for the first time, that it would have been splendid but for the poverty of the material.
  We are really hardly answered on the main points on which Lord Cawdor has pressed the Government to-night. Speaker after speaker has given explanations which do not bear on the subject which was immediately uppermost in the mind of the noble Earl behind me. The noble Lord who spoke for the first time, I think, in this House, and whom I had the pleasure of listening to very often in another place, spoke strongly as to our present relative superiority to foreign naval Powers, but that was not the point on which Lord Cawdor pressed for an explanation from the Government. It is admitted at this moment that the Navy has been fully maintained, but his apprehension was that in 1911 under the programmes of which we are aware by other Powers, we shall fall short in battleships and in the accompanying expenditure on battleships, unless more ships are laid down at a very early date than we have yet had a pledge from the Government to lay down.
  The noble Lord also pressed on the House our position with regard to a base in the North Sea. I am not experienced enough to say whether it is possible for the Government to make a more satisfactory reply than they have made on that subject, but to tell us that the best we can hope—and even that is only a hope—is that we may have some docks in seven years time is certainly not encouraging at a moment coming closely after such a debate as that of last night.

  63
  Then again I am sure that the House and the country would have welcomed a more definite statement as to guns and mountings. My noble friend behind me, Lord Leith, told the House that our difficulty in getting guns and mountings delivered up to time was that the plant of many of the largest contractors was taken up by foreign orders placed at the right time—when ours were not. I do not for a moment say that that is the case, but I think that that demands an answer and a refutation, if refutation can be given, from the Government Bench.
  The noble Lord who spoke a few moments ago, Lord Eversley, told the House of the apprehension with which he views the enormous growth of naval expenditure. He said that there had been £10,000,000 in ten years added to the Estimates, or £20,000,000 in twenty years, and that that was an enormous addition. I entirely concur with him, but some of us have thought, if we were to go into the regions of finance, that a Government which has before it expenditure vouched for by the Prime Minister in his undertaking to keep up the standard of two Powers, was unwise, to say the least of it, in discarding £3,000,000 of revenue this year from the sugar duties, and so placing himself in a position of great inconvenience, and possibly even of danger, next year, and my noble friend pressed strongly on the Government that they are by not laying down battleships at this moment transferring to the subsequent years a financial burden which it may then be extremely inconvenient to bear. We all know that in naval matters it is absolutely necessary, if possible, to distribute the financial burden, so that there shall not be an undue pressure on the Admiralty by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any year to reduce Estimates, especially at a time when we have a falling revenue.
  I believe the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy is about to rise, and I venture to urge him, as he always speaks with the utmost clearness, to give us as definite an undertaking in this matter as he possibly can. It is not for us on this side of the House to estimate exactly the effect of the Government plan of meeting serious Motions, pressed with
  64
  all due courtesy, as we hope, with absolutely inconclusive replies. We are not in a position in this House, as the House of Commons is, to stop supplies, or to take any strong measure of that kind, but if we are to judge by what we see in the public Press, if we are to judge by the effect of these debates on the public mind throughout the country, they certainly have a most damaging effect in the direction of destroying confidence in the intentions of the Government.
  We believe and fully credit the desire and determination of the Government to adhere to the two-Power standard, but we would urge that with regard to points such as those Lord Cawdor has made, in which you cannot overtake a mistake or an omission to lay down battleships, which he, with his great experience, now declares that the Government should lay down, we may be given the best assurances that can be given to allay the feeling which has arisen on this matter.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, may I, with the permission of the House, be allowed to make one remark in answer to my noble friend Lord Midleton. He said that I had made no statement with regard to what the position of the country would be after the year 1911. I mentioned that at the end of 1911 the Germans would have thirteen "Dreadnoughts" and "Invincibles," and that we should have twelve. I then went on further to state that all the ships which we proposed building under next year's programme would be completed by the end of 1911. The noble Lord misquoted me there; he said that I made no mention in regard to that.
  Then with reference to gun-mountings the same observation applies. I stated that the Admiralty would see that all fittings and gun-mountings and guns, etc., were delivered in time for the ships of this year's programme being completed by 1911.
  I do not think there is anything else to reply to except perhaps with regard to the question Lord Leith raised about repairs, and also with regard to the exercise of the Home Fleet Division. I may say with regard to the Home Fleet Division that they were exercised this

  65
  year and the result was extremely satisfactory in every way, in fact they compared very favourably with any of the other Fleets which are in regular commission. As your Lordships are aware the Horns Fleet is a nucleus Fleet and have only three-fifths of the complement on board, the other two-fifths making up the full complement being in shore establishments.
  As to the other question that was raised with regard to subsidising private docks, as far as that is concerned, the Government have had no offer from any private firm in the direction of subsidising any dock, and of course a dock such as would take a "Dreadnought," would not be of much use on the East Coast, unless there were adequate fortifications surrounding it.
  I think there is nothing else to add, except to say as regards the two-Power standard that we have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said on that subject.

  THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHrose, "To ask the Government if they do not deem it advisable to make a statement of their intentions in connection with the building of men-of-war, and to produce Supplementary Estimates for that purpose before Christmas instead of waiting until next Easter; and also to ask them if they do not think that it would be expedient to construct large docks at Chatham and other eastern ports by means of a loan which should be paid off in about twenty years time, as such docks, if constructed, would be of considerable value at the end of that period, as is the case with many of our existing docks of far greater antiquity." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to the desirability of constructing large docks on the East Coast by means of loans. I admit it would be difficult for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise next year by taxation the money that we shall require for ships as well as docks. I therefore consider it justifiable finance to borrow the money necessary for the purpose of building docks and to arrange for a sinking fund so as to pay off that loan in twenty years time. When the twenty years are out,
  66
  we should still have valuable docks fully suitable for what will be the second-class ships of 1928, even if they are not suitable for the first-class ships of that date, whereas if there is a loan for shipbuilding, the ships themselves would be of little value after twenty years. For instance, if you look at our present dockyards, a large part of the masonry forming the older parts of the dockyard built previous to 1850 when sailing went out and steam came in, is all there in use at the present day, and is probably still worth 5s. in the £ of what was spent on it, and it remains to us as a valuable legacy from our ancestors.
  With regard to Chatham, my remarks on that head are rather dependent upon the Port of London Bill deepening the access to that yard sufficient to allow a wounded "Dreadnought" 3 feet down by the bow, and with a heel of several degrees being able to get up to Chatham. If that cannot be arranged for, there are other docks on the East Coast which should be deepened in order to be able to receive a water-logged vessel with a heavy list.
  There are two docks at Chatham that were already in existence at the time when Mr. Secretary Pepys was writing his Diaries at the Admiralty, Docks No. 2 and No. 4. Dock No. 2 was built in the time of James I. Its length at that time was about 200 feet and its depth 14 feet 6 inches. Fifty years ago the wood in that dock was replaced by granite, and its length was increase 1 to 345 feet 6 inches, and its depth to 23 feet 7 inches, In 1860 and in 1866 I see that its length was again increased, so that it is now 404 feet long. The work done in excavating in the time of James I. is still of use, and posterity is still benefiting by it.
  To take Lock No. 4, that dock was built before the year 1688, and was then apparently about the same size as No. 2. It has been repeatedly lengthened and improved, work is going on upon it now, and it is to be 331 feet long. So that much of the work done in the reigns of Charles II., George III., William IV. and in the first half of Queen Victoria's reign is still of use and of value to the country.

  67
  Between 1871 and 1873 Docks Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 were built at Chatham, all of which, though at least thirty-five years old, are still of use. About five years ago there was a scheme before the Admiralty for building a basin with additional large docks at St. Mary's Island, Chatham, which was at one time, I understand, said to be approved of by the Admiralty, but it has not yet been carried out. I think it is high time that that particular scheme should be reconsidered. Under the Port of London Bill, the Thames is to be deepened. And, you do deepen the Thames, Chatham becomes easy of access, and one of the chief objections to large docks at Chatham will have disappeared. Furthermore, it is a very difficult place for an enemy to get up to. which is an avadntage that some of the other docks we are thinking of building do not possess.
  I do not wish to weary the House by giving you the history of Plymouth or Portsmouth Dockyards. I think that I have said enough to show the desirability of building fresh docks on the East Coast where our largest ships can be docked and promptly repaired, and I think I have proved that if the country were to borrow the money and docks were constructed by means of a loan with twenty years to run, the country would still have good value left in those docks at the end of the twenty years.
  After the victory of Camperdown the relative importance of our eastern dockyards declined, and our expenditure on docks was concentrated on those in our Channel ports. But of late years our supremacy on the North Sea has been threatened by another Power infinitely greater than that of Holland, inasmuch as she disposes of large armies as well as an increasing Fleet, so that our eastern yards have resumed their importance, and they should be improved and put on a war footing without delay and made capable of docking large ships. I gather that the Admiralty are expediting work at Rosyth. If so, I am glad of it, and I hope they will continue to do so, and if possible that they will reduce the seven years to five years. But a dock at Chatham large enough to take a damaged
  68
  "St. Vincent" ought also to be commenced at once.
  The Globe of August 24th says that—
  "Kiel has two, docks, and Wilhelmshaven has one dock capable of taking in. the latest battleships, while the Kaiser Dock of the North German Lloyd at Bremen, and the floating dock of Blohm and Voss at Hamburg can receive the new battle-ships in case of need. Two huge dry docks are now nearing completion in the shipbuilding yard of Wilhelmshaven. Near Brunsbuttel, the North Sea opening of the Kiel Canal, two more large dry docks are to be built, while Blohm and Voss and the Vulcan Shipbuilding Yard are building: on the Elbe two floating docks, each of 30,000 tons capacity. As there are rumours of a large floating dock to be built at Kiel, the German Navy will have sufficient dock accommodation for its biggest vessels in the near future."
  The country that has the command of the seas, must have docks as well as battleships, and the fewer days a ship is, away from her station for repairs the better. Further, she runs the risk of being attacked while she is in a crippled state, and the nearer she is to some safe place, some rabbit-hole as it were, into which she can run, the better. We require a double dock standard as well as a double ship standard in the North Sea.
  I now put the Question that stands, in my name.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the question raised by my noble friend Lord Ellenborough, with regard to docks, has been very carefully considered by the Government on many occasions, and I may say that the special dock to which he drew our attention and the suggestion he made that Chatham should be deepened and made into a suitable dock has been before the Admiralty quite recently, and it is, in fact, under the consideration of the Admiralty at the present moment. I understand, however, that there are some very great difficulties—I believe nearly insuperable difficulties—in the case of Chatham with regard to the channel, and it is very doubtful whether the Admiralty will be able to see their way to recommend the deepening of the channel, and the expense that would involve in order to make it a dock that would take a "Dreadnought."

  69
  The noble Lord also mentioned that there were very few docks on the south coast—
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: No, on the east coast. We have quite enough docks on the south coast. We are well provided there, except that you ought to finish the new dock at Portsmouth on which the work is going forward now, I believe.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: Yes, the noble Lord is perfectly correct. Work is going on at the dock at Portsmouth and that dock will shortly be completed. Then the noble Lord suggested that money should be borrowed on the system that was in vogue some years ago under the Naval Loans Act, by which these docks could be paid for, and he very justly stated that money borrowed in this way would be liable in the case of docks where the material and the docks remained for a great length of time to be of value to the country still in twenty years time, whereas the life of a battleship is only twenty years, and it is not of very great value at the end of that time. I will place the points which have been raised by my noble friend before the Admiralty, and I am sure they will give them due consideration.

  THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the fact that these Islands mainly depend for their food supply upon the ships of the mercantile marine, and to point out the serious danger involved in having any of our merchant ships commanded or officered by foreigners; and to move to resolve: "That it is the opinion of this House that, for the better defence of this country, the Government should forbid the granting of Board of Trade certificates for competency as masters or mates to any who are not British subjects."
  Yesterday there was a most interesting debate in your Lordships' House on the Motion of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal Lord Roberts. As far as I could gather, everybody in this House admitted the necessity of having a
  70
  defending Army, though there was a variance of opinion as to what the strength of that Army should be and as to how it should be formed. To-day we have had the subject of the Navy brought up, and I think that every one in this House is also in agreement that we should have a powerful and efficient Navy. Has it ever struck any of your Lordships that our Royal Navy and our Army are perfectly useless without the merchant navy? This may seem very startling, but it is the absolute truth, and in very few words I think I can show your Lordships that it is so.
  England depends entirely on the three services—the Royal Navy, the Merchant Navy, and the Army; and if you take any one of these away, the other two alone will not be of much service. Of the three services, the merchant navy is the oldest, and it is the one that has laid the foundations of the British Empire. The noble and gallant Earl stated yesterday that the defending Army should be at least a million of men. Well, my Lords, even if you had that million of men, if you had ten millions of men, if every able-bodied man in the United Kingdom was a highly trained soldier, they would be useless for defence without your merchant navy. It is perfectly true that they could repel all invasion from Continental Powers, but there is one enemy that they could not repel without the ships of the merchant service, and that is starvation. Take away the ships of the merchant service and in a very short time your defending Army would be starved into submission. The ships of the Royal Navy would be no use under such conditions, for they have not the stowage room to carry sufficient food supplies, and many of the naval ships would be rendered inefficient for want of the merchant ships to carry them coal and other supplies.
  My Lords, in this House and the House of Commons, and in the public Press, the claims and requirements of both our Army and Navy are constantly being put forward, and rightly; but where do we ever see the claims of the merchant service put forward? From the time when the Navigation Laws were repealed—which laws, my Lords, will have to be re-enacted sooner or later if England

  71
  is to maintain her position as a great Power—from that time until now, what encouragement has been given to the men of the merchant service, to the officers of the merchant service, or to the shipowners? It is true there is one instance where the Government advanced a very large sum of money at a very low rate of interest to the Cunard Company and gave them a large yearly subsidy, but this was simply for the building of the two large turbine liners.
  The subject of the Motion now before your Lordships is no new one. I introduced it as a Bill in 1905, and on several previous occasions I have brought it before this House. As your Lordships know, we depend very largely for the food supplies of these Islands on the products of other countries. Grain, meat, and other food supplies come to us from practically all over the world—from Canada, from California, from Russia, from Australia, the Argentine Republic, and other places; and any stoppage of these supplies for any length of time would mean starvation, or very nearly starvation, amongst the inhabitants of the United Kingdom.
  In the mercantile marine there are, approximately, 1,900 officers and 25,000 men who belong to the Royal Naval Reserve. Most of these officers and men are sailing in our liners. In the event of a war with a great naval Power, all those officers and men would be required to serve in the Royal Navy. Their places in the liners would have to be filled by British captains and officers taken from what are miscalled the tramps of our merchant service, which I would remind your Lordships are the vessels that carry our food supplies. A liner takes far more officers than a tramp of the same size. The men also, the British seamen, would be taken to supply the deficiencies amongst the crews of the liners. The result would be that we would have to depend on ships carrying our food supplies commanded, officered, and manned by foreigners, and this cannot but be regarded as a serious danger to this country. The percentage of aliens in our tramps is over 50 per cent.; there are 472 alien captains and officers, and there are,
  72
  according to the latest Returns, 3,297 alien petty officers, numbers of whom, I dare say, are aspiring to hold higher grades. Not only that, but there is a most pernicious practice, or was up to very lately, of carrying foreign boys as apprentices in British ships, and after four years service they will, of course, wish to obtain British certificates in order to get higher pay. It is only this very year that we discussed the subject of a new training ship started by the White Star Line for officers, and it does seem to me to be a most unfair and unjust thing to induce young English boys to enter the British merchant service and then, after they have obtained their certificates, for them to find that the posts they might reasonably expect to occupy are taken by aliens.
  The Admiralty have always recognised the principle of this Motion, because whenever they charter any of our merchant ships they not only insist on their being commanded and officered by British subjects and containing a large proportion of British seamen in the crew, but they also, in many cases, require all the crew to be British subjects. Ore example of this was the case of the S.S. "Powderham." When she was lying in a Continental port she shipped a number of alien seamen and firemen. She then came over to this country, and was chartered by the Admiralty to carry Government stores to South Africa. On reaching London the captain was compelled by the Admiralty to discharge the alien crew, and he had to give them one month's pay in lieu of notice. Even supposing a ship were manned and officered by British subjects and had only an alien captain, this would be still a most serious danger. We may assume that the captain would certainly be the first, and possibly the only one, on board to hear that war had broken out, and if he were a subject of the Power with which we might be at war, what would be more easy than for him to take the ship into a port belonging to the enemy, where the first thing the British officers and crew would know of war having broken out would be finding themselves prisoners and the ship's cargo in the hands of the enemy? The captain could easily inform his officers that he

  73
  had received orders from his owners to deliver the cargo at this particular port. If such a state of things existed as the noble and gallant Field Marshal in his Motion yesterday desired to meet by having an efficient defending Army, then the loss of even one ship conveying food supplies would be a very serious matter to this country.
  On former occasions I have been told that there was no need to do anything to prevent foreigners commanding and officering British ships, as they were not increasing in numbers. With all due respect, there is no sense in such a reply. The existence of even one alien commander is a menace; but where you have 472 alien commanders and officers this is a still more serious danger. Now, for one moment I will just deal with this argument. It is said there is no need to put a stop to foreigners obtaining certificates because they are not increasing in numbers. If that be so, why is there any objection to forbid any further certificates being granted to aliens? Or is there a desire on the part of a Government Department that more aliens should come into the merchant service? If that is the case, I could understand the unpatriotic refusal to forbid foreigners taking out certificates; but, if it is not so, there is neither rhyme nor reason in refusing to take what is a very obvious precaution, and one which most, if not all, of the leading maritime Powers have already taken to safeguard their mercantile marine.
  My Lords, it is no good providing a large defensive Army for this country if you do not at the same time make sure that it will be properly fed. I venture to read once again the statement made in the House of Commons in February, 1900, by the then President of the Board of Trade—
  "Take, for instance, the question of a war—the question of a war where the Naval Reserve were called out—that would be to deplete British ships of British seamen, and instead of being partially manned by foreigners they would, under existing circumstances, be altogether manned by foreigners. That, I think, is matter for very great regret, and if any suggestion can be made to remedy that state of things or to endeavour to remedy that state of things, which the whole House regrets, then the House would do wrong not to consider any suggestion that might be made."
  74
  This Motion is a suggestion to remedy the state of things alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. The other alternative is to build huge State granaries and large stores for frozen meat, and keep immense supplies of corned and tinned provisions on hand. This, I need hardly say, would cost a very large sum of money and lock up a large amount of capital. According to the last available figures—that is, for the year 1906—the over-sea imports during the year on a c.i.f. valuation were: grain, flour, and meat, £119,907,042. Other foods came to £68,823,115. Then there were certain dutiable foods and drinks, which came to £44,709,172, making a. total value of over-sea imports of £233,439,329. This, my Lords, will give some idea of how dependent this country is on over-sea food supplies.
  As I have already told your Lordships, there are, approximately, 25,000 British seamen in the Royal Naval Reserve. From the latest Returns I find that in the merchant service there are only 28,106 British seamen, and 5,946 British petty officers, making a total of 34,052 Britishers. If you take away the 25,000 men of the Naval Reserve, that will only leave us 9,052 British seamen to man our huge merchant fleet. There are, of course, 44,367 lascars, who are mostly British subjects, but they will only be employed in Eastern waters. This is a very, very serious state of affairs, and it shows how vitally necessary it is that we should insist on all our ships being commanded and officered by British subjects. It would be impossible, of course, as things stand at present, to ensure that all the crews, or even a large proportion of them, should be British, but it is a very easy matter to ensure that they carry British captains and officers. My Lords, it is nearly eight years since the speech from which I quoted was made in the House of Commons; but up to now not one thing has been done to remedy what was admitted to be a grave and serious evil. I trust your Lordships will accept my Motion. It is a terrible thing to think that England, who has been called "the Mistress of the Seas," should have to depend in war time on foreigners for the sailing of her mercantile ships.
  Moved to resolve, "That it is the opinion of this House that, for the better defence of this country, the Government should forbid the granting of Board of Trade certificates for competency as masters or mates to any who are not British subjects."—(Lord Muskerry.)
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I think that in future no certificate of competency to act as master or mate should be granted to any foreigner. But I would allow a foreigner to be shipped at some foreign ports, or at some of the smaller colonial harbours, to fill up vacancies caused by sickness or death, so as to enable a ship to be safely navigated. It would be hard on owners and still harder on the crew, if they were kept in unhealthy harbours, such as exist on the African coast, for want of a navigator. This, however, should be only a temporary mitigation of the law, and the foreign navigator should be discharged whenever the ship reached a port where there were facilities for obtaining British-born men with certificates of competency. I myself drew up clauses which, if added to the Bill brought in by the noble Lord on a former occasion, would have met this difficulty. If you warn British ships against possible capture when war is imminent, you put it in the power of an alien to betray you. You also place the crew in a most unfair position. If the alien captain is a belligerent, you make mutiny a duty that the crew owe to their country. If the alien is a neutral, you cannot hang him for high treason. Aliens should never be put in a quasi-magisterial position with a British crew. Then there is the argument that you would be driving ships to take refuge under a foreign flag if they could not be commanded by an alien. If they do hoist another flag, why, so much the better for British commerce. I think that, on inquiry, it will be found that most of the ships commanded by aliens are also really owned by aliens; that they have nothing British about them except the flag, and put no money into British pockets. They only fly our flag because we have a powerful Navy and efficient Consulates.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, the noble Lord who has placed
  76
  this Motion on the Paper asked where the claims of the officers and men of the merchant service were ever put forward. I think he supplies his own answer, because the able and frequent manner in which he calls attention to the interests of those men is well known to your Lordships. Of all the questions connected with the merchant service which he is in the habit of raising, this one must be his favourite, for I find, on looking through the Journals of the House, that he has introduced Bills dealing with this question on no fewer than five occasions within the last ten years. I do not find, however, that he has so far induced your Lordships to read any one of those Bills a second time. Knowing the noble Lord as we do, I do not think that any of us are surprised to find him returning again to the charge.
  From the point of view of the officers of the merchant service, with whom the noble Lord is in such close touch, there must, of course, be a great deal to be said in favour of the exclusion of foreigners from their ranks. Indeed, I think that, speaking as a general proposition, we should all be very glad if it were possible to arrive at a state of affairs of that kind; but I will show, in a moment, a few reasons which prevent us from arriving at that point. But that is not the ground on which the noble Lord brings forward his Motion. He calls attention to the fact that these islands depend upon outside sources for their food supply, and to the danger of having any of our merchant ships officered by foreigners on account of that fact. I found it a little difficult to understand exactly the nature of the danger which the noble Lord anticipated, but he has made that clear in the course of his speech. What I understand he is afraid of is that in time of war a ship bringing food supplies to this country may be commanded by a foreigner, and that instead of doing his best to bring the ship safely to port in this country, he will hand her over to the enemy. If there was any fear of that being done on at all a large scale, the prospect would be a very alarming one.
  But, after all, what are the facts? The proportion of foreigners holding Board of Trade certificates of competency

  77
  as masters and mates does not amount to quite 2 per cent. of the whole number, and the danger which arises from that small proportion would be further reduced by the fact that those men may belong to any one of many foreign nations. Therefore, the number who might be presumed to owe allegiance to the country with which we were at war, would be very much smaller than that. We must also remember that we have the owners on our side as far as British ships are concerned, and that, apart from motives of patriotism, there are also motives of self-interest. It is inconceivable to me that any owner of a ship would be so foolish as to put in command of it a man who would be in the least likely to hand it over to the enemy as a prize of war. For these reasons I confess I am not very much alarmed by the prospect which seems to concern the noble lord so much.
  Before sitting down, I ought, I think, to give two or three of the reasons which make it desirable that the present state of affairs should be continued, much as we must all deplore the presence of foreign officers on British ships. In the first place, in a trade like the timber trade, which is carried on with Norway and Sweden, there are many Norwegian and Swedish sailors employed, and it would be very hard on those men and would tend to drive that particular trade from our flag if we were to deny to them the opportunity of promotion in our own service. Then there is the trade carried on with Levantine ports, where it is extremely important, in the interests of the owners, that one officer at least of the ship should be able to speak the different dialects. We are, as a nation, very proud of ourselves as sailors, but I do not think we can claim that pride for our capacity as linguists; and that supplies a powerful reason for there being a small percentage of foreigners on vessels of that kind. On the other hand, a large number of British subjects are employed as officers on foreign ships, and one cannot but suppose that the first effect of an ordinance such as the noble Lord desires would be retaliation on the part of those countries, which might at once drive those men out of
  78
  employment. For these reasons I hope the House will not agree to the Motion.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I regret exceedingly that the Government are not able to give a more satisfactory reply to the noble Lord who has moved this Motion. I cannot help, saying that I think his proposition an eminently reasonable one. I have listened with great interest to the objection raised by is Majesty's Government, but I cannot see that there is any force in it. Now, what is it that the noble Lord desires? He desires that British ships should not be commanded by foreigners. And why does he wish that? Not, as he has shown, from any selfish or from any trade-union principle. He desires it because he believes—and I agree with him—that there is a certain element of danger in time of war in permitting British ships to be officered by foreigners. That is conceded by the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government; but he said that, as the danger was not great, it might be ignored. But why should we ignore it? If there is the slightest danger in the command of British ships by foreigners why should we ignore it? It will be difficult enough in time of war to convoy the supplies of food. It was found in the great Napoleonic wars a very difficult thing to do with the enormous preponderance possessed in those days. Much more so will it be the case now. Why, therefore, deliberately add an extra difficulty which it is not necessary should exist? We have never had any experience since the Napoleonic wars of naval warfare on a large scale, and we must remember that in those days, although there were large numbers of men enlisted in foreign armies and navies, there was no universal compulsory military service such as now exists on the Continent. The result is that at the present moment almost every foreigner has passed terms of service in the Army or Navy, and until a very advanced time of middle age he is under the power and influence of his Government. Therefore the position is different from what it was in former days. Each of the 472 alien captains and officers in the British mercantile marine has passed through the ranks of his navy or army. These men could be influenced, and would be

  79
  influenced, by their respective Governments. As the noble Lord has pointed out, we are dependent upon the merchant service for our food supply, without which we should starve and be compelled to give in. I hope His Majesty's Government will take this matter into consideration. The objections raised by the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government appear to me to be futile. First, we were told that there was the timber trade and that there were Norwegians who would be turned out of employment. I should be very sorry for them, but it is not our business to consider Norwegians. We have to consider the interests of our fellow-subjects and of this country. The next point was the Levantine trade. I have never heard a more futile objection than that our seamen cannot speak languages. Supposing we could not find a British seaman who could speak the particular language, would there be no Levantines who could act as interpreters? The third reason given by the noble Lord was that there were British subjects in foreign merchant services, and that those countries would retaliate and drive the Britishers back to these shores. I should be only too thankful if they did, because they would then have to enlist in the British Navy or in the British merchant service. We want them there, not in foreign services. I hope His Majesty's Government will reconsider their decision in this matter.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I am afraid there are not sufficient noble Lords remaining in the House to enable a division to be taken, even if I wished to press my Motion. I shall, therefore, by leave of the House, withdraw it. But I should like to say, with regard to the noble Lord's fear of retaliation on the part of foreign countries, that your Lordships may rest perfectly assured that the services of British officers in foreign ships will be dispensed with as soon as they can be replaced. I have seen that done over and over again; and if there are any Englishmen serving in foreign ships it is only because there are no subjects of that country qualified to take their place. The noble Lord said I had introduced five Bills in ten years to give effect to
  80
  my views. I am afraid I shall have to bring in a sixth. I do not, however, press my Motion on the present occasion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow a quarter past Four o'clock.