Sitting of 25 November 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  Hastings Harbour Bill.—Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  NATAL.
  Petition of Francis E. Colenso, for inquiry into the conduct of affairs; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 671 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (MILITARY OPERATIONS).
  Address for "Return of Military Operations undertaken by the Government of India on the North-West frontier, the North-East frontier, and beyond India, in the period 1899–1908, inclusive."—(Mr. Bellairs.)

  EAST INDIA (CUSTOMS REVENUE).
  Order [16th June] for an Address for Return relative thereto read, and discharged; and, instead thereof:—
  East India (Customs Revenue).—Address for "Return showing the gross amount of import duty collected in British India on articles taxable under the India tariff during the years 1905–6, 1906–7 and 1907–8, together with the percentage of duty realised under each head to the total revenue realised in each year."—(Mr. Harold Cox.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Rate of Payment for Casual Labour employed by Post Office during Xmas Pressure.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what rate per hour was paid last year to casual employees employed specially during the Christmas pressure for both outdoor and indoor
  372
  work up to 18th December, between 19th December and 21st, and from 22nd December to 26th, at the following offices: Birmingham, Liverpool, Dublin, Belfast, Brighton, Bristol, Cardiff, Hull, Leeds, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Nottingham, Plymouth, Sheffield, Bradford, Cork, Derby, Leicester, Norwich, Swansea, Portsmouth, York, Bath, Birkenhead, Carlisle, Bournemouth, Oxford, Blackpool, Bolton, Cambridge, Cheltenham, Chester, Coventry, Crewe, Darlington, Gloucester, Grimsby, Halifax, Huddersfield, Wolverhampton; and what rate per hour those employed this year will receive for the same dates in accordance with the instruction issued by him.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The desired information could not be procured without a considerable amount of labour. The rates of pay varied according to the district and were in all cases those for which suitable men for the work could be obtained. It seems advisable, as far as possible, to base the rates of pay on a uniform basis, and instructions have therefore been issued that the rates of pay for the temporary force this year should, as far as possible be based on the rates recommended by the Select Committee for auxiliary service. Besides the fixed wage the men receive special pay for night work, for Christmas Day and Boxing Day, and get overtime when it has to be worked. The net result of the alteration will be an increase in the total amount of pay.

  Engine Room Artificers—Successful Candidates at Belfast.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that an examination for engine-room artificers Reserve was held in the Custom House, Belfast, during the present year, that seven out of the eleven candidates were successful, that three were called for training and returned on 29th October last, and that the remaining four were informed that they would be called upon to relieve the former three; and whether, in view of the fact that this has not been done, he will state the reasons for the delay.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The hon. Member gives a correct statement of the

  373
  case in the first part of the Question, except that the remaining four men were not informed that they would be called upon to relieve the former three. The number of candidates who have passed for entry as probationary engine-room artificer, Royal Naval Reserve, is at present in excess of vacancies, and it has not, therefore, yet been possible to enter them all. Passed candidates take their turn for appointment (as vacancies occur) in the order in which they made application for entry.

  Irish Department of Agriculture and Home and Cottage Industries.
  MR. MULDOON: 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. T. W. Russell.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The second query is under consideration.

  Grindleton Churchyard, near Clitheroe.
  MR. CLOUGH: To ask the hon. Member for Crewe, as Church Estates Commissioner, whether he is aware that a few years ago a piece of land was purchased for the purpose of enlarging the churchyard attached to the parish church, Grindleton, near Clitheroe, for interment purposes; will he say whether the income from that piece of land has since been included by the Commissioners in the incumbent's stipend; whether it is now proposed to extend the churchyard by adding this piece of land thereto; and, if so, upon what financial and other conditions.
  (Answered by Mr. Tomkinson.) The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have no information as to any arrangements which were made in reference to the extension of the churchyard at Grindleton
  374
  stated to have, been carried out a few years ago, nor have they any knowledge as to the proposed extension of that churchyard now contemplated.

  Small Holding Applications in Surrey.
  MR. COWAN: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will obtain from the Surrey 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 particulars of all rejected applications, with the reasons for the rejection in each case.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are not prepared to ask for the Return suggested. It would involve a great deal of labour without any corresponding advantage. Every applicant is informed whether he is approved or not, 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.

  Classification under the Hobhouse Report.
  MR. SILCOCK: To ask the Postmaster-General when the sub-offices still in suspense may expect to hear the result of the classification under the Hobhouse Report.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I hope shortly to make an announcement on the subject.

  Boycotting in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of cases and of persons boycotted in Ireland on 30th September and 31st October, 1908, in the same form in which the information was given in Parliamentary Paper, No. 89, of last session.

  Return of the number of Cases of Boycotting and of Persons boycotted throughout Ireland on 30th September, 1908, and 31st October, 1908—

  Date.

  Wholly Boycotting.

  Partial Boycotting.

  Minor Boycotting.

  Total number of all cases of Boycotting.

  Cases.

  Persons.

  Cases.

  Persons.

  Cases.

  Persons.

  Cases.

  Persons.

  30th September, 1908

  16

  75

  11

  42

  196

  739

  223

  856

  31st October, 1908

  16

  75

  11

  42

  193

  730

  220

  847

  Valuation of Clyde Foreshore above Greenock.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can say whether any portions of the foreshores on either side of the Clyde above Greenock are entered on the valuation rolls; and, if so, what

  Parish.

  Character.

  Annual Value.

  £

  s.

  County of Dumbarton

  Cardross

  Landward portion let to coal merchant

  20

  0

  County of Dumbarton

  Cardross

  Seaward portion let to sand merchant

  125

  0

  County of Renfrew

  Kirkmalcolm

  Timber Ponds

  128

  17

  County of Renfrew

  Kirkmalcolm

  Timber Ponds unlet

  50

  0

  County of Renfrew

  Port Glasgow

  Timber Ponds unlet

  11

  0

  County of Renfrew

  Port Glasgow

  Timber Ponds let

  6

  0

  County of Renfrew

  Erskine

  Timber Ponds let

  100

  0

  County of Renfrew

  Erskine

  Timber Ponds unlet

  188

  0

  Small Holding Applications in Somersetshire.
  MR. SILCOCK: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will state the total number of applications that have
  in each case, is the position and parish, the character, and the annual value for rating.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The following is the information desired by my hon. friend with regard to those portions of the foreshores of the Clyde above Greenock entered on the valuation rolls—
  been made in the county of Somerset for small holdings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, the number of applicants approved by the county council as suitable, the number of applications which have been satisfied, the number of acres applied for, the number

  377
  acquired, and the situation of the land acquired.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) 1,844 applications have been made. 1,027 applicants have been approved and 92 of these have already been satisfied. 24,319 acres have been applied for and 779 acres have been acquired. The situation of this land is as follows—

  a.

  r.

  p.

  West Harptree

  79

  2

  35

  Mudford

  10

  0

  0

  South Petherton

  19

  3

  3

  Catcott and Edington

  54

  0

  0

  Blagdon

  82

  2

  35

  Stoke-sub-Hamdon

  25

  2

  23

  High Ham

  8

  1

  33

  Henstridge

  26

  2

  23

  Chew Magna

  28

  3

  17

  West Coker

  91

  3

  16

  Keynsham

  17

  3

  32

  Curry Kevell

  29

  2

  22

  Ashill

  57

  3

  14

  Chilthorne Domer

  42

  2

  22

  Stoke Lane

  37

  0

  0

  Marston Magna

  89

  1

  36

  *Wedmore

  77

  2

  11

  779

  3

  2

  Rejection of Flour supplied to Admiralty.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state what amount of flour has been rejected when supplied by the contractors for use in the Navy to the Royal Clarence, Royal William, and Royal Victoria Victualling Yards during the year 1908; and whether he can state the cause for the rejections.

  At present at work.

  Estimated as being employed by middle of December.

  Bermondsey

  38

  38

  Hammersmith

  20

  31

  Islington

  22

  57

  Lambeth

  12

  20

  Wandsworth

  90

  92

  182

  238

  * To be acquired compulsorily.

  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) A total of 207,330 pounds has been rejected because it was not of the condition or quality stipulated for in the contracts.

  Chelsea Unemployed Scheme.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board how many different schemes for the employment of the unemployed have been sent by the borough of Chelsea to the Central Committee, and the amounts of same; how many have been sanctioned; how many refused; and which are under consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Only one scheme has been submitted to the Central (Unemployed) Body on behalf of the borough council, viz., for pavnig the Royal Hospital Road with Wood. The cost of the work is estimated at £2,123, including £467 for labour by the unemployed. The borough council and the central body are in communication with regard to the matter.

  Unemployed Men now Working for Metropolitan Borough Councils.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of men employed by each Metropolitan borough council on work sanctioned by the Central (Unemployed) Committee at the present and the estimated number that will be so employed by the middle of December.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I understand that the numbers are as follows—

  Old-Age Pensions—Poor Belief Refunded.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can now state whether a person who has received Poor Law relief will be eligible for a pension if the same is refunded by himself, a relation, or a friend; whether a man's wife, child, or other relation having received the same will disqualify him; and whether sojourn in a Poor Law infirmary in cases of illness or accident will disqualify.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Three points are raised in the question. I think the answers are as follows: (1) The refunding of the cost of the relief would not remove the disqualification (2) Poor relief given to or on account of a man's wife or child under the age of sixteen will disqualify him. (3) Sojourn in a Poor Law infirmary would usually be covered by paragraph (i.), (ii.), or (iii.) of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act, under which certain forms of relief, such as medical or surgical assistance (including food or comforts) supplied by or on the recommendation of a medical officer, or any such relief as under the Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Act, 1885, does not disqualify a person for being registered or voting, would not disqualify a person for receiving or continuing to receive an old-age pension.

  Railway Station for Glenflesk, county Kerry.
  MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he can take any steps to induce the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to erect a station at Glenflesk, County Kerry, as requested by the representatives of the farming community of the district, in the interests of agriculture.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) No representations on the subject have been received by the Department. If such representations are made the Department will consider what action they can take in the matter.

  Landing of Hay and Straw in Ireland.
  MR. RADFORD: To ask the Vice-President of the Department
  380
  of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland have any power to prohibit the landing of hay and straw in Ireland except when coming from a place or area previously declared by the Department to be infected, in accordance with the provisions of the Diseases of Animals Acts; and in exercise of what powers, and in pursuance of what Acts of Parliament, and to what sections of such Acts, were the Orders of the Department numbered respectively ninety, ninety-one, and ninety-two issued.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Acts under which the Orders referred to were issued are specified in the preambles to those Orders, and the Orders were made in pursuance of the powers transferred to the Department by order of the Lord-Lieutenant; under Section 2 of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899.

  Lighting of Lamps at Annalong Harbour, county Down.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what authority is responsible for the fact that the lamps erected at Annalong Harbour, county Down, are never lighted.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The county council of Down are the harbour authority for Annalong Harbour, and I presume responsible for the lights therein.

  Boundaries of the Penrose Estate, Simla.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that the estate of Penrose, Simla, was purchased from the Rana of Koti in 1879, will he explain why Mr. A. Meredith, Deputy Commissioner of Simla, made an order altering the boundary of the estate without giving the Rana the required notice; and, seeing that in 1903 a similar interference in the affairs of a Native State resulted in an order by Mr. Meredith being cancelled after an independent inquiry under the direction of Lord George Hamilton, will he again consider the expediency of ordering a similar

  381
  independent inquiry in regard to the Penrose estate case.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) No objection, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, was raised by the Rana of Koti at the time of the Deputy Commissioner's order of 1900, but it is still open to the Rana to make any representations he may think fit to the Government of India. The Secretary of State will not be in a position to consider any such representations till they are brought before him in the form of a memorial in accordance with the rules. It is the fact that in 1903, in a case which was hardly similar to the present one, further inquiry was ordered by the Secretary of State in Council on the consideration of a memorial. But, as stated in my reply of the 23rd instant, the Secretary of State in Council saw no reason, on consideration of the memorial submitted to him in the present case, to interfere with the orders passed.

  Sale of Non-Residential Grass Lands for Purposes of Enlarging Demesnes.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will furnish a list, by counties, with names of vendor and purchaser and area of land in each case, of the cases during the five years ending 31st October, 1908, in which the Estates Commissioners have sanctioned the sale of non-residential grass land to owners or purchasers of demesnes for the purpose of enlarging the demesnes there being in the same county uneconomic holdings and landless people requiring new holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The monthly Returns of advances under the Irish Land Act, 1903, which are presented to Parliament, give detailed particulars of all lands purchased by owners under Section 3 of the Act, and these particulars are summarised in the tables appended to the Annual Reports of the Estates Commissioners. The preparation of the list asked for by the hon. Member would serve no useful purpose commensurate with the labour involved.

  Licensing Reform in Ireland.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secre-
  382
  tary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is yet in a position to state if it is intended by the Government to introduce any general measure for licensing reform for Ireland in the coming session of Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am unable to add anything to the reply given on my behalf by my right hon. friend the Attorney-General to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member on 22nd October last.

  Irish Land Purchase—Redemption of Annuity in Stock.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that so far back as April, 1904, Mr. C. G. Crean, of Ballyhaunis, county Mayo, endeavoured to avail himself of Section 2 of the Land Purchase Act, 1891, to redeem his purchase annuity in stock, but was informed by the Irish Land Commission that he could not do so for want of rules under the section; have any rules yet been made, and can a tenant purchaser redeem his annuity in the beneficial way provided by the section; and can he now have the benefit of the section for payment of one-half of his instalments.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. I understand that no rules have been made under the section referred to, but a tenant purchaser under the earlier Land Acts can redeem his annuity in stock, though not through the Post Office, and for this purpose no rules are necessary. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative. For a full explanation of the matter I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury to a Question asked by the hon. Member for Carlow on 9th July, 1907.

  Uncollected Seed Rate at Castlerea.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount of seed rate uncollected within the last five years in the union of Castlerea, County Roscommon; how much of this uncollected seed rate was lodged by the county council rate collectors with a

  383
  view to being paid their full poundage under their warrants; and on what grounds have the Local Government Board refused to permit the refund to these collectors of this uncollected seed rate while sanctioning a refund to the uncollected ordinary rate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The amount of seed rate uncollected in Castlerea Union for the year ended 31st March,1907, was £47 10s. 5d., the amount for the year ended 31st March last was £112 17s. 1d. There was no seed rate for the previous three years. The collectors lodged the entire amount of their warrants in each of the years named. The Local Government Board have sanctioned refunds to collectors in respect of poor rate legally irrecoverable by reason of vacancies or insolvencies, but, in the absence of satisfactory evidence that the seed rate is in any particular instance irrecoverable by legal process, they are not prepared to authorise a refund in respect of it.

  Evicted Tenants—Claim of Mrs. Killen and Mrs. Hobson.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners hold that conditions of vacating a holding submitted to by a widow under threat of eviction, without the consent of her children, are sufficiently valid to deprive the children of the right of reinstatement in their father's farm on the estate being sold, and that farm not tenanted bona fide; whether the equitable powers vested in the Commissioners enable them to do substantial justice in such a case; and whether they will reconsider equitably the claims of Mrs. Killen and Mrs. Hobson for reinstatement in the farm formerly held by their father, Bernard Killen, on the Joly estate, at Corbetstown, King's County.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when an estate comprising evicted land is being sold and the claims of the evicted people are, from lapse of time or other cause, technically weak, whether on a sale of the estate the Estate Commissioners will allow those claims to be ousted by the creation of new tenancies in persons not prepared to reside on the
  384
  land, but purchasing as a speculation with a view to subsequent sale; and whether, in view of the effect of such proceedings in a district containing bona fide evicted tenants and congestion to be relieved, the Commissioners will take steps to prevent such a course of action being followed on the Joly estate, in King's County, now in process of sale.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In dealing with applications received from persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants or as the representatives of evicted tenants, and in making advances, the Estates Commissioners have due regard to the circumstances of each case and to the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts. The Commissioners are not prepared to reconsider their decision not to take any action in the case of Mrs. Killen or Mrs. Hobson, whose mother surrendered her lease of the farm at Corbetstown in 1883 in consideration of a pension of £50 a year for life.

  Action of Mr. W. T. Potts at South Roscommon.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Willie T. Potts holds, in addition to land in Scotland, 2,500 acres of untenanted grassland in South Roscommon, exclusive of his demesne, and is at present using the compulsion of writs, seizures, and threats of eviction to force his tenants in the Same county to purchase, at high prices, uneconomic holdings without enlargement or improvement; and, in view of the intentions of Parliament in 1903 and of the present legislative proposals of the Government, whether he proposes to take any steps, in his Land Bill or otherwise, to deal with such cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have no information with respect to the first part of the Question beyond what has recently appeared in the public Press. The Estates Commissioners have more than once addressed letters to Mr. Potts, under the regulations of 13th February, 1906, with a view to ascertaining whether there is untenanted land on his estate suitable for purchase, but have received no replies.

  Appointment to Vacant Inspectorship of Irish National Schools.
  MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland intend to appoint to the vacant inspectorship a practising teacher, instead of filling the position by an outsider who cannot understand the duties owing to want of previous experience.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education cannot at present say who will be appointed to the vacant inspectorship, as they have not yet considered the numerous applications which have been received. Experience of schools and school-keeping will, of course, receive due weight in forming an estimate of the qualifications of each candidate.

  Crossgar Labourers Cottage Scheme.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can-state when the scheme for the erection of cottages at Crossgar, Dromara, County Down, was passed by the Banbridge Union; and when they are likely to be erected.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The last scheme received by the Local Government Board from the Banbridge rural district was made by the council on 9th March, 1908, and submitted to the Board on 4th May, 1908. The order in respect of the scheme, as unopposed and confirmed on 21st October, provides for the erection of seventy-two cottages, of which three are to be built in the townland of Crossgar. The Board at present await the application of the council for the appointment of an arbitrator to assess the compensation to be paid to the persons interested in the lands about to be acquired.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the figures he has given as being the average number of years purchase under the Land Act of 1903 in various counties in Ireland refer to rents actually paid or to the
  386
  rents stated in the purchase agreements; whether he is aware that in tens of thousands of cases of non-judicial and first-term rents voluntary abatements have been obtained by the tenants and the actual rent paid has averaged 20 or 25 per cent. under the rent nominally payable; whether he is aware that the nominal rent, and not the actual rent, is invariably stated in the purchase agreements in such cases; whether, if so, the figures of years purchase for certain counties which contain a larger proportion of such cases would seem more favourable to the tenants than they really are; and whether, in the case of a tenant getting an abatement of 25 per cent. and buying at twenty-two years purchase of his actual rent, it would appear in the Return as if he purchased at sixteen and a half years purchase of the rent stated in his purchase agreement, thereby vitiating the calculation of average price.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The figures given represent the average number of years purchase on the rents legally payable, and could not be calculated on any other basis. The Land Commission are aware that in many cases voluntary abatements, varying according to circumstances, have been allowed.

  Police Inspectors in County Galway.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of county inspectors, district inspectors of the first class, district inspectors of the second class, and head constables in County Galway, exclusive of extra police; whether he can state separately the cost for the last financial year under the head of salary, allowances for men-servants, forage, lodging, stationery, office fuel and light, mileage, subsistence allowances, and any other charge, for each rank of the above inspectors and head constables; and whether he will state for the same period the number and cost of the rank and file on the quota of the county.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) There are in County Galway at present two county inspectors, four district inspectors of the first class, nine district inspectors of

  387
  the second class, and fourteen head constables, exclusive of the extra force. The free quota of the county in the year ended 31st March last was composed of 616 sergeants, acting sergeants, and constables. The accounts of the Royal Irish Constabulary Department are not kept in such a form as to admit of the particulars of cost asked for by the hon. Member being given.

  Appointment of Unemployed Colonels.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is a list of unemployed colonels and brevet-colonels in No. 135 and following columns of the Army List, showing the dates on which officers were placed on half-pay, and have several officers been on half-pay since 1905; whether the majority of colonels' appointments are filled from officers on this list, and, if so, what steps, if any, are taken to ensure that officers when selected are in a fit state of health for their appointment; and whether, after an officer has been placed on half-pay, any examination is made as to his mental or physical fitness, even in the case of officers who were in a bad state of health during their last period of employment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This list is shown in Column 135 and following columns in the Army List, and contains the names of ten officers placed on half-pay in 1905. The majority of colonels' appointments are filled from it, and in most instances it is not considered necessary for the officer to be medically examined. If there was any doubt as to the medical fitness of a colonel on half-pay who was selected for an appointment, he would be required to go before a medical board.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Shipbuilding Delays.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to what extent have the "Téméraire" at Devonport and the "Superb" at Elswick been delayed by the engineering strike, and when are they likely to be commissioned; and, if the Admiralty cannot give assurances
    388
    that such delays will not occur in future, can ships of future programmes be laid down earlier to meet the probability of such delays.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The "Téméraire" will be delayed six months, and the date for complete commissioning will probably be June, 1909. The contract date for delivery of "Superb" is 4th January next, which date, in view of delays caused by labour troubles, will be exceeded. The question of the amount by which it will be exceeded, and of the date on which the ship will probably commission, are matters still under consideration, and on which no definite reply can at the present moment be given. It is not desirable to anticipate the usual date for giving an outline of the new programme of shipbuilding.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the latter part of my Question.
    MR. MCKENNA: I have stated that it is not desirable to anticipate the usual date for the production of next year's Navy Estimates.
    MR. MIDDLEMORE: Then I understand that the Admiralty accept with a light heart all delays in the shipbuilding programme?
    MR. McKENNA: No, Sir; the hon. Member must not take that view, for undoubtedly the Admiralty regard it as very serious, and I can assure the hon. Member that it will be taken into account in next year's Estimates.
    MR. KEIRHARDIE: Could not a clause be inserted preventing employers reducing wages during the currency of a contract?
    MR. MCKENNA: I do not see how that arises out of the Question. I must ask for notice.

    Naval Destroyers.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty adheres to the official statement that the sixteen destroyers of this year's programme will be completed next year.
    MR. MCKENNA: The only statement which I can find to which my hon. friend can refer, is an uncorrected report of a speech of mine on the 13th July last. If this is in fact what the hon. Member refers to, it should be corrected, as would indeed appear obvious from the context, by saying that the destroyers of this year's programme will be completed in the calendar year 1910.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman in future revise his speeches of this nature, because it is a great inconvenience, and the meaning is not at all obvious by the context?
    MR. MCKENNA: I must differ from my hon. friend with regard to that.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty in view of the fact that the new British destroyers will be slower than the new destroyers of other great foreign Powers, what steps are being taken to secure that they shall be able to gain the necessary intelligence about hostile fleets, and guard our own battleships and big cruisers, without being cut off and captured or destroyed by the greater speed of hostile destroyers.
    MR. MCKENNA: It is not possible within the limits of a Parliamentary Question and Answer to discuss the various requirements and contingencies for which the new destroyers are designed, even if it were in the public interest to do so, but the hon. Member may rest assured that they have been designed with a complete appreciation of the purposes for which they would be required in war, as dictated by recent experience in exercises at sea.
    MR. HUNT: May I ask will not these destroyers be at a permanent disadvantage either in scouting, forcing a fight, or trying to escape when attacked by superior numbers; and is it not the fact that Germany will have about the same number of destroyers in March, 1911, under eleven years of age?
    MR. MCKENNA: No, Sir; I cannot agree with any of the statements of the hon. Member.

    Reinstatement of Devonport Labourers.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the names of the eight skilled labourers who have been transferred to the smiths' department at Devonport or reinstated; and whether there are any more vacancies for smiths in that department.
    MR. MCKENNA: The names of the eight smiths referred to are: Wilcocks, Tucker, Ferguson, Vickery, Young, Sutton, Hawken and Widdicombe. There are no more vacancies for smiths at present.

    Victualling Yard Stores Reserves.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the amount of milk, flour, tea, clothing, and boots there was in stock during the week ending 21st November, at the victualling yards, Royal Clarence, Royal William, and Royal Victoria.
    MR. MCKENNA: It is not considered in the interest of the public service to give information as to reserves of provisions or stores maintained for the Fleet.

    Naval Visits to South Africa.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the official character of the visit of a squadron of armoured cruisers to South Africa; and whether he is able to state to the House the terms of the farewell message of the admiral commanding to the British Colonies of South Africa.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): I am not aware what force my hon. friend attaches to the word "official," but a visit of a squadron of armoured cruisers cannot in any sense be regarded as unofficial. No official report has been received of the farewell remarks alleged to have been made by the rear-admiral commanding the squadron.
    MR. R. HARCOURT: May I ask whether it is the case that Sir Percy Scott said that "the kindness and hospitality of the South

    391
    Africans in height equalled the top of Natal's Cassatogel's Nest, in depth rivalled the deepest mines of the Transvaal, in breadth were as boundless as the rolling plains of Orange River Colony, and in stability were comparable to Cape Colony's majestic Table Mountain" and whether in view of this interesting specimen it is not proposed to lay the message?
    COLONEL SEELY: We have no official information. If Sir Percy Scott did say that, I do not see that we have any cause to complain.

    British Indians in the Transvaal.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the sentences passed upon fifty-four British Indians domiciled in the Transvaal for having returned without first having applied for registration have been quashed upon appeal to the Supreme Court of the Colony; whether a number of other British Indians are actually undergoing hard labour sentences for doing exactly the same thing; and whether the Secretary of State will make representations in the matter of their release, compensation for wrongful imprisonment, and their admission into the Colony.
    COLONEL SEELY: The attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to a Press report of a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Colony, the exact effect of which is not clear. He has telegraphed to the Governor for further information, and pending his reply I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement.

    Treaty of Berlin.
    MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the event of a conference being called for the reconsideration of the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin, His Majesty's Government will endeavour to secure the observance of the engagements undertaken by Roumania towards her Jewish subjects in that Treaty.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. MCKINNON WOOD,): This Question would be beyond the
    392
    scope of a conference summoned to deal with the difficulties arising out of recent events in the Balkan Peninsula.

    Income Tax on Patent Royalties.
    SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Inland Revenue Commissioners contend that the income of an inventor derived from patent royalties is, under the Finance Act of 1907, not to be treated as earned income, but is liable to the full tax of 1s. in the pound instead of 9d., which is the rate allowed on incomes earned by other professional and scientific labours; and will he state upon what section of the Act the contention is founded.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): Where an inventor sells outright his patent rights, the sum realised from the sale is regarded as capital and is not taxed. Where an inventor has not parted with his patent rights, but allows another person to work the patent in consideration of a payment of a royalty, the resulting income is regarded as unearned income derived from property.

    Unpresented Banknotes.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with reference to the £14,055 written off by the Bank of England on the 10th instant as the value of notes issued but not presented for payment, he can state what number of years this amount covers; whether it represents the full value of notes issued but not presented in that period; at what intervals the Bank of England writes off such sums; when the last sum was written off and what period it covered; and what is the annual average of sums appropriated by the Bank of England on that account.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Once in every year the Bank writes off the value of the notes which have then been outstanding for forty years and have not previously been written off. In 1907 the outstanding notes dated prior to 1867 were written off. This year the outstanding notes dated prior to 1868 have been written off. Accordingly, the sum of £14,055 represents the value of the notes issued in 1867 which had not been

    393
    presented on 28th October last. The average of the amounts written off in the last six years was £11,794.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: May I take it, then, that the right hon. Gentleman was not accurately informed the other day, when he told the House that this covered a period of forty years?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What I said was that that deduction represented notes issued forty years ago.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I have the Answer here. It is that "the total value of the notes issued for the past forty years and not presented for repayment." The right hon. Gentleman therefore misled the House.
    MR. HODGE: Is not this a hen-roost to commandeer without injury to anyone?

    Terminable Annuities.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the amounts payable each year in respect of terminable annuities are in any way revised from time to time in consideration of movements in the value of Government securities.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, Sir. Where terminable annuities have been set up for the purpose of replacing a definite amount of stock within a definite period, it is the practice to readjust the amount of the annuities periodically according to the price at which stock has been purchased. The procedure is regulated by Section 4 of the National Debt Act, 1883. The latest readjustment was effected by Treasury warrants which were laid before this House on 11th June last.

    Old-Age Pension Claimants.
    MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the number of persons over seventy years of age in England, Wales (including Monmouthshire Scotland, and Ireland; whether he can give the number of such persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in each part of the Kingdom; the number of claims for old-age pensions up to date; and the
    394
    percentage of persons claiming old-age pensions to the population over seventy years of age in each country, deducting those who are in receipt of Poor Law relief.
    MR. LLOYD GEORGE: The Return is not yet ready.

    Press Representation at Coroner's Inquest.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, at an inquest held at the coroner's Court of St. Giles's, London, on the 21st inst., the coroner's officer refused to admit the representatives of three news agencies and numerous daily papers, whilst admitting two journalists; whether he is aware that a written protest handed to the coroner's officer was not delivered to the coroner, and will he say what notice has been taken of the incident; and what steps has been or will be taken, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent its repetition in that or any other coroner's court.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I am making inquiry, but have not yet received the coroner's report.

    Restrictions on the Employment of Children.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that the general restrictions on employment of children contained in The Employment of Children Act, 1903, are not affected by the provisions of the Children Bill, he is taking any, and what, steps to call the attention of all concerned to the non-enforcement of subsections 4 and 5 of Section 3, provisions of universal application, agreed to by Parliament on the suggestion of the Home Office, and forbidding in regard to persons under the age of fourteen the carrying of weights and employment in occupations likely to be injurious to the child.
    MR. GLADSTONE: So far as regards the industries to which the Factory Act applies, the factory inspectors are charged with the duty of enforcing the

    395
    provisions to which the right hon. Baronet refers; and I have, in accordance with the promise I gave on the Estimates recently issued fresh instructions to them with a view to the more effective enforcement of the law. In the case of the miscellaneous industries not under the Home Office jurisdiction, the local authority is responsible for the enforcement of the provisions. I should be obliged if my right hon. friend will communicate to me any information in his possession showing that they have not been enforced in these industries. I would point out, however, in the first place, that the bulk of the employment is in light occupations, such as newspaper delivery, delivery of parcels and the like. The Interdepartmental Committee found that employment in such occupations for moderate hours was beneficial rather than injurious to health. In the second place, as regards occupations of a heavier character, local authorities in many cases have had regard to this when framing bye-laws under Section 1 of the Act, either by restricting the number of hours, or prohibiting the employment altogether in certain cases. If it should appear necessary, I shall be prepared to call the attention of the local authorities again to the provisions.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It can be enforced by anyone?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.

    Chinese Immigrants at Liverpool.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give particulars of the number of Chinese who landed at Liverpool in 1907; whether they came in emigrant ships and were passed as desirable immigrants by the Emigration Committee under the Alien Act; and if any Chinese were naturalised as British subjects in 1907.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The numbers of Chinese immigrants landing at Liverpool are so small that they are not separately tabulated in the Annual Reports under the Aliens Act. For the year 1907 they are included in, and I believe form a very small proportion of, the 282 persons of "other nationalities" shown in Table XVII. of the Report for that year. To ascertain the exact numbers would
    396
    involve a long and laborious search, which I do not feel justified in undertaking. No Chinese appeared before the Immigration Board at Liverpool in 1907. Only one Chinaman, living in London, was naturalised in 1907.
    MR. FELL: Are Chinese who are employed on ships allowed to land without being subject to the provisions of the Aliens Act?
    MR. GLADSTONE: They are subject to the usual conditions of the Merchant Shipping Act.

    Lostock Gralam Crossing Fatality.
    MR. KING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to a fatal accident which recently occurred at Lostock Gralam, in Cheshire, owing to a collision between a motor car and a railway train at a level crossing; and if he proposes to hold an inquiry as to the possibility of doing away with this level crossing, and so doing away with a public danger.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I am in communication with the Cheshire Lines Committee as to the means adopted for protecting the crossing, and I will inform my hon. friend of the result.

    America and the Law of Copyright.
    SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the United States of America participate in the Copyright Union; and, if not, whether any steps that might be taken to modify the arrangement between this country and America, with a view to the removal of its prejudicial effect on the British printing trade, would necessarily involve any sacrifice on the part of this country of the advantages of participating in the Copyright Union.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The United States of America do not belong to the Copyright Union but sent delegates to the recent conference at Berlin. Any steps taken with a view to making printing in this country a condition of copyright would involve the withdrawal of Great Britain from the union, as it would scarcely be feasible to impose

    397
    such a condition on British subjects without also imposing it on all foreigners. I am afraid that there is no indication that the United States are likely to modify their printing regulations.
    SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: But how is it that a modification of the law would involve the withdrawal of this country from the Copyright Union?
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid that in order to secure copyright in the United States for British subjects this country must permit citizens of the United States copyright on substantially the same basis as enjoyed by themselves, and any clause enforced against American citizens would equally have to be enforced against British subjects.

    Betting Telegrams.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the prosecution at the Hereford Assizes of a sub-postmaster, at the public expense, in connection with betting telegrams; whether these telegrams were sent to addresses in the United Kingdom or in Holland; whether they were telegrams to make illegal bets for which cash had been received in advance; and whether steps can be taken to prevent the public services being used for assisting in this illegal business.
    I beg further to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the remarks of the Judge at the Hereford assizes as to the part taken by the Post Office with regard to betting business; and whether, in view of the evidence given on lotteries before the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament as to the practice of the American and Australian postal authorities, he can take steps to prevent money being received for such illegal business.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): My attention has been called to the prosecution of the sub-postmaster of Stretton-Sugwas and others in connection with betting telegrams, and to the remarks of the Judge thereon. If the Judge's remarks are correctly reported, I cannot but think that they were made under a misapprehension. He speaks of the
    398
    responsibility of the Post Office in allowing betting telegrams to pass; but I have no power to stop such telegrams which, I am advised, are as a rule not illegal. The telegrams were for addresses in the United Kingdom, but of course no cash was received at the Post Office with them in respect of the bets. I may refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords in 1902, in which they reported that they did not consider it would be possible for the Postmaster-General to make any distinction between the facilities afforded to betting telegrams and other telegrams.

    Publicans as Postmasters.
    MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, according to the rules of the Department, a licensed publican can be appointed to be a postmaster; has he made any appointment or appointments of licensed persons to be postmasters in Ireland recently; and, if so, were there any other applicants.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Under the rules of the Department a licensed publican is ineligible for appointment as a postmaster, and exception is only made when no other suitable person is available. Two persons holding licences for the sale of drink have been appointed sub-postmasters in Ireland during the present year; in each case there was no other applicant, and the post office had previously been conducted on licensed premises.

    Board of Education Circular 596.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, whether the phrase, "He will," with reference to a school medical officer, occurring seven times in paragraph 7 (a) of the Board of Education Circular, 596, is intended as an expression of opinion or is used in a mandatory sense; and, if the latter, by what authority the Board of Education gives direction to the employees of local education authorities.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. TREVELYAN,): The words "He will" are obviously used in the paragraph referred

    399
    to in an advisory, and I hope I may say a prophetic sense. I cannot imagine any local education authority would take exception to the expression, and as a matter of fact no local education authority has offered the slightest objection to the wording or contents of the paragraph.
    MR. ASHLEY: Has the hon. Gentleman received a communication from local authorities to the effect that there are strong objections to the wording of the paragraph?
    MR. TREVELYANwas understood to say he was not so informed.

    Status of Educational and Medical Officers.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, whether the Board has taken upon itself under Section 13 (1) (b) of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, the task of deciding the relative status of educational and medical officers employed and paid by local education authorities.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I am not sure what the hon. Member means, but I am not aware of any decisions of the Board to which his description would apply.

    Board of Education Circular 576.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the last three lines of page 8 of the Board of Education Circular 576 are the only part of that Circular which it is not ultra vires for the Board to promulgate or to enforce; and whether, as stated on page 11, that Circular is of a preliminary nature only.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The Circular No. 576 was obviously of a preliminary character, as it was issued on the 22nd November, 1907. It was certainly the duty of the Board not to leave local education authorities without such advice and guidance in the initiation of the work of medical inspection as in the Board's opinion would conduce to efficiency and economy, and such advice and guidance have in fact been heartily welcomed by local education authorities and their officers (with very few exceptions) throughout the country. The question of enforcing the Circular has not arisen, and, indeed, cannot arise.
    MR. ASHLEY: Am I to understand that advice only in that direction is given by the Board of Education?
    MR. TREVELYAN: I think that is so.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, as stated on page 4 of the Board of Education Circular 576, relating to medical inspection, it is the duty of the Board, under the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, to give directions to local education authorities regarding the method of inspection; and, if not, whether he will withdraw the Circular so giving directions.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I do not think the Circular can be properly described as in fact giving directions on points outside the Board's competence. The whole Circular was, as was stated in paragraph 18, of a preliminary nature only; the matter is now dealt with definitely in the Code.

    Grants to Denominational Schools.
    MR. JAMES HOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can say what amount per head of children in average attendance would be received by associations of Jewish, Wesleyan, Roman Catholic, and Church of England schools respectively, on the assumption that the managers of all these schools, other than schools which are the only schools in rural parishes, are able and willing to avail themselves of the provisions of Clause 3 of the Education Bill now before the House.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: At the same time may I ask the President of the Board of Education whether his Board has computed what will be the average grant payable to Catholic and Jewish schools, respectively under the scale provided for by the firs, Schedule to the Elementary Education (England and Wales) (No. 2) Bill, calculated upon the present attendance of children at these two sections of schools.
    MR. TREVELYAN: If it were assumed that every existing Jewish school and Roman Catholic school (except those in the single school parishes) became

    401
    a contracted-out school, and further that each such school still retained the full number of children now attending it, the total sums then payable in respect of the twelve Jewish schools after applying the scales of grant given in the Schedule, would represent an average grant of 47s. 6d. per child, because more than half of the 10,000 children in Jewish schools are congregated in two schools of very large size, thus involving the application of the lowest rate on the scale to more than half of the whole average attendance. The same figure in the case of the Roman Catholic schools would represent an average grant per child of 49s. 8d., there being but very few large schools of that denomination. But it is probable, especially in the case of Roman Catholic schools, that many of the children now attending those schools will take advantage of the freedom in future to be given by the Bill to demand an undenominational school; and this diminution of the attendance would, by altering the size of many of the schools, increase the rate of grant under the scale, whether the second paragraph of the Schedule were applied or not. For these and similar reasons the average figures above given, for Jewish and Roman Catholic schools, are no more than approximately true, even given the large assumptions made in arriving at them. As regards Church of England schools, the assumptions referred to at the commencement of my reply cannot be made; indeed, the policy of the Government's educational proposals is based on the opposite assumptions, viz., that contracting-out will be the exception and not the rule as regards Church of England schools. Until it is known which of the Church of England schools will contract out, and the respective sizes of the Church of England contracting-out schools are thus known, it is impossible to know what will be the scales of grant in each case, and, therefore, impossible to make even an approximate estimate as to either the total grant or the average grant per child.

    Expenditure of Local Education Authority.
    MR. JAMES HOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will grant an immediate Return showing, for the year 1907–8 (or, of that be impossible, for 1906–7), the
    402
    average sums per child spent by local authorities as set forth for former years in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Education Rates, 1907, pages 5 and 136–187 (Cd. 2213, of 1907).
    MR. TREVELYAN: I arranged yesterday that there should be available to-day in the Votes Office copies of a statement showing the average expenditure by local education authorities on the maintenance of public elementary schools, obtained from the financial statements on the audited accounts of the authorities. This gives the information asked for by the hon. Member in a better shape than that which he suggests.
    MR. JAMES HOPE: Will it be for 1907–8 or for 1906–7?
    MR. TREVELYAN: I am afraid I cannot say.
    LORD R. CECIL: Is it available now?
    MR. TREVELYAN: It ought to be.

    Swansea Education Dispute.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what decision he has arrived at with respect to the teachers in voluntary schools at Swansea.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I have to-day received legal advice, which is under my consideration. The Report of the Public Inquiry will be deposited in accordance with Section 73 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870.
    LORD R. CECIL: Will it be published?
    MR. TREVELYAN: It will be made available for the noble Lord.

    Education Bill—"Children in Attendance"
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the expression "children in attendance" in Clause 3, subsection (3), and in the First Schedule of the Elementary Education (England and Wales) (No. 2) Bill is to be taken to mean the average attendance or the number entered on the school rolls.
    MR. TREVELYAN: It is intended that the basis should be as nearly as possible the number of children who actually attend the school day by day, using as few artificial or estimated figures as may be practicable. For this reason my right hon. friend has not inserted in the Bill the particular method of calculating average attendance now in vogue, which is artificial. If no better basis of calculation is found to be practicable, the present basis will of course be adhered to; but my right hon. friend is hopeful that some more satisfactory method may be evolved, both for this, and for other purposes of administering the Grants.

    Parents and Religious Instruction in Schools.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board has yet considered in what form parents are to express a desire under the Elementary Education (England and Wales) (No. 2) Bill that their children should receive religious or denominational instruction in public schools; and whether the regulations provided for in Section 2, subsection (5) will be laid upon the Table of the House before the vote upon the Second Reading of the Bill is taken.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer which my right hon. friend gave to the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone yesterday, which was circulated with the Votes this morning.

    River Tweed Salmon Fisheries.
    SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any of the rights of the Crown to salmon fisheries in the River Tweed near Neidpath, and adjacent reaches of the river in Peeblesshire, have been alienated or demised to private individuals; and, if so, for what term of years and at what rent.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE): The Answer is in the negative. I have requested the Commissioners of Wood and Forests to enter into negotiations with the town council of Peebles with a view to that body leasing the
    404
    fishing in the part of the Tweed referred to.
    SIR J. JARDINE: Have no leases been granted by the Crown?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: This matter has been under my very careful consideration and investigation. There has been no lease of any property rights, so far as I can ascertain, to any riparian owner on the Tweed. The Crown has certain rights which it is essential should be maintained, and I think the best method of preserving them, and of meeting public sentiment in the locality referred to above, is to lease them to town councils and other public bodies, when these will pay a fair rent.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    In reply to a Question of which private notice had been given by Mr. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford),
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): I am glad to say that the Board of Agriculture up to now have not received from our Ambassador at Washington information of any fresh outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease outside the prohibited States. I may also add that the Federal Government have been so good as to inform us that they will cable us if the outbreak spreads outside the prohibited States.

    Lansdowne Estate, Queen's County.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Daniel Whelan, a tenant on the Lansdowne estate at Luggacurren, Queen's County, was evicted in 1888 from Barrow House farm, containing 182 acres, and that Mr. Whelan's stock and crops were seized on and sold by the landlord; whether he is aware that Mr. Whelan's farm is at present occupied by a planter named Henry Hosie, and that Hosie holds 584 acres; whether the evicted tenant's grandson and sole representative has applied for restoration to his grandfather's farm; whether his claim has been admitted by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, whether the Commissioners will acquire Barrow House farm for the restoration of the evicted tenant's representative.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Estates Commissioners inform me that an application has been lodged by Patrick Kelly, Daniel Whelan's son-in-law, praying that his son John Kelly may be reinstated in a farm from which Daniel Whelan was evicted in 1887. Patrick Kelly is the owner of 200 acres of land. The farm in question has since been purchased under the Land Purchase Acts and is in the occupation of a tenant purchaser. The Estates Commissioners do not intend to take any action in the matter.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: Did not the grandson of the evicted tenant claim reinstatement, and was not the claim rejected on the ground that the kinship was too remote?
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not know how that may be.

    River Barrow Floods.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that for the last thirty years the medical and sanitary officers within the flooded area of the River Barrow have declared that pulmonary diseases, consumption, pneumonia, and typhus fever, which were rife in their districts, were caused by the annual flooding from the River Barrow; whether he is aware if the flooding from' this river is becoming more widespread and destructive every year; whether the Government intend to take any steps to cope with this evil; whether the highest medical and sanitary authorities have declared that the effects of the annual flooding from the River Barrow is destructive alike of the health and property of the people and a breeding ground for tuberculosis; and whether expert engineering authority has declared that it is impossible for local effort to successfully cope with the evil.
    MR. BIRRELL: I regret that I can add nothing to my replies to previous Questions on this subject, in which I stated that having regard to the many other projects now afoot for expenditure in Ireland, the Government could hold out no present hope of obtaining a grant from Parliament for the drainage of the Barrow.

    Firearm Outrages in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of crimes classified as agrarian and hon. agrarian respectively under each of the headings, firing at the person and firing into dwellings, for the period of ten months ended 31st October, 1908.
    MR. BIRRELL: During the ten months ended 31st October last, the numbers of crimes classified as agrarian and non-agrarian under each of the headings mentioned were as follows:—Firing at the person—agrarian eleven, non-agrarian twenty-three; firing into dwellings—agrarian sixty, non-agrarian nineteen.
    MR. BELLOC: Is it not the fact that the non-agrarian crimes are lower in proportion to population than is the case with any other population in Europe?
    MR. KILBRIDE: And did not most of the twenty-three non-agrarian cases occur in Ulster?
    MR. P. MEEHAN: And in the total is there included the cases of four armed emergency men who fired on and wounded two Catholic peasants on the 2nd May last at Abbeyleix, Queen's County?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of outrages in Ireland recorded as agrarian and non-agrarian, respectively, in which firearms were used, during the periods of ten months ended 31st October, 1906, 1907, and 1908, respectively.
    MR. BIRRELL: During the ten months ended 31st October in each of the years mentioned, the numbers of indictable offences in which firearms were used in Ireland were as follows:—1906, agrarian twenty, non-agrarian thirty-four; 1907, agrarian fifty-one, non-agrarian forty-seven; 1908, agrarian 120, non-agrarian fifty-seven.

    Persons under Police Protection.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

    407
    of Ireland if he will state the number of persons receiving constant police protection and protection by patrols throughout Ireland on the 31st October, 1908.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that on the 31st October last seventy-six persons were under constant police protection and 251 under protection by patrols.
    MR. CULLINAN: And how many of these qualified for police protection in order to supply hon. Gentleman above the gangway with material for Questions and to enable Lord Ashtown to keep up his list of Irish grievances?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Boycotting in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of cases and of persons boycotted in Ireland on the 30th September and the 31st October, 1908, in the same form in which the information was given in Parliamentary Paper, No. 89, of last Session.
    MR. BIRRELL: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, publish with tonight's Votes a tabular statement giving the required information.

    Agrarian Outrages.
    MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of agrarian outrages reported to the Inspector-General in the years 1906 and 1907, and in the period of ten months ended 31st October, 1908.
    MR. BIRRELL: The number of agrarian offences reported was:—234 in 1906, 372 in 1907, and 489 in the ten months ended 31st October, 1908.
    MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of persons who were arrested for agrarian offences during the past twelve months, and brought before a single resident magistrate out of petty sessions with a view to their being bound over to future
    408
    good behaviour under the Act of Edward III.
    MR. BIRRELL: It would not be possible to give this information without making inquiries in every petty sessions district throughout the country, and this would take some time.

    Irish Nationalist Newspapers.
    MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the names of the newspapers the proprietors of which have been warned against the publication of resolutions of United Irish League branches of an intimidatory and illegal character.
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not think that any good purpose would be served by giving a list of these newspapers.
    MR. BARRIE: Is not this Question of sufficient public importance for the reply to be given to the House?
    MR. BIRRELL: I think the less said the better.
    MR. BARRIE: What has been the result of the friendly notice?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Knockmay Alleged Outrage.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware if District Inspector Irwin, Head Constable Marnane, and Sergeant Monaghan, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, Maryborough, Queen's County, have been censured in connection with an alleged burning outrage at Knockmay, Queen's County; whether he is aware that a claim for malicious injury was made in connection with this burning, and investigated at Maryborough Quarter Sessions, on the 17th October last, before Judge Fitzgerald, and that the claim was dismissed with costs; and can he say what was the offence for which District Inspector Irwin, Head Constable Marnane, and Sergeant Monaghan were censured.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether information of the burning at Knockmay, Queen's County, was given to Sergeant

    409
    Monaghan at 3.30 p.m. on the 20th July last by a youth, named Thompson; whether Sergeant Monaghan immediately reported the matter to the head constable and district inspector; whether the officers visited the land where the burning took place the same evening, and Sergeant Monaghan discovered that the burning was accidentally caused by children living in an adjacent cottage, the eldest of whom was only five years old; whether evidence was obtained that Thompson's information was deliberately concocted; and, if so, whether in view of this fact and of his knowledge of Thompson's previous character, he will explain why County Inspector Tweedy ordered his evidence to be acted on, and warrants to be obtained for the arrest of three men who had been named by Thompson as having caused the burning; and will he explain why County Inspector Tweedy has been promoted to the county inspectorship of Queen's County.
    I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sergeant Monaghan, Royal Irish Constabulary, had thirteen years service at the county headquarters station at Maryborough, Queen's County; that he was frequently complimented by the bench for the able and efficient discharge of his duties; and that he had been recommended for promotion by two former county inspectors; and will he explain why this officer has been transferred under censure to one of the most unimportant stations in the county, where he has to live apart from his wife and children.
    MR. BIRRELL: The district inspector, head constable, and sergeant, were admonished by the Inspector-General for neglect of duty in not taking sufficiently prompt steps to investigate a case of alleged malicious burning of straw at Knockmay. The fact that a claim for compensation was subsequently dismissed with costs does not in any way exonerate these police officers. The sergeant was subsequently transferred from Maryborough to Castletown in the interests of the public service and not as a punishment. Upon his own application he is now to be transferred to Mountrath, where there is better accommodation for his family. As proceedings are pending against Joseph Thompson for perjury
    410
    in connection with the case of alleged malicious burning, it is not desirable to enter into further particulars of the matter. Mr. Tweedy was promoted to rank of county inspector as being the senior officer fully qualified for promotion.
    MR. P. MEEHANasked if this county inspector was examined at the inquiry into the Glenaheary outrage in support of Lord Ashtown; was it for this he was promoted?
    MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir.
    MR. LUNDONasked if he was the man who eight years since was associated at Milltown Malbay with the notorious Sergeant Sheridan?
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not know.

    Drainage of the Barrow.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the number of unemployed in Ireland, any portion of the funds voted by Parliament for the unemployed will be made available for Ireland; and whether, in view of the urgency of the drainage of the River Barrow, he will recommend some portion of the money to be expended in carrying out the partial drainage works recommended by the drainage committee and approved of by the county engineers of Kildare and Queen's County.
    MR. BIRRELL: A portion of the fund voted by Parliament for the unemployed has already been made available for Dublin and Belfast, and applications from other towns are under consideration. As I have already stated, the object of the grant is to supplement local contributions raised for the purpose of providing employment in those districts in which, owing to severe trade depression temporarily affecting local industries, the able-bodied working men have found themselves suddenly deprived, wholly or in part, of their usual means of earning a livelihood. It would not be possible to make grants to rural districts in which there is only the dearth of work among agricultural labourers usual at this period of the year.

    Armagh Labourers Cottage Scheme.
    MR. MCKILLOP: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that John Moore and other labourers in the Armagh rural district applied for labourers' cottages to the Armagh Rural District Council; that their first application was declared informal by the Local Government Board inspector, who recommended them to make fresh applications, and that these fresh applications were rejected by this council; what steps the Local Government Board will take to have the recommendation of their inspector carried out; and whether this council, for a number of years past, has refused to put the Labourers Act into force or to use the money grant given to them for this purpose.
    MR. BIRRELL: The applications of John Moore and some other labourers were rejected by the district council, and were therefore not included in the scheme which they submitted in April last. The council subsequently reconsidered their decision, at the suggestion of the Local Government Board inspector, and allowed Moore and thirteen other labourers to send in fresh representations. Nine of these fourteen applications, including Moore's, have now been approved. Ninety cottages have already been authorised in this rural district.

    Morrogh Bernard Evicted Tenant.
    MR. J. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state why the Estates Commissioners have not paid the grant promised by numerous inspectors during the last year and a half to Mr. Morty Buckley, evicted tenant on the Morrogh Bernard estate, county Kerry; and if he can now state the cause of delay.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Morty Buckley has declined to proceed with the purchase of a farm, which he agreed to purchase from the owner, unless the owner also sells him another farm. The Commissioners are not prepared to make Buckley any advance for the purchase of the latter farm, and will not make him
    412
    any grant in respect of the first-mentioned farm until they are satisfied that he intends to work it.

    Lord Kenmare's Estate.
    MR. J. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can ascertain from the Congested Districts Board the exact cause why they have failed to make any effort to purchase the congested portions of Lord Kenmare's estate, county Kerry, whereas they are at present engaged in negotiating for the purchase of Lord Ventry's estate in the same county, though Lord Kenmare's estate was first offered to them.
    MR. BIRRELL: The terms on which the congested portion of Lord Kenmare's estate was offered to the Congested Districts Board were not such as they could have accepted, even had money been available for the purchase. Until pending legislation has been passed, the state of the Board's funds will not permit of their purchasing any estates beyond those for which they are already in negotiation. They have been in negotiation for the Ventry estate for the past twelve months.
    MR. BELLOC: Is that the main cause or the only cause just now?
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: The main cause is the absence of money.
    MR. BIRRELL: With regard to the Kenmare estate I may say that the terms under which it was suggested that the tenants should be put into possession of the holdings were such that the Board could not possibly accept them.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Is not the absence of money due largely to the enormous inflation of prices?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. J. MURPHYinquired whether the reason the Congested Districts Board did not purchase was not simply because the vendors wanted to fix the prices themselves?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have given the one reason for their action, and I have nothing to add.
    MR. J. MURPHY: My reason is the correct one.

    Macroom Labourer's Cottage.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a report has yet been received as to the grounds on which the application of William Sheehan, Ballymakeera, in the Macroom rural district, for a labourer's cottage was repealed by the County Court Judge after having; been passed by the Local Government Board inspector; whether he is aware that the present system of appeal is causing dissatisfaction amongst the labourers; whether complaints to this effect have been already brought under his notice; and will he state what steps he intends to take in the matter.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the grounds on which John Cottar had his application for a cottage in the Macroom rural district rejected on appeal by the County Court Judge; whether he is aware that the petitioner, Mary Scriven, in addition to holding thirty acres of land, was also proved to be a postmistress and owner of a number of houses, and therefore would not suffer excessively by an allotment being taken out of her farm, and that the applicant proved that the house in which he lived was built against a sand-bank, was unfit for habitation, and was the abode of snails; and, seeing that the County Court Judge suggested that Cottar might be given a half-acre plot, will he explain why his claim was rejected, and why he and an aged father and mother were condemned to remain in their present miserable dwelling-place; and can anything be now done to provide him with a cottage and plot of land.
    I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the grounds on which the County Court Judge refused the application of Patrick Twohig for a cottage and plot of land on the holding of John Delece, at Carrigleigh, in the Macroom rural district; whether his attention has been called to the evidence upon which the claim of this man to a better dwelling was sustained before the inspector of the Local Government Board
    414
    and the County Court Judge; whether he is aware that it was proved by the engineer of the district council that the petitioner had a sufficiency of arable land out of which to grant an allotment for a labourer; and what steps, if any, will be taken to provide Twohig with a suitable dwelling.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have no information as to the proceedings in the County Court on the hearing of the appeals in these three cases, nor have they any authority to inquire as to the grounds of the decisions of the County Court Judge. His decision on an appeal under the Labourers Acts is final, and a labourer whose application is disallowed can only apply once more to the district council with a view to being provided with a cottage under a new scheme.

    Valentia Island Coastguard Station.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade which Coastguard stations it is proposed to abolish between Valentia Island and Bantry Bay; and whether it is proposed to leave forty miles of coastline, which is the first land reached by ships crossing the Atlantic without a life-saving station.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I understand that under the arrangement announced last spring it is proposed to close during the next few months the redundant coastguard stations at Ballinskelligs and Ballycrovane, and that pending the consideration of the general policy relating to the Coastguard no action will be taken in regard to closing any other Coastguard stations between Valentia Island and Bantry Bay. It is not proposed to abolish any life-saving station between the points mentioned.
    MR. JOYCE: Is it within the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge that within the past two months the Coastguard by descending a cliff some 400 feet rescued the crew of a shipwrecked Russian vessel?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.
    MR. JOYCE: Then that should be a reason for not abolishing this station.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked when the House would be in possession of the terms of the guillotine Resolution for future stages of the Education Bill; and also what would be the business for Monday and Tuesday next.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): The Answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question is, To-morrow. The Committee stage of the Education Bill will be taken on Monday and Tuesday.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the great inconvenience that will follow from proceeding so quickly with a Bill with the provisions of which we have only just been made acquainted? Does he not think that the cause of conciliation would be better served by giving a little more time for consideration and for communication between the parties interested?
MR. ASQUITH: I do not think so. I have followed the matter very carefully indeed, with the anxious desire—no one is more interested in it than I am—for general conciliation and agreement.
LORD R. CECILasked what time would be available for hon. Members interested to put down Amendments for the Committee stage. How could they in so short a time give proper consideration to the Bill? If the right hon. Gentleman really hoped that this was to be in any degree a settlement of this question he ought to treat the House with something like decent courtesy and respect.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I also should like to point out how very inconvenient it will be to discuss Amendments without proper notice. I wish further to ask when we shall have in our hands the financial statement promised by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. ASQUITH: It is already in the Vote Office.
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether it would not meet the convenience of the House if the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill were taken on Monday, so as to give proper time for the consideration of Amendments to the Education Bill.
MR. ASQUITH: We hope to take that Bill to-morrow evening. I think there will be ample time to hand in Amendments to-morrow and Friday.
LORD R. CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any precedent whatever for the treatment of a first-class Government measure in the way in which it is proposed to treat this measure?
MR. ASQUITH: It is really an unprecedented measure.
MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Why not take the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill on Monday?
[No Answer was returned.]

CRIMINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS].
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 336.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 336.]
Bill (not amended) to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES PROHIBITION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 337.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 337.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 383.]

POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 384.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill): Mr. Curran; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Thomas Frederick Richards.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): The Prime Minister has already stated that the Bill, the Second Reading of which I am now about to move, is an unprecedented measure. Its genesis is peculiar to itself, and I freely admit that it is open to hon. Gentlemen opposite and to others in the country to say that it is not our first attempt to deal with the education problem. Education Bills in the past have been introduced, and have not gone through. We are not peculiar in being open to the charge that our proposals have not been carried into effect. But my predecessors who have had charge of previous Bills lived in much stormier times than these; and I am glad to think that the difficulties which faced my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland and my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty have not surrounded me. When I came into office I already found that the atmosphere was considerably altered. Not that both sides did not cling just as tenaciously as before to their principles, but there appeared to me to be a greater readiness on the part of both sides to understand, or to attempt to understand, the principles of their opponents, and greater eagerness to find methods upon which to base compromise without sacrifice of principle. It was only possible by the exercise of
418
mutual forbearance and respect to reach the present stage in this controversy, and now I hope we have arrived at the stage when we can secure a settlement by mutual concessions. I admit that much was to be conceded on both sides, and in order to ascertain with clearness the course which I should pursue I indulged in pourparlers which were quite informal, and I had conferences which lasted over many months. After ell, the culpability of a navigator is not in foundering on rocks which he does not see, but in going to sea without a chart. I endeavoured to find out where most of the rocks lay. In the course of these proceedings I found myself easily in touch with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and also, for a short time, with the Archbishop of Westminster as the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England. I did not need to inquire what was the Nonconformist view, for that came naturally to me, but I have not acted without Nonconformist support, and I am very glad to think that in the very long list of those who are informing Professor Sadler that they favour a settlement of this controversy by agreement nearly all the principal leaders of Nonconformity have sent in their names. Throughout these controversies I have endeavoured to put myself in the position partly of an arbitrator, and partly of an honest broker. The House will find in this Bill the result of our labours. It was quite clear from the first that the Church of England regarded herself—and the Roman Catholic Church as well—as the trustee of a particular ideal of religious education. They felt it was their duty to instil denominational doctrine into their children in the day schools, and they were well entrenched in something like 11,000 schools. They were, on the other hand, unable to get access to their own children in the council schools. On the other side, the Nonconformists held strongly that rates could only be applied to educational, as distinct from sectarian, objects. They thought that the attachment of the child to any particular denomination was outside the proper sphere of State action, and therefore it followed that they objected to rate aid for denominational teaching, and to the system by which, though the whole salary of the teacher was provided out of public funds, special opportunities and posts in denominational schools were

419
reserved for teachers of two or three denominations. They felt that the rate-aided denominational schools ought to be under public control, but they rejoiced at the same time that about 9,000 council schools were absolutely free from all denominational influence. And these, happily, were steadily increasing in number. To many people it seemed that the future was in their hands, and we were urged on many sides to leave things as they are. Well, I do not like trusting to a remote and uncertain future. At the best we have not many years during which we could sit in this House and be responsible for the elementary education of this country. For how long were we to wait? After all, during the time that we were waiting, the attention of the public was diverted from the real educational needs of the country. Administrators' time and attention was wasted. Educational reforms were delayed, and the children in our schools consequently suffered, and there was everywhere an increasing sense of shame among religious men that the cause of religion should be the severest handicap which English education had to face. Forty years, it is said, would themselves solve these problems, but we had in the meantime a miserable prospect before us. There would be perennial campaigning, a never-ending war, and the swashbucklers on both sides would be those who enjoyed themselves most. But, to tell the truth, the British people were thoroughly sick of this unending strife. Fortunately we found that there were some underlying points on which both sides were agreed. I think there was a fairly general agreement that we ought, if we could, to avoid purely secular education. I know there was a very strong feeling in favour of it, but the feeling against it was so overwhelming and prompted by such deep feeling that I think that the secular solution could not be generally acceptable, and certainly could not provide a permanent settlement. And I think there was a more general recognition of the value of simple teaching from the Bible, and there was also a feeling that if our principles could be safeguarded, our differences might be adjusted. During the last few months I, of course, have received much advice. Every post brings at least half a dozen absolutely water-tight solutions of the education problem, and now every post brings me objections to larger or
420
smaller details of the present proposal. Well, I think we must say frankly that the proposals now before the House are not the Government's ideal terms, they are not the Nonconformists' ideal terms, and they are not the Church and Roman Catholic ideal terms, but if they were the ideal terms of any one party, they would not then embody a settlement. These terms have been arrived at slowly by eliminating as many points of difference as possible, rather after the fashion as they say in Scotland of making married life comfortable by "makin' soople i' things immaterial." Well, I think we have safeguarded the main principles of both sides, and the leading men of both sides are prepared to acquiesce in the agreement. The settlement embodies not the claims either side thinks itself entitled to make, but the sacrifices which each side is prepared to assent to in the interests of educational and religious peace. As a Government we could not be parties to any settlement which would have involved the infringement of the three pledges everyone on this side of the House, and everyone below the gangway on the other side of the House, I believe, gave to his constituents. In the first place, it was necessary we should secure full public control over all rate aided schools; secondly, that denominational teaching should be taken off the rates; and thirdly, that the teaching profession in rate-aided schools should be open to men and women of all denominations provided they were capable of occupying the posts. We think that we have succeeded in arriving at terms which embody every one of those three pledges. They have been well canvassed in the Press and in papers circulated during the past week, and I do not think it is necessary to run through them in detail. But I would say this, that the Bill is an honest endeavour to embody accurately and with due regard to administrative necessities and possibilities the agreed terms. We have done what we could to safeguard the principles of all parties concerned, and to carry out the proposals in a bona fide manner. We have succeeded in getting a number of purely national conditions, and I think we make a considerable gain in arriving for the first time at something in the nature of a really national system. Privately owned schools in the future will be the

421
exception and not the rule. All rate-aided schools will be under the control of the local education authority. Denominational teaching is only to be allowed if paid for by the denomination itself. There is to be no test for any teacher in the schools under the national system, and we have preserved throughout the first three-quarters of an hour of the morning meeting that Cowper-Temple teaching which the experience of forty years justifies. There need be no misapprehension on this point; simple Bible instruction remains the normal religious instruction in the rate-aided schools. We have also provided that there shall be universal facilities for children whose parents express a desire for them to have denominational teaching on two mornings a week. In single-school parishes the school must come under the national system, and the education authority must provide accommodation for every child who desires it—that is, no child shall be forced into a denominational school. Lastly, in all provided schools there will be free education a little in advance of the old Free Education Act. I will now proceed to deal with the conditions in the Bill covering the transfer of schools. The Bill provides for a payment in every case, and in the case of a compulsory transfer gives the measure of that payment. All privately owned schools shall be passed or transferred by agreement, and charitable trust schools may be transferred either absolutely or they may be transferred with the user remaining with the trustees, or they may pass with the user to the local education authority. In other areas all schools must be either State-aided schools or schools transferred by agreement, or, if no agreement is arrived at, then there must be adopted one of the three alternatives I have just described, namely, transferred absolutely, or with user to owners, or user to the local education authority. I have been asked why we attach a scale to the Bill. The scale provides a uniform rate, except in a number of combinations which can be found from the scale. It is said we do not differentiate enough, and that some schools cost more, some less. We must take the country as a whole. If the Church gets too little in some places she will get more in others. A case is put to me to-day in the Press of a school which cost £18,000, which under this Bill will be transferred for £2,000.
422
But that is leaving out of account one of the most important considerations. We must remember that a very large part of the purposes of the trust will have to be carried out by the local education authority, and that the purchase money therefore represents the "other purposes" of the trust. We have to provide for the payment of rent in single-school parishes in small boroughs, and in large urban areas on a basis which will give a substantial sum to the trustees of those schools. Where you have a country school, say, for 100 children, transferred only with the user to the local education authority, the trustees will continue to repair and alter that school, and the rent will be £7 10s. per annum. But if the education authority takes over the liability to repair and alter, then the rent will be reduced to £3 15s. If there is an absolute transfer the rent paid will be £15 a year, and the sale value of £300. In a county borough, a school for 300 children, if the user only is transferred to the local education authority, the rent paid will be £30; if the trustees have user and education authority do repairing, the rent would be £15; but if an absolute transfer the rent will be £56 5s., or on a sale the price £1,125. A large London school for, say, 800 children, if the user is transferred to the local education authority and the trustees do repairing, the rent will be £100; if trustees have user and education authority repair, £50; if transfer absolute, rent £180, or sale value £3,600. If the trustees think the sale value too low they could resort to one of the alternatives, and transfer either with the user to the local education authority or transfer with the user to themselves. But all schools are to come into the national system except schools which are to be provided for under Clause 3. I now pass to another and the most contentious part of the Bill, which is that relating to contracting-out. I admit that contracting out is most objectionable from an educational point of view. We intend to make it the exception and not the rule, and I believe that is the intention of the other parties to this agreement. There was no possibility of arriving at an agreement with the trustees of the Roman Catholic schools and some of the extreme Church of England schools except by contracting-out, and I, for one, was

423
not prepared to say to them, "You must either come into the national system or be destroyed." But we think it is a great pity that they will not come in without this provision. Objectionable as it is, I think that many trustees, both Churchmen and Roman Catholics, for the sake of their convictions, are prepared to take upon themselves the necessary financial burden in order to retain what they conceive their greatest privilege. But the following conditions will attach to these State-aided schools:—There must be none in single-school parishes; they must have, at least, thirty children; they must attain equal efficiency with the council schools in staff, premises, and in secular instruction; they may be made homogeneous; they must belong to an association of a denomination for England and Wales, only one association for each denomination; the grant to be calculated on the basis of scale; all grants to be paid to the association, which will allocate the grants according to the needs of the school and must spend all grants on maintenance; and they must remain technically public elementary schools. The children in these contracting-out schools shall retain the advantage of such civic services as medical inspection, and may be admitted to cookery centres, handicrafts, and be fed under the Feeding of Children Act. The contracting-out schools will have an opportunity of adding to their income—by pooling the grants or by charging fees—a right which they will retain, but which will, I believe, not be exercised in many cases. But where advantage is taken of the right to charge fees, an income of 30s per annum per child can be raised, which together with the grant of £2 10s. will give an income of £4 per child per year. I come now to the Roman Catholic case. The statement has been made that under this Bill the Catholic schools in London will cost the denomination £35,000 extra in London. I venture to challenge that figure, because it altogether leaves out of the case the pooling arrangements which are made in the Bill. The claim is also made that there are in the Catholic schools something like 300,000 children; there are 284,000 in average attendance, and the whole of these children are not all Roman Catholics It is only fair to assume, therefore, that if this Bill becomes law a certain number of children now in the Roman Catholic schools will pass out
424
into the local authorities schools. Many of those who are Protestant children would be relieved of attendance at Catholic schools, and will be provided with places elsewhere. In that case we thought it only right, in revising the scale of grants per head which now appears in the schedule, that we should not make it harder owing to the reduction of the number of children in those schools. That is the reason why we have provided a scale giving a higher grant to a small school where the education is dearer, and a smaller grant to a larger school, where the education is cheaper. If we compare the position in England with the position in Scotland, so far as Roman Catholics are concerned, I would observe that the claim put forward by the hon. Member for South Kerry in this House during the last few days, with regard to Catholic schools in Scotland, was that there should be an additional grant of 10s. per child over and above the 38s. 6d. to 40s. which now goes to the contracted-out schools in Scotland. That would bring the figure up to about the same as we propose in this Bill. I observed that the hon. Member who proposed an Amendment to the Scottish Bill a few days ago stated that he would be satisfied with an extra 10s., in other words he would be satisfied with 50s. in Scotland, where education is more expensive than in England. Therefore, I hope they will see their way to be satisfied with 50s. more or less, as we provide in the Bill. The Church of England case is even stronger. If we take it for granted that donors in respect of Church of England education in the future will be no less generous than they had been in the past, the Church of England schools would be provided for by voluntary donations on the same scale varying from 18s. to 20s. according to the extent to which contracting out is taken advantage of. Therefore, I see no reason to suppose that the generous financial arrangements provided for in this Bill will have the effect of closing or hampering the Church of England schools. We wish to restrict contracting out to the smallest limit by reducing the desire to remain outside the national system. That can be done by still allowing the denomination to leave a portion of the burden which I understand it is willing to bear if it wishes to retain its own peculiar privileges, and also by

425
making the rent a substantial one. When I turn to the financial proposals of the Bill, in so far as they concern the local education authority, they are very much the same as they were under the proposals of my right hon. friend now the First Lord of the Admiralty. The present system of grants is unduly complicated. The schools are drawing income from no less than seven separate sources. My right hon. friend suggested that there should be only three elements—the standard grant, the grant in aid of buildings, and the grant to certain areas. To provide for these grants working within certain limits, he suggested that in some cases such as the deaf and epileptic schools there should be a limit on the amount provided by the State. These proposals I take almost as they stand. But we cannot say that the result of these proposals as he prophesied they would work out, will be exactly the same under this Bill, for the simple reason that we do not know how far contracting out will be taken advantage of, and until we know how far it will be taken advantage of we can make no definite prophecy as to the charge which will fall on the Exchequer a few years hence. There is only one other subject which I wish to mention at this stage, and that is the clause which deals with the religious instruction committee. The religious instruction committee provided for in this Bill is exactly similar to the old religious instruction committee of the London School Board and of nearly every big school board throughout the country, and certainly it is the best testimonial to the national commonsense that these old committees worked perfectly well, although there were sitting upon them very often at one and the same time strong Nonconformists, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Socialists. I believe that the religious syllabus found in nearly every county borough in England, was drawn up by bodies exactly of that nature. I hope they will do their work equally well in the future as in the past. I have described one part of the process passed through in framing this Bill. The concessions made on one side amount to this: single-school parish schools become local education authority schools. Rent, but only a small rent, is paid to the trustees in return for the transfer. Teacherships are thrown open, and teachers are under the local education authority alone. The non-elective
426
manager disappears. So far as the rate-aided schools are concerned they have given up rate-aid for denominational leaching. But this is a give-and-take Bill, and like every other compromise we have had to give something in return for what is taken. On our part we have been asked to agree to facilities being allowed everywhere. In the past we have fought the right of entry vigorously; but under the old conditions we were fighting what was then a mere act of grace. When my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, prior to the last General Election, made a speech with his usual vigour, against the right of entry, he made it against what was an act of grace for which absolutely nothing was given on the other side. The whole position has changed now. We are actually getting something on the other side. The thing was regarded with suspicion and disliked as upsetting the compromise of 1870. It was denounced because it was one-sided, and because it was in contravention of that compromise. We have now initiated a new compromise. For the first time right of entry is presented as part of a balanced agreement. The Church asks for facilities and gives up her peculiar monopoly of country schools. She says that she surrenders her special opportunity for instilling her own doctrines not only in children of Church parents but also in children of other denominations attending those schools. This, in our opinion, she rightly surrenders, and in return she gains for the first time the opportunity of securing to Church children whose parents desire it, in all schools, dogmatic teaching of her own faith by persons in whom she has confidence. That is a substantial gain, and I do not wonder that churchmen all over the country welcome this Bill as a great advance on anything they have obtained previously. It was only possible for us to give way on this because it did not involve any breach of principle, and because we have attached to it conditions which safeguard it from grave risks. We opposed it in the past because it was associated with very many risks of administrative confusion, which no one will better appreciate than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. We also objected to it because it would preserve under the old system some form of tests for teachers. We now hope to avoid both those risks. Regulations will be made by the Board under Clause 2

427
They will be in the simplest form, designed to enable parents who desire special religious instruction for their children, to obtain it with the minimum of formality and delay. If the parent desires the child to receive special religious instruction not already provided by the authorities, the form of application will probably consist of a simple statement to be signed by him to the effect that he wishes that special religious instruction shall be given to his child in the doctrines of a certain church. The next question is during what hours are these facilities to be given. The main objection that has been taken is that the religious instruction comes within the school hours. I do not know whether that can be got rid of or not; I only know that the simplest way to proceed is to state definitely the time at which the religious teaching tikes place. There cannot be facilities for all hours of the day; that would make mince-meat of the time-table. But no one objects to facilities being given between 9 and 9.45 every forenoon, or two forenoons a week. With reference to the problem whether it comes within the school hours, that will remain with the local authorities to say under what is now known by the phrase the "Anson bye-law." Then comes the question, To what children may denominational teaching be given under these facilities? Only to the children of those parents who express a desire for it. It would be preposterous for a parent to demand facilities for children with whom he had no concern. By whom is this religious instruction to be given? By volunteers, by outsiders if possible, and if by teachers, then by such teachers as are now in voluntary schools which will be transferred with them, or by existing assistant teachers in council schools. We have made one exception in the case of the head master, the head teacher, or the head mistress for this reason—that the duty of the head in all schools is impartially to arrange the religious as well as the other instruction. The denomination of the head is very apt to stamp the school with the character of that denomination as well as the teaching practised within that building. We therefore regarded that as a dangerous step. We have stood out against the heads of council schools being allowed to volunteer. The solitary exception to this relates to the head of a
428
voluntary school who is transferred to another voluntary school, for a period of five years after the passing of the Bill. Subject to the permission of the local authority, he may volunteer to give religious instruction. There must be no test of the teacher on or after his appointment, nor inquiry about his volunteering. Payment for his services must be made not by the local education authority but direct to him. To avoid outside influence, we provide that the teacher's selection, appointment or promotion shall be effected not by local managers or outside persons, but by the local authorities. Public opinion may be unjust at particular times and on particular subjects, but on the whole, like the ventilation of a house, it keeps the air pure. I have no doubt that there will be many cases of oppression which might be sought out and publicly proclaimed by the National Union of Teachers. Of course, all facilities must be subject to administrative practicability. We cannot allow pandemonium in the schools, and discipline must be maintained. That it is possible within these limits to give bona fide facilities of wide and very great value to churchmen and others who care to take advantage of them, is the deliberate opinion of the Government. The obligation of the authorities to allow religious instruction to be given must of course be limited by the possibility of room being found for the purpose, and of the possibility of the teacher's being spared from his other duties. That can be arranged if the local authorities are reasonable beings, and we are to take for granted they are reasonable beings, or local government would break down. We have every hope that the local authorities will cooperate with the rest of us in avoiding denominational and religious friction. These proposals are of course opposed by the extremists. I do not for a single moment wish to say anything uncomplmentary about the extremists. Those on both sides who are quarrelling most fiercely about this settlement are the men who have taken a deep and keen interest in all educational administration during the last thirty years. But I must confess to drawing some crumb of comfort from the reading of my newspaper when I find in one and the same column that this settlement is denounced by Mr. Hirst Hollowell and Lord Halifax,

429
and when I find that the Bishop of Manchester says that this is the Peace of Death, I would remind him of the motto above one of the doors of this building, denique cœlum, which some folks say means "Heaven at last." If our proposals do not find favour with the extremists, I hope they appeal to the common man in the street. It is the ordinary John Bull to whom we appeal. It is being said we are in a position of great power and we ought to have made no concession. Why not? Concession after all comes with a better grace and with a more salutary effect from superior power, and it establishes confidence on a solid foundation. Concessions which are made by both sides are those which compos this compromise; and indeed like all healthy compromises it can be very easily attacked. A man could pick twenty holes in the Bill in half an hour and the only thing that will make it work will be the good feeling of those who administer it. When I am told the scheme is not logical, I can reply that the House of Commons has always claimed the privilege of acting merely on the facts before it on the evident principles of compromise. And, as a matter of fact, much in this world must be taken for granted. We cannot always be arguing about first principles. If the scheme is not logical, my only reply is that men who would carry everything to its logical conclusion are very dangerous guides. The world is, after all saved by bad logic and good feeling. This is a balanced settlement, and I hope there will be no attempt made to disturb its equilibrium. The settlement, after all brings very great advantages to education. During the short time I have been at the Board of Education I have discovered that certainly half the time of the most capable officials—in all but the technical branch which, fortunately, is free from any religious strife—is devoted to difficulties great and small which are constantly raised by religious controversy, and the Minister himself cannot give proper time and the best of his attention to the improvement of the educational system. He has to spend hours every day over the solution of religious squabbles and over problems which are not educational but merely sectarian, while local education authori-
430
ties are in no better case. The attention of their members and of those who send them there is centred almost entirely on religious quarrels. That is the experience of those administrators with whom I have come in contact, and I am perfectly sure that those who compose the members of the local education authorities now will regard this settlement with gratitude, even if it throws considerable inconvenience upon them. I hope that, if this settlement goes through, one great advantage will accrue, and that is that the authorities will be able to arrange classes and schools of different types and curricula untrammelled by denominational considerations, which have often in the past interfered with the spontaneous action of the local authority. It is a remarkable fact that the three countries in the world which have the best educational systems—which we might well envy—Germany, America, and Scotland, have not one of them this religious strife. In America, which I am sorry to say in many respects is still far ahead of us in education, they have adopted a solution which would have satisfied everybody in this House, without any compromise whatever. I know we are bound to meet many different views. I can only present this compromise to the House in the hope that it will be considered in as generous a spirit as that in which it has been framed. I do so with no note of triumph. No one has been victorious. Nonconformists cannot and do not wish to trample on the Church. The Church, on the other hand, cannot crush the spirit of Nonconformity. We cherish hostility to no Church. The settlement is prompted far more by tolerance than by despair. It is marked by neither bigotry nor party spirit. It is an agreement in the truth sense of the word, and by no means a victory. If it is affirmed by Parliament, I am sure of this, Parliament will have earned the gratitude of the villager, of the villager's child, of the child in the town, and of the administrators and of the teachers. On our side we may rest content that we have fulfilled our pledges to our constituents, while the Church, submitting to no confiscation of property, retains influence over her children in her own schools, and secures access to her children in council

431
schools. Each side has made generous advances, each has given up some powers of exclusion, and each will be richer and stronger for the sacrifice.
Mo ion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Runciman.)
MR. HUTTONoffered his congratulations on the personal success of the Minister for Education. They were very close political neighbours and had many constituents in common, and he shared their very deep and sincere admiration for his right hon. friend's ability and tact. He congratulated him that he had succeeded in gathering together so large a share of public opinion, and that he had been able to bring under his big umbrella so many men representing so many different types of thought. But he was inclined to think that this great manifestation towards peace which they were witnessing on all hands at the present time was rather an indication of the weariness of the flesh than of a sudden access of Christian charity. He should be very glad to take a part in securing peace, but he did not agree with much of the concluding portion of his right hon. friend's speech. He did not think education was absolutely at a standstill because different sects were warring. On the contrary, they had seen evidences that education had made many strides, because public opinion had been awakened and new interest had been aroused on account of recent controversy. His mind went back to the evening eighteen months ago when the Chief Secretary for Ireland introduced his Bill, and he was led to ask himself what kind of a reception he would have got had he made the same proposals then that were made now. Of course, he was told politically they had travelled a long way since that time. That might be perfectly true, but he had not travelled an inch of the way towards the conclusions which had been reached by his right hon. friend. They had been told as a result of the failure of the first Bill of the Government that a way would be found for the Commons' will to prevail, and he was led to ask whether this was the way which had been found. He supposed most of the suggestions which were
432
made in another place in regard to that Bill had been adapted for this measure, and if this measure represented anybody's way it was not the way of the Commons, but a way expressed by the Lords some two years ago. He would suggest that this way of meeting the situation was an invitation to the Lords to go on treating the proposals of a Liberal Government with the same scant courtesy with which they treated the proposals of his right hon. friend a couple of years ago. He opposed the Education Bill in 1896, and other Bills in 1897, and he opposed the Act of 1902. He might have been right or wrong—only the future could tell—but he was quite sure that if he was right in opposing those Bills he was equally right in opposing this. The right hon. Gentleman told them that this was not the Bill of the Government, and that they themselves would not have made these proposals. But they must take the responsibility for them. If this great peace was to be secured and the Bill was a great success, they would, during the Christmas recess, have his hon. friends claiming every credit to the Government, because of the success they had achieved in bringing this matter to a compromise. He saw no objection to that, but if they were going to claim the credit they must take the responsibility. That was admitted. It was not that he wanted to seem in opposition to the Government, but he must be able to address his arguments as to a Bill for which they had made themselves responsible. His right hon. friend had spoken as one desiring to secure the interests of education, and to get rid of all extraneous difficulties. So far as he could see, the proposals of this Bill committed every sin that was possible in regard to the canons of good education, of good administration, of good local government, of unity in the school, and, as they used to hear, of co-ordination in regard to education. If he came to the conclusion that education itself was not going to be advanced, he did not see why they should be called upon to make great sacrifices of principle. The Bill must be taken as a whole. It was a compromise, and it would not be open to his hon. friends to secure any concessions of a serious nature. The answer

433
they would always get would be that they had only made this concession because they had something in return from the other side, and they were bound honourably to carry out the bargain. His hon. friends could not vote for the Second Reading with mental reservations that they were not supporting certain provisions in it. Although they might make this compromise to-day there was no guarantee for the future. But how long would it be a settlement? There was a compromise in 1870, and he did not know how many Acts were passed between that year and the next Education Bill. An agitation was started in the interests of voluntary schools, and time after time they got safeguards removed. His opinion was that a compromise might be good to-day and for a year or two, but they would very soon find elements at work—in fact, they were already at work—to secure that the compromise should be extended, and should not be maintained intact. He would offer to this measure two tests. First of all, there was the old religious equality test. Would the effect of this Bill be to bring religious education, undenominational or denominational, in our schools more directly under the authority of the State or less? The second test he would apply was in regard to the measure of public control secured by the Bill. In regard to the first test this measure proposed, for the first time in their history, that religious instruction should be given by law in all the schools of the land. Religious education in the schools had been permissive since 1870 and now for the first time they had abandoned that position and were making religious instruction compulsory in the schools. That was a very serious departure.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member forgets that there is a conscience clause.
MR. HUTTONsaid of course there would be a conscience clause. The right hon. Gentleman was going to vote next session in favour of the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, but he was not obliged to attend that Church, and he was opposed to the establishment on grounds of religious equality. Now the Government were asking their
434
supporters to vote for the same measure of establishment in regard to religious instruction in the schools of this country. The Government were indirectly if not directly responsible for the provision of denominational instruction as well as undenominational instruction. That was a serious departure from the principle of non-interference and neutrality they had so long respected. They were told that this provision would not be used, but he did not think that was a very honest argument. The right hon. Gentleman was making that concession to hon. Gentlemen opposite representing the Church of England, and it would certainly be made use of. There was no need for anybody to be deceived by the idea that this right of entry would not be made vigorous use of in all parts of the country. The Bishop of London, had done his best to remove any doubt upon that point. In yesterday's Times there was a letter from the Bishop of London to the rural dean, and there was also a report of a speech made by the Bishop. In his letter to the rural dean the Bishop said—
"It must be remembered that the number of Church children in council schools is probably greater by at least three to one than the children in the Church schools, who, after all our efforts, only number 102,000, and it is of great importance to be able to teach the whole Christian faith to so many more children."
That meant that it was of great importance to him to have the right of entry into the council schools, where there were three times as many children as in the voluntary schools—
"They would have (he said) to study its pros and cons very carefully, but one thing about it was like water to a thirsty man to his clergy in the suburbs. In some of those suburbs they had not got a single Church school, and the faithful clergy were like hounds in leash, straining to seize the chance that had come to them at last of reaching the Church children in the schools, and teaching them the Christian faith."
They had arrived at this position—that they were making proposals which were "like water to a thirsty man to his clergy," and were enabling these gentlemen, who were like hounds in leash straining to use this right of entry to teach their own children in council schools. Therefore, anyone who thought this right of entry was not going to be used extensively would be deluded, and he beseeched them to come to a different

435
opinion. The Government had taken a very serious step in throwing open 9,000 board schools in the country to denominational teaching of all kinds. He regarded that as a disaster. Those 9,000 schools were the citadels of the State in regard to education, and they were now proposing to create a breach which would never be repaired, and they would not have the old state of things restored. For thirty years the Liberal Party had been striving to build up this national system and extend those schools, and they had been led to believe that here, at any rate, there was at least one set of schools where denominationalism had no place. The Government very rashly and disastrously were allowing in school hours the teaching of denominational creeds and catechism not altogether at the expense of the denominations. He had heard a great deal about mandates, but he might be allowed to state that he had never mentioned them throughout his political life. Much had been said about the right hon. Gentlemen in 1902, and there had also been a great deal said about the mandate of the Liberal Party with regard to tests and public control and the like. But after all, what had this talk come to? Simply a right of entry into council schools. He asked those Gentlemen who talked so much about mandates where was their mandate for passing this proposal? Let them go back to the year 1906 and see how many of his hon. friends, who were so glib about the pledges given at that time, would have been able to get comfortably through their public meetings without being severely heckled if they had declared that they had a mandate for opening 9,000 schools in the country to all the different denominations in the land.
MR. HERBERT: At every one of my meetings I put that before my constituents.
MR. HUTTONsaid that no doubt his hon. friend filly explained that the facilities would be inside school house. Up to the present in the council schools there had been no ancient privileges, no vested interest, and no sanctified traditions. All those things were at ached to the
436
old denominational schools, but the council schools were kept clear of them. Now they were going to let in those very interests and privileges which they had gloried in keeping out so long, and when once they had a footing it would take a very long time indeed to clear the schools of that kind of denominational atmosphere. And this was being done not after a defeat at the poll but after a great party victory, and there was absolutely no demand for making such a tremendous concession as was proposed. Some of his hon. friends said that this provision would not be very diligently carried out. That was most important for two reasons. In the first place, the clergy to-day were a very active and keen race of men. They were much more active than they were thirty, forty, or fifty years ago and they were not likely to miss any opportunity that came their way. Beyond that the Government had taken this additional safeguard that the right of entry should be made use of. They had provided that the assistant teachers might volunteer and when the Government expressly said in an Act of Parliament that teachers "may" do something they would be expected 1o volunteer. The Bill provided that only the assistant teacher might volunteer, but why should the head teacher not be allowed also to volunteer? Why was he debarred from that privilege? Hon. Members opposite would be able to say that the Government having conceded this right to the assistant teachers they could not resist conceding it to the head teachers. There was no principle upon which they could differentiate in this matter, and he was sure they would have hon. Gentlemen opposite demanding that no difference should be made between one and the other. us right hon. friend said there were to be no denominational tests. He would put this case. There was a school where there were two or three teachers of which the head teacher would be debarred from giving denominational instruction, and there was a vacancy for an assistant teacher. Everybody knew that whoever was appointed, master or mistress, to that post he or she would be invited to volunteer to give religious instruction. Did not the right hon. Gentleman think that great pressure would be brought to

437
bear upon them? Did his right hon. friend think that it was quite fair of a great Government to throw the obligation on those, many of them, young teachers to refuse the invitation which would be given to them by many of their own friends. Many of those teachers had been through the denominational training colleges, and there was not a single teacher who had been through those institutions who would not have been taught and trained to volunteer. Seventy-five per cent. of the teachers were ladies, and he should be very much surprised if a considerable section of them did not yield to the persuasive arguments which the clerical party would be able to bring upon them. He thought that after all that had been said on the matter it was a little too late to bring this pressure to bear on young teachers appointed, not only in Church of England schools, but in council schools as well. What kind of instruction was to be given? Who was going to say whether it was satisfactory or not? Was there going to be the right of inspection? Would they have the diocesan inspector going about the council schools to see whether the volunteer was teaching the catechism or the creed satisfactorily? He did not see how they could manage without it. After the teacher, came the inspector, and they were in for all the paraphernalia of denominational teaching in all the schools of the land, and all that was to be provided by Act of Parliament. The machinery of the State was to be used for all those opportunities which were to be provided. So much for the proposal in regard to the provision of religious instruction. It was a serious violation of his idea of the neutrality of the State in the matter of religious instruction. As to the matter of public control his right hon. friend told the House that he was going to eliminate all the things that were immaterial. One of the things he was going to eliminate was the school which was going to contract out. All these schools were supposed to be immaterial. Did not that reduce the question of public control to a farce. Under the Act of 1902 the Leader of the Opposition professed to give public control. It was only a skeleton and a pretence, but still there was something in it. It could have
438
been vivified at any rate. But they were going to abandon the skeleton of control which they got under the Act of 1902. They were going back to the pre-1902 position in these denominational schools. Indeed, the position would be worse than before 1902. It was to be subject to a very large number of considerations. For instance there was a conscience clause which operated for the voluntary schools, but there was no conscience clause for the new contracted-out schools. They were to give the right of entry to county council schools, but there was to be no right of entry for anybody into the contracted-out schools. There would be no Kenyon Slaney clause for the new contracted-out schools. They would appoint their own teachers and managers, and they would administer their own funds; they would have absolutely no check left upon them. He thought that was a very serious state of affairs. He believed that a large number of schools would contract-out. Not only were they to be far more free than under the 1902 Act, but they were to have, roughly speaking, 50 per cent. more money per child. When the denominational schools came into the State system they received 35s. 6d., and to-day they were to receive 50s. While increasing the grant to that extent, they were abandoning all the rights they had to-day, and they were not resuming the rights which they had before 1902. That was a serious state of things educationally. His right hon. friend had said that any child could claim that a school should be provided. The obligation should not be put on the chill to claim a provided school. They all knew that parents sent young children to the nearest school. Would a mother send her young children to a distant school when there was one close at hand? That being so, they would not get parents to set up an agitation for new schools. The schools to which they would send their children would be in many cases contracted-out schools without even the safeguards whish existed before 1902. Educationally that was an exceedingly dangerous position. But they were not going to remain there. They were threatened already with an agitation for more money and more concessions. The 50s. was

439
not going to be sufficient. It would not be long before they had another "intolerable strain." The Leader of the Opposition was eagerly watching the swing of the pendulum and he was quite ready to resume office at the first opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman would not be unwilling to give one or two sessions to discussing the relative me its of Nonconformists and Churchmen. The right hon. Gentleman would rather do that than discuss the merits of Colonial preference and free trade. Then they would have all this old battle cheerfully brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the first possible opportunity. Contracting-out was not only educationally unsound, but by providing for that they were seeking the same old trouble which they had gone through and inviting the old contests in an almost more furious form in the future than in the past. But he might be told that he had not taken into consideration the great advantages this Bill would bring. It was said they were going to have public control not only in the towns but in the village districts. In the first place, as there might not be much chance of amending the Bill in Committee, he wished to say that the definition of the single school district seemed to him to be a most unsatisfactory one. They were told that in all these schools they were to get public control. Was that an accurate statement? He thought things were going on for a considerable time pretty much as they stood at present. The existing headmaster was to continue in the same position as that in which he stood; he was to have the same rights, privileges, and duties, and he would go on teaching as he was doing for the rest of his tenure of office. What was his right hon. friend's estimate of the length of the average tenure of the present headmasters? He would say that it would extend to ten or fifteen years, that was to say, that in all those schools which they were going to capture the present state of things was to continue for ten or fifteen years in the villages. If that was the case, he did not see that they had got any advantages compared with the concessions which they had made. In the Church of England single school area schools there were 450,000 children, and in the council
440
schools there were about 3,000,000 children. They were going to give to denominations the right to give religious instruction in the schools which had 3,000,000 children, and all that they were going to get by-and-bye was the right to appoint the headmasters in the schools which had 450,000 children. It seemed to him that was hardly worth speaking of as a bargain. They were simply perpetuating the state of things which existed at the present time. His objection to the Bill was not that he and his friends did not get all they wanted, but because it seemed to him that they positively lost ground. So far from making progress he thought they were going back. Even in the face of the great display of support which his right hon. friend had for this Bill he asked the House to hesitate to pass the Second Reading. He viewed the proposals of the Bill with alarm, but he viewed the tendency of the measure with infinitely more alarm. It delivered the council schools up to denominational faction; it exposed teachers to all kinds of pressure; it provided a new opening for denominational schools to exist outside of the State system, and it again restored the old dual system. He deplored these proposals. He believed they would have a disastrous effect, and therefore he asked the House to reject the Bill. He begged to move.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSin seconding the Amendment, expressed regret that he found himself in opposition to the Government on this question. The Bill had been commended to the House in such a way as to suggest that this was the only possible way out of the educational difficulty for the Government. He for one had not taken the view from the beginning that the Government had dealt with the education question in anything like the way, in view of its importance and gravity, which they had a right to expect after what was said at the last election. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his dialectical skill and on the manner in which he had dealt with the mandate of last election. As he understood the demand for a mandate at the last election—a demand which was approved of and supported by the leading Members of the Government—it was this:

441
That no Education Bill would be satisfactory which would not do away with test for teachers, which did not give complete public control over all schools receiving public money, and which did not prohibit not denominational teaching at the expense of the rates but denominational teaching at the expense of public money. That, as he understood it, was the mandate of the country, and there Were many passages in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and other Members of the Government which most conclusively showed that that was the case. But what had been the whole attitude of the Government on this question of education? Had there been, from the beginning, the slightest indication on their part that this difficulty Was to be solved by them? They had played with the Education Department. One would have thought that in dealing with a great complex problem like education there would have been appointed at the head of that Department some one of great previous experience, and that the Government would have availed themselves of the services of Mr. Acland, who had had experience as a Minister of Education, or Lord Stanley of Alderley; or failing these two that they would have utilised the services of a person of great experience in education like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. But two gentlemen had been appointed to that Department who had had no previous experience. One made an effort to grapple with the problem by an Education Bill which failed to pass, and he was then sent to Ireland. And the right hon. Member for Islington, having had a special experience in the Education Department, was removed. Then they had substituted as Chief Minister for Education the right hon. Gentleman who was now First Lord of the Admiralty, who had absolutely no previous experience in education, and whose qualification apparently was only a readiness in debate and the fact that on a certain occasion he was able to vanquish a stupid mind on so remote a question as the difference between leaf and stripped tobacco. Then that right hon. Gentleman was given as assistant; whom? The hon. Member who had now gone to the Foreign Office, but who had had experience in education. That hon. Gentle man was the Progressive leader
442
in London at the moment when the whole Progressive cause in education was betrayed to the other side. He was followed by a gentleman who had had a few years experience on the Newcastle School Board, and he was accompanied by a gentleman who had shown great enthusiasm for education by advocating in certain literature the raising of the school age, but who had promptly repudiated it when he became a candidate for the Elland Division of Yorkshire. That was the way in which the Government had dealt with the education question; and now, when they found that, as they put it, the country was sick and tired of the controversy, they came forward with a proposal which meant the abandonment of every principle and the complete betrayal of everything which the Liberals had stood for on this question—the most cynical and flagrant betrayal of political principle which the House had witnessed in the annals of modern politics, and that was saying a good deal. But what relevancy had the fact that people were tired and weary of the question to this hurry-scurry attempt to scuttle in the direction of a scuttling settlement? The people of the country were sick and weary of Home Rule being discussed, but by the same token were the Liberal Party going to abandon Ireland? The people of the country were sick and weary of the controversy between tariff reform and free trade, but were the Government going to abandon free trade because of that? There were many other illustrations which might be used. He suggested that the people of the country were not so tired and weary, and not so sick of this controversy as they were that they had a Government of "Weary Willies and Tired Tims," who were anxious to get out of a difficulty by making the proposals they had done in this Bill. And what were these proposals? It had been somewhat maladroitly suggested—and he said this advisedly—by the right hon. Gentleman that this must be a good settlement, because the extremists on both sides were against it. Personally he had been represented as standing for the extreme Nonconformist view. He stood for no such view. He left that view to be represented by those lay leaders of Nonconformity in this House

443
who were plain "Misters" a few months ago but now revelled in the title of 'Sir." He stood for the plain man in the street, for keeping the peoples' schools clear from all the influences of the parsons and priests of any denomination—either Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Nonconformist. He had not been against compromise. He believed he was the only Welsh candidate at the last general election who advocated compromise and that generous treatment should be extended to the denominational schools. But it was never contemplated then, nor was it row, that in any scheme of compromise there should come into the area of these negotiations anything with regard to council schools. It was suggested that this was a compromise that was fair to all parties; but what did they get with regard to the denominational schools? They got not public control in every single school area, but merely public control in every rural school area. But there were a large number of urban single school areas. Take the case of Radnorshire, where he himself went to school. There was only a single school there and that was an urban school. It might not be transferred and it might be one of the contracting-out schools. Take the place where they had had many of their Welsh Conventions with regard to this education question—Llandrindod Wells. There was only one school there and it was an urban district, and the school might not be transferred and might be contracted-out. Where, then, did they get public control in all single school areas? His second point was this: it was said that denominational teaching was taken off the rates, and his third was, that it was alleged that there were no tests for teachers. Now, first of all, denominational teaching was not by this Bill to be taken off the rates. What was taken off the rates was the cost of the salary of the teacher who might give the denominational teaching. As a matter of fact—some hon. Members might never have heard of it—the Birmingham School Board had for years given a right of entry to the denominations outside school hours, and the Board had a scale by which they charged 5s. per room per
444
day in every school to the denomination using it for denominational teaching. But in this Bill it was clearly stated that the denominationalists were to have the use of the school buildings and denominational teaching in school hours free of rent, heated, cleansed and lighted, all at the expense of the rates. Then, it was said that they were abolishing tests for teachers. A more absurd, a more futile suggestion in the face of the actual provisions of the Bill could not have proceeded from those benches. They had one of the strongest and most conspicuous cases in this country on the matter of tests for teachers and that was the case of the greatest of all the school boards—the School Board of London—a publicly-elected body limited for religious teaching to Cowper-Templeism. One of the greatest educational election contests ever seen in this country took place in 1894 for the London School Board, and with what object? For the purpose of getting rid of religious tests for teachers. And what did the test for teachers consist of? It merely consisted of a circular which was issued to the teachers in this form—
"If there are those among you who cannot conscientiously impart Bible instruction in this spirit, means will be taken, without prejudice to their position under the Board, to release them from the duty of giving the Bible lesson. The religious opinion of candidates will not, in any sense, influence their appointment or promotion, nor are they to be subjected to any questions with reference to their religious belief."
On paper, could there be more conclusive proof than that against the idea that there was any religious test involved? But in practice what happened? Out of hundreds of teachers with full qualifications, who declined 'o give religious teaching there was only one single case of a teacher being promoted to a headmastership, and not a single case of promotion to a head-mistress-ship; but in the case of those teachers who volunteered to give the religious teaching in accordance with the terms of the circular, promotion followed, although their qualifications were less than those who refused to give the religious teaching. That was the beginning of the whole of this trouble. When they defeated the particular section known as the Rileyite section on the London School Board, what did they say?

445
They said they would transfer their activities to a wider sphere, and from that day to this they had been working through the Education Department and Parliament, to get carried into effect throughout the country those particular things for which they had worked on the London School Board. He said, without hesitation, that if they were going to put this position to the Council teachers, that some might volunteer and that some might not, and that they were to put up for election in the event of a vacancy, they had an actual test. Everyone knew perfectly well what would happen. Take a case which might happen even in so great a place as London. What would be likely to happen here? Under the present scheme of the London County Council they had for every group of schools in London what was called a board of managers. These boards of managers made a selection of three teachers for every vacancy, and these three names were sent up to the London Education Authority, who selected one to come before them. What was the fact? As a result of the last county council election, wherever Progressive, or Radical, or Nonconformist members of these boards of managers could be removed by the London Education Authority they were in fact removed, and at this moment they had not a single board of managers under the London education authority which did not consist of a majority of members of the Church of England or Roman Catholics. He had heard that the leopard had changed its spots, and that clericalism was not going to work in the future as it had done in the past, but there were some of the boards of managers at this moment consisting of an actual majority of ordained priests. This being so, say a person applied and got the position of assistant teacher in one of the London boroughs. There were say, two teachers; one declined to volunteer to give religious instruction, and the other offered to give it according to the Catechism of the Church of England. It was not in human nature that it would not follow automatically as a matter of course, that the members of the Church of England upon the
446
nominating and appointing committee would work for all they were worth to secure the appointment of that person who belonged to their denomination, and who had volunteered. Lest he should be understood as speaking with some bias as against either Roman Catholics or members of the Church of England, he would go frankly to the position as it now obtained in Wales. There they had their educational authorities overwhelmingly Nonconformist, in some cases overwhelmingly consisting of a particular denomination of Nonconformity. Did anybody suggest that in the ordinary course of things precisely the same thing was not going to happen there? He simply said that for Parliament, by imposing upon these bodies possibilities of this kind of temptation, to let teachers run the risk was not what Parliament ought to do. Then it was suggested, and it was a most cowardly suggestion, but the Press of the country had been primed with it, that if in fact this victimising of the teacher did take place, and if in fact there was this favouritism, there was no suggestion that the Board of Education should come down and exercise disciplinary powers and stop it, but that the teacher must join his or her trade union of the National Union of Teachers in order to get redress. That had never been suggested in the case of Post Office or dockyard officials, and why it was suggested in the case of what was now going to be a body of Civil servants, he did not know. Besides, the National Union of Teachers had its membership among teachers who were fully certificated, and there were 100,000 teachers in the country who were not certificated, and, of course, for the most part those embraced the very assistant teachers, the very young teachers, upon whom this test might be put, and who might be open to the temptation that he had suggested. If this unfortunate Bill should ever get beyond this House he hoped that steps would be taken to see that that possibility at all events was avoided. Those were the things which they were supposed to have obtained, but what had they given in return? They had abandoned the whole position of the Liberal Party argumentatively

447
against the establishment of a State Church. They had at one swoop by this proposal wiped out the whole of the traditions of the Liberationists from 1840 down to now. He endorsed everything that had been said by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment. Only yesterday he went to a meeting of the Welsh Parliamentary Party and implored them, in the face of what was likely to happen next year by the introduction of a Disestablishment Bill, that they would give pause before they lent support to this Bill which cut from under their feet absolutely every argument in principle with which they would have to come to the House and ask for disestablishment next year. For the first time in the history of this country it was proposed to make religious instruction in the schools compulsory. This was a Bill for the establishment and endowment of denominational religion in the council schools and to the extent of contracting-out for the establishment and endowment of denominational religion in the contracting-out schools. The position upon which they of the Liberal and Nonconformist Party had hitherto stood—the position which was reiterated again and again against the compromise in 1870 was this, that it was not within the proper function of the State to teach religion to adults in the Church and that it was not within the proper function of the State to teach religion to the infants in the schools. The right of entry by which they were to get this denominationalism in council schools was a right of entry during school hours. That was not a new proposal, although it was new from a Liberal Government. It was a proposal which was denounced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in terms which justified his asking him to come out—to leave the Government and to fight with them against this monstrous Bill. The language that he had used was perhaps so strong that by Members who were not familiar with the particular words of the right hon. Gentleman, his attitude might perhaps be misunderstood, so he would read the actual words addressed to his constituents. This was what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, and he regretted that
448
he was not in his place to deal with the point—
"They, the Church party, were asking for a right of entry within school hours. He wished to say Nonconformists and Liberals were not going to grant it. If this were proposed, whether by a Conservative or Liberal Government, he desired it to be distinctly understood that he would be in opposition. They might wake up any day and find that they had been given away, and he wished it to be clearly recognised that the party or party leader who would give away the Nonconformists on this question would have to count on their most strenuous opposition in the carrying out of such policy."
As the right hon. Gentleman said, they had been given away, and those who had given them away would have to count on their most strenuous opposition. This right of entry was not a new proposal in itself. Fourteen years ago it was known as the Orpington plan. It was suggested by the then Vicar of Orpington, and well he recollected how vehemently the papers denounced the proposal. He recollected how adroitly "F. C. G." drew cartoons showing the effect of a large number of different denominations making applications for denominational teaching in one of the council schools. They had pictures drawn, which it did not require a great stretch of imagination to realise to-day, of a large number of denominational pens in the main hall of one of the large board schools. One of these pens was labelled "Wesleyan," another "Roman Catholic," and another "Church of England," etc., and then in the midst was a picture of a child that was being claimed by the Baptists, Roman Catholics, Church of England and by representatives of other bodies as belonging to their particular faith. That was a condition of things which, metaphorically speaking, if not physically, would constantly happen under the new regime which would demoralise the whole discipline of school and do much to destroy that delightful esprit de corps, which was the well-spring and life of the school, and to antagonise childhood at a time when it ought not to be antagonised. But it was not merely that the right of entry was given. To his mind the most fraudulent part of this Bill was the line as between contracting-out on the one side and alleged public control on the other.

449
What was the position? The only schools which must contract out were those in single school rural parishes. All the other denominational schools might or might not contract out just as they liked. The question as to whether the Liberals and Nonconformists got much under this Bill, in the way of extended public control, depended entirely upon the extent to which contracting out would be resorted to. What was the position? The contracting out schools were being given 50 per cent. more by way of grant than hitherto. It was notorious that before the Bill of 1902, introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, the cost per scholar of the different voluntary schools was as follows:—Church schools, £2 4s. 11d.; Wesleyan schools, £2 3s. 4d.; Roman Catholic, £2 3s. 1d.; British and other undenominational schools, £2 8s. 11d. That was the cost per child in those schools upon the rates prior to the Act of the right hon. Gentleman passed in 1902. That was taking the whole country, taking the rural with the urban, and what he contended was that with £2 10s. coming in the denomination would be able, if he might say so, to scheme a surplus and use it elsewhere. There seemed to have been such an alacrity on the part of the Liberal Members to get rid of this question that there were some aspects of the Bill which had not yet been frankly put before the country. The right hon. Gentleman, in 1897, introduced a Bill for which he was roundly denounced by Members on that side of the House, and that was the Voluntary Schools Aid Act. No language was strong enough to denounce the proposal that there should be a 5s. dole per child in the voluntary schools, but the right hon. Gentleman safeguarded the giving of that dole by saying that while it was to go to the Associations of Voluntary Schools, it was in fact to be allocated and distributed by the Board of Education in consultation with those associations. Further than that, the right hon. Gentleman was indifferent as to whether it went to a denominational association like the National Schools Society, or to an undenominational association like the British Schools Association. But what did this Bill propose? It proposed that no money at all should go to an association of voluntary schools that did not belong to a denomination, so
450
that the British Schools Association was left outside. It then proposed that £2 10s. or thereabouts per child was to go by way of grant to toe contracted out schools; but what was to happen? There was to be one single association for each denomination over thy whole of England and Wales. In other words, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster's committee would have handed over to them by the Liberal Government a sum of £700,000 of the taxpayers' money each year to be applied and distributed in the unfettered discretion of that body so long as it went to elementary education. It was an abrogation of the financial powers and privileges of this House. There would be a sum, roughly speaking, of £3,500,000 handed over by the Government to the Archbishop of Canterbury's committee, to be applied and distributed in whatever way they liked, subject only to the condition that it must go to elementary education. One knew perfectly well what would happen. That money would be collected and pooled and used for the purpose of opening new schools as against the council schools. This proposal to give, unfettered and unshackled, in a lump sum, to a single denomination, these vast sums was as a knife held to the throat of the council schools, and would render futile the suggestion that they were securing educational peace. It was said that religious teaching was to be made compulsory, that they were to have a new sort of Council of Trent in every district. They would have a Council of Burton-on-Trent in all probability to settle what should be the particular form of religion. Here was a Liberal Government proposing a piece of machinery, claiming to be democratic, suggesting that the persons who might do the mischief should electively be two removes away from the electors. In other words, the whole thing with regard to religion was to be settled by non-elective committees, appointed by, but not necessarily of, the education authority. The education authority, as they all knew, was nominated by the county council, partially consisting of county councillors and town councillors, and partially of outsiders, so that if they got any mischief done, or any feelings outraged, by this religious committee, they must go to the county council, with a view to changing the education authority,

451
with a view to changing the religious committee. The whole thing was fantastic, absurd, and undemocratic to a degree. They were told that this was a compromise, and that it made for a settlement. They were told that something must be done to save the educational reputation of the Government. He thought they had been excessively unwise in proposing this particular something. The difficulties which would be created by this Bill if it became law would be a hundredfold greater than the difficulty which existed at present. There was a great deal of thunder and lightning in the discussions, and there had been for the last few years on this religious wrangle, but after all, what had happened? The Liberals had fired at the Tories, the Baptists had fired at the Roman Catholics, the Church of England parson had fired at the Wesleyan, pulpits had been fired against pulpits, platforms had been fired against platforms, while inside the school there had been not a single sign or semblance of any real religious difficulty. If they passed this Bill into law, what were they going to do? They were going to send the fighting sects, the local leaders of denominations, the warriors of theology, into the very midst of the schools. They were therefore going to bring the religious difficulty inside the schools, and not merely the denominational schools but the council schools also. He. said that that was a crime against the democracy of this country. It was the most wicked thing that had been attempted by any Government against the peoples' schools, and if he had to cut the whole of his political connection, if the Liberal Government had to be sacrificed, then ten thousand times better that they should be sacrificed rather than that the people's schools should be handed over to the proselytising priests of all denominations.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Hutton.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I do not approach this Bill from the point of view of either of the two last speakers. I am in favour of a
452
settlement, but a settlement honourable to both parties. They had another anxiety. They were anxious lest in the settlement arrived at, one of the parties should really get all that he thinks he is getting under the arrangement. I have a similar anxiety. I am not sure that under this arrangement the schools in which I am interested—the Church in which I am interested—will get all the Bill professes to give. I am bound to admit that this Bill is conceived in a very different spirit to its predecessors. As to the demerits of those predecessors I will say nothing. They lie like autumn leaves around the feet of the Government, and, like autumn leaves, I must sweep them away. But this Bill does contain a compromise. It contains a genuine compromise in so far as each party gives up something which he values. I do not think that either side should minimise the sacrifices which the other is called upon to make, and is indeed making. The sacrifice that we are asked for is undoubted and serious. We are asked to surrender the Church schools, the Church schools which at one time were the sole provision for elementary education in the country, the Church schools which in the course of their career have saved hundreds of thousands of pounds to the taxpayers and the ratepayers, schools which have been built, improved, and enlarged on a Parliamentary guarantee that they would always be used for the purposes for which they were built. We are asked to sacrifice these schools in order to meet a grievance which the hon. Member who has just sat down assures us is absolutely unreal, a grievance confined to the platform and to the pulpit, and non-existent in the schools. I did not agree with much of his speech, but I do cordially agree with that particular portion of it. There is no doubt as to the reality of this portion of the Bill. The local authority is no longer to maintain a school which is not provided by itself. The terms are as explicit in the clause as they can be made. I do not propose to touch upon the conditions of transfer now; there is something to be said about them in the Committee stage. I am quite ready to admit that the concessions on the other side are in point of principle considerable. The right of entry involves an invasion of the Cowper-Temple clause which I know is very near to the heart

453
of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the importance of which I recognise as making for peace. The use of the teacher, limited and guarded as it is, is a matter to which I know hon. Gentlemen opposite attach much importance, and in regard to their admission of the contracting-out principle they appear to throw aside, for the benefit of the settlement, almost every educational principle that they have ever laid down. But there is this curious feature about this proposed settlement. We have been privileged from the letters which appeared in yesterday's papers to see not only the result of the negotiations, but the progress of the negotiations themselves. We have read the letters which passed between the Archbishop and the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education. What I am concerned to inquire is, whether the letter of the Bill carries out the spirit of the negotiations. I must touch on some matters in which I think the Bill falls short in this respect. The hon. Member for Morley dwelt at some length on the immense concessions involved in the right of entry. He described how the ministers of denominational religion would have access to the schools, the influence that they would there exercise, and the disaster to un-denominationalism which would everywhere result. I am not quite so sure that the Bill as it stands has the effect which the hon. Member fears. The Archbishop stipulated for "full and effective opportunity in all schools during school hours for giving denominational religious teaching." Have we got it? I notice for one thing that whereas the desire of the parent for undenominational religious teaching may be expressed in any way the parent chooses, as regards denominational teaching his desire must be expressed under conditions and in the form provided and regulated by the Board of Education. I do not quite understand why this difference should exist. Some parents have a conscientious objection to undenominational religious teaching, and why should there not be just as serious provision to meet this objection as there is in regard to denominational teaching? And then I am compelled to ask—Can we trust the Board of Education? I am bound to confess that we have had indications during the last eighteen months that the Board of Education, although
454
entrusted with judicial functions, does not always discharge those functions in a judicial spirit, and we cannot repose that confidence in the Board of Education which we ought to be able to repose in a Government Department. There is another matter which the right hon. Gentleman touched upon. The Archbishop stipulates that religious instruction should be given during school hours. I notice, however, that whereas the undenominational instruction is to be given in the first three-quarters of an hour of the school's meeting, the denominational teaching is to be given between 9 and 9.45 a.m. If this means that it may be pushed out of school hours by some arrangement about the marking of registers, it is worthless. Everybody knows that in dealing with the matter the local authority could so alter the time table as practically to exclude denominational religious teaching from the school hours. We know that proposals have been made in former times by way of adjustment to give religious instruction at times which were not within the school hours, and if the difference between the two sections in phraseology is a real difference, and the intention is to exclude denominational religious teaching from school hours, then I say that the Archbishop's stipulations are not observed, and for my own part I will not accept religious teaching given under those conditions as any satisfaction of the promise made. Then the local authority has to decide whether any and what accommodation is available in the school house for religious teaching. Everyone knows that hostile local authorities can make things uncomfortable for voluntary schools and "schoolhouse" is a term of wide meaning. I have some anxiety lest in some parts of the country no accommodation should be found available in the school building, and lest the teaching may be relegated to some spare bedroom in the teacher's house or to some shed in the playground. That might be a way of meeting the requirements of the clause, but I do not think that it would be a fair way of meeting the spirit of the undertaking which has been given. Then, again, the local education authority have to decide whether they can spare the teacher consistently with the conduct and discipline of the school. I

455
find that there are many ways in which the local authorities may put difficulties in the way of this religious teaching. I gather that one of the difficulties which occurred in the course of the negotiations, and which was only got over after they had continued for some time, was as to the question of local option in. regard to the right of entry—whether they were to allow the local authority to determine if there was to be the right of entry or not, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education, I understand, gave way on that point. I think the drafting of the Bill, and the hurry with which it has necessarily been prepared, may have something to do with it, but I should hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman means that local option over areas, which was withdrawn from local authorities, is to be revived in respect of each individual school. Taking the individual school, they might say that they could not find room, or could not find a teacher to give religious teaching here and there, and in that way the giving of denominational religious teaching might be rendered practically inoperative. I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of bad faith in this matter, but I do point out to him the result of the phraseology of the clause, and that it does not to my mind carry out the terms of the negotiations.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): Will the right hon. Gentleman say what language he has in his mind?
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Clause 3, which says that the local authority shall provide any accommodation which in the "school-house" can be easily made available for denominational instruction, As the Government knows, the term "school-house" is very wide; it means a great deal more than the actual school buildings, and the question whether a place can be easily made available rests with the local authority. In the same way as regards the teacher, in the next subsection, the service of the teacher shall not be withheld by the local authority—
"Unless the local authority has satisfied the Board of Education that the services of the
456
teacher are required for the general conduct of the school."
MR. ASQUITH: The point I am asking about is with regard to the particular school when the right of entry might be refused.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: My point is this. Although local option was annulled in regard to the area, it might as the Bill is worded, be revived in respect of each individual school, and so we should get back to the original condition of things. Unless the right of entry is genuine there is no consideration for that great surrender which we are to make. Then there follows the contracting-out, which I should have thought was equally unacceptable to both sides of the House. Contracting out violates the principle of popular control. Contracting out admits tests of any severity to be imposed on the; teacher. Contracting out practically is a frank endowment of denominational education as plain and obvious as the endowment of the Roman Catholic University, without all the silly make-believe with which we amused ourselves of forbidding tests, chapels, and other things wholly immaterial in respect to the practical result of the measure. As a matter of principle, I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have strongly objected to contracting-out. Educationally, I regard contracting-out as retrograde, partly because it defeats the aims which we put before us—co-ordination in local areas—by the withdrawal of the contracting-out school from the authority of the local education committee, and because financially it will be difficult to keep these schools, on the terms given in the Bill, even as they now stand, up to the average and capacity for progress of the other school. I note that these terms are final, and that, although the education may become more costly and other schools may be more largely assisted out of the rates, no provision is made by way of a sliding scale for an increase of the grants to these schools. Consequently, these schools, disadvantageous as would be their present position under the Bill compared with other schools, five years

457
hence may be in a state so backward and exhausted that the whole situation will have to be revised. If I thought that this was the last word of the Government on these provisions I should oppose the Bill at this stage. But the Prime Minister the other day said to my noble friend the Member for the Chichester division, in answer to a question, that this matter might be reconsidered in Committee, and I do earnestly hope that during the Committee stage, short as will be the time allowed for the consideration of the measure, some better mode may be found of dealing with what I may call homogeneous schools in which the entire child population is of one religion, and no danger or inconvenience would be caused to anybody by recognition of that fact. Now I come to the points in the Bill which appeal to me. I feel strongly that a great deal is gained by the provision of religious instruction within these schools by the necessary setting apart of three-quarters of an hour of the school day for religious instruction for all those whose parents desire it. I also attach a great deal of importance to the introduction of this committee of religious instruction whose duties I should like to see extended not merely to the preparation of a syllabus but to the control and management of the mode in which the teaching is given. But as the Bill stands I feel that this provision raises this sort of teaching above the level of what the Leader of the Opposition, has very aptly described as municipal Christianity. It takes this syllabus outside purely local control and entrusts it to bodies of various religious denominations who will enter seriously upon their inquiries, I hope with excellent results. Then the introduction of the right of entry does to my mind import this on the part of the leaders of my Church that they recognise a responsibility for the children in the council schools as they have recognised responsibility in the past for the children in the Church schools. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for the Morley division expatiate on the energy and success with which denominational religious teaching would be given under the right of entry. Many doubts and anxieties have been expressed as to
458
whether the right of entry is worth anything. From my point of view the right of entry will be worth whatever the Church chooses to make of it. I have that confidence in the members of the Church to which I belong to believe that they will not allow this opportunity to pass by them of securing that the Church children in the Council schools should have that teaching which will make them understand that they are members of a community up to whose standard of religious life they must endeavour to live. I should like to press upon those who think this right of entry is worth little, this consideration, that the voluntary schools are diminishing in number, that the council schools now provide accommodation for the greater number of the children in school attendance, that new schools are relatively few in number. If you look at the yearly statistics of the Board of Education you see some Church schools closed, some transferred, and comparatively few new schools built. I should not like to lose the opportunity of getting access to the Church children in the Council schools which is offered by this Bill. My own desire as regards this religious question has always been that Christain teaching should be available for every child and special religious teaching for every child whose parents desire it, and the Bill with its many defects moves in this direction. So far as my own attitude to the Bill is concerned, much must depend on what happens during the next few days. I speak only for myself I will be no party to an unreal settlement nor to a settlement which leaves any large section of the community in a position financially and educationally deplorable. But I see a hope, however faint, I see a chance, though it may be remote, of an honourable settlement of this question which has for so many years hampered our educational system and embittered our religious and political divisions. I know it is impossible to go any way in this matter without differing from friends whose opinion one regards, and yet that hope, however faint, I will not relinquish, and that chance, however remote, I will not forego, and with this hope in my heart I propose with all reservations to vote for the Second Reading.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he rose thus early in the debate because he had been asked by his colleagues to state the Catholic view. He recognised at a very early date that this was a measure which would have behind it an amount of strength which was not at the disposal of any previous Minister for Education. Indeed, if he were disposed to comment upon the ironies of politics he would certainly have abundant opportunity in some incidents even of this debate, apart altogether from the provisions of the Bill. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the Success which he had attained, a success largely due to his own skill, and at the same time he felt inclined to contrast his position and his fortunes with those of, the Chief Secretary for Ireland when endeavouring to make a settlement of this education question. He could not help making the comment that if the same consideration had been given to the Chief Secretary's Bill as was properly given to this the former Bill might now have been on the Statute-book, and in his opinion that Bill was from every point of view, from the point of view of religious liberty and still more from the point of view of educational efficiency, a far better settlement, at least from the Catholic point of view, than this. He knew the Bill would have a great deal of force behind it, partly because of the stage of exhaustion which this controversy had reached, but still more because when they came to the compromise in English politics they came on a racial instinct against which it was almost impossible for any man—especially a man of a. logical mind—to make any successful attack. So far as the settlement between the contending creeds and parties of this country was concerned he had nothing to say. He would welcome any peace among them which was accepted by all or most sections of opinion. His business was with this Bill as it affected the particular communion which he represented. From that point of view the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman was a slight improvement on the Bill of the First Lord of the Admiralty, but except for that it was as bad a settlement from their point of view as any that could be proposed. The settlement was bad for these reasons. He was not a Member of the Liberal Party, but
460
there was no man in that House who held more strongly what he regarded as the essential principles of Liberalism, and he was entitled to test the Bill from that point of view. Secondly, he had always approached the question as one which ought to be regarded largely, if not supremely, from the educational point of view, and the demand from that point of view was even stricter in the case of a. man in his position for the reason that he represented a particular class of the community which was least able to pay for education and at the same time was most in need of it. He did not claim to speak to any degree for English Catholics. The noble Lord on the front Opposition bench was in a much better position to do that. He dared say the noble Lord would make some ironical reflections also on the finance of the Bill as compared with the Bill of the Chief Secretary. But if the noble Lord and his friends could have induced themselves to support the Bill of the Chief Secretary in its ultimate shape they would not be face to face now with an inferior settlement of the question. He personally examined the Bill from the point of view of Liberal principles. The hon. Member for Morley represented views with which he found it far more difficult to quarrel than with the right hon. Gentleman's statement. The hon. Member was frankly in favour of the secular solution. He (Mr. O'Connor) did not think the secular solution was one which any Government could propose in the present state of opinion in this country. He did not know that the state of opinion would ever come when the secular solution would be accepted, and certainly any Minister who would propose any such solution at that moment would wreck both himself and his proposals. At the same time the secular solution had one great thing to be said in its favour. He would not say it was logical, because that apparently was rather a term of opprobrium to apply to any proposal in the House. He said it was good because it was consistent and it was fair all round. It established no form of religious teaching of one communion over another, it excluded with equal justice and with absolute equality every form whatever of religious instruction, and if Protestants were willing to accept that exclusion

461
Catholics could make no particular complaint: they got no worse treatment than any other body. But was that the description of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman? What was the proposal with regard to religious instruction? Religious instruction was now made practically universal, practically compulsory, and practically of one type. He knew, of course, there was a conscience clause and certain forms of local option committees that might frame one kind of syllabus or another, but these were minor distinctions. The broad fact was that in every public elementary school in this country supported out of taxes and rates there would be practically the same form of religious instruction. Some people had gone the length already of describing this as a new form of religious establishment. The seconder of the Amendment asked with some force and logic how could he be asked next year to vote for disestablishment in Wales when his own friends were establishing a new form of religious creed in the schools of the country. The President of the Board of Education would be entitled to reply that this was not sectarianism because it did not answer to what he and his friends regarded as sectarian. He had tried to find a definition of sectarianism as understood by the right hon. Gentleman and those with whom he acted. He found that it did not exclude all forms of religious teaching. According to the Nonconformist definition religious teaching should cover all the common principles of all Protestant communions. That was a fair definition. Furthermore, sectarianism was objected to by the party opposite when the doctrines of any particular religion were taught by the ministers of that communion to the children of that body and other communions as well. Let him apply that fair definition to this Bill. Could the Catholic schools be brought under the definition of sectarian? A Catholic school was homogeneous and it was not Protestant. It did not teach its Catholic doctrines to other children than Catholic. There were some Protestant children in Catholic schools, but by this Bill Catholic schools were almost invited to exclude Protestant children from their teaching. Although there were Protestant children in Catholic schools there had never been one authenticated case of a Protestant child
462
being proselytised in a Catholic school. For a moment he would apply the definition he had given of sectarianism to the teaching which the right hon. Gentleman's Bill would make the universal practice. It might be unsectarian between Protestant and Nonconformist, but he declined to regard it as unsectarian as between Protestant and Catholic. In introducing a previous Bill the right hon. Gentleman said that what the country wanted was a Protestant settlement in a Protestant land. When the right hon. Gentleman established in those schools what he described as unsectarian Christianity he was bound to admit in candour that it was sectarian from the Catholic point of view. What position did they come to? That what a Catholic regarded as sectarian teaching was being established in all the public schools of the country, and those schools were being supported out of the rates and taxes. The Protestant Nonconformist passive resister preferred to go to jail rather than to pay 1d. towards what he regarded as sectarian teaching, and if there was one form of that teaching which he declined to support it was the sectarian teaching in the Catholic schools. That point of view had been summed up in a not very happy or courteous phrase, "Rome on the rates." Unfortunately Rome was on the rates, for he had never found that his rates were not demanded, and the same applied to the other members of the communion to which he belonged. He was bound to pay his rates, including the school rate, for the teaching of that form of Protestant doctrine which was as much proselytism to him as the most prominent doctrine of any single one of the Protestant communities. He could if he wished make quotation after quotation containing strong statements made by Welsh Nonconformists in favour of this view. There was a notable speech made by one of the hon. Members from Wales at a previous stage of this educational controversy. It was made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, who said that if the Nonconformists once gave up the doctrine that the State should have nothing to do with religion whatever or any form of religious teaching; if it gave up that doctrine and accepted Cowper-Templeism, or any other form of doctrine like that, they had no logical

463
answer to the Catholic that his religious teaching had the same right to use the rates and taxes. That was the result of his examination of the question from the point of view of what he conceived to be Liberal principles. He would approach the question now from what, after all, was the strongest ground, and that was the educational point of view. Was there a single man in any part of the House who would say that the contracted-out school could ever be in a position of equality with a public school? Was there a single hon. Member opposite who would make that proposition? Could a school with a grant minus the use of the rates ever approach to the same educational level as a school which had the grant plus the rates? When he came to educational efficiency, that covered a large field. He would begin with the teachers. It was a remarkable fact in regard to contracting-out that not a single teacher or teachers' organisation in the world had ever said a word in favour of it. He could quote speech after speech on this matter, and he was not going to quote the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty although it was a very powerful one, and perhaps the hon. Member would repeat it himself.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Dr. MACNAMARA,)said perhaps the hon. Member would forgive him when he said that notwithstanding those views the hon. Member voted for contracting-out when it was moved by the hon. Member for Preston.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he would answer that by an observation once made by the Leader of the Opposition who, on being asked whether he preferred to be hanged or drowned, said he preferred to be drowned, although he had no great desire to be drowned. He would like to make a quotation from a speech made by the President of the Annual Conference of the National Union of Teachers, held at Hastings, in which he said—
"This provision for contracting-out is about the worst possible solution that could been have found. It is dead against the best educational interests of the children who will be taught in contracted-out schools; if such a provision should ever become law it would deal the
464
severest blow to the progress of popular education which it is possible to conceive, and it is diametrically opposed to our fundamental proposition that every child of the State has a claim to the provision by the State of equal opportunities for secular education."
What would happen? This was educational retrogression, and that retrogression was made more intolerable because it followed a period of educational progress. Before the Act of 1902 Catholic schoolmasters were wretchedly paid, and were in a vastly inferior position to the teachers all over the country. They had got out of that land of bondage, and the Government were now proposing to put them back again. In obedience to pressure from the Education Department nearly all the fabrics of the Catholic schools had been revolutionised. He remembered very well the state of these schools before the Act of 1902. There were several Catholic schools in the Scotland division of Liverpool, and he was constantly being appealed to in regard to the decisions of Mr. Acland, who was then Minister of Education. One of the complaints which he used to bring before Mr. Acland was in regard to alterations in the size of the schools. The school inspector had pointed out that there were seventy or eighty children cooped up in a small hall and taught by one teacher. The demand of the education authority was that there should be more than one teacher, and that there should be two or three halls instead of one. Mr. Acland used to say: "How can you honestly ask me not to insist on these reforms in schools in the Scotland division?" He had no answer but that the people in his division were dockers, and others with precarious occupations and small wages, and that they had to equip these schools out of their small resources. There were many parts of the Act of 1902 which he condemned at the time and still condemned, but he asked the House to note the dilemma in which these schools were to be placed six years after the passing of the measure. The fabrics of the schools had been got out of their inefficient conditions, and now they were to be put back—
MR. BYLES: Have you forgotten the increased grants?
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the hon. Member might allow him to make his speech. There was no power on earth by which a school with a grant but minus rate aid could be put in a position other than one of educational inferiority. If they had in London a few years ago a Catholic school with, say, eighty children and one teacher in one room, they had now two or three teachers, and three or four rooms. That school would be put back under the proposals in this Bill. The Catholic school was to be no longer a part of the national system of the country. Catholics, who always demanded to be put on the national system, were to be excluded from it. He thought they were perfectly entitled to ask that their religious convictions should be respected and that their schools should be admitted to the national system. They did not want the schools, because they were Catholic, to be removed from the atmosphere sentiment. It was possible for one to be strongly denominational without being a bigot, and if Catholics were excluded from the national sentiment, they were excluded from one of the most beneficent influences in the system of education. This was not the time to go into details in regard to the increase of the grant; they would do so on the Committee stage. If the calculations given to him were sound, they proved that Catholics would lose £35,000 a year in London and £130,000 a year in the country. He knew the right hon. Gentleman disputed that, but it was a matter which would be discussed at a later stage. But if that was true, was not that an answer to the hon. Member for Salford, who asked if he had forgotten the grants? What was the use of an increased grant, if it left them in a position of inferiority or did not remove the inferiority? As had been stated, the whole tendency in connection with education had been to increase expenditure. He did not find fault with that; he admired and approved of it. He thought the more money they spent on education the better it would he for the nation. Therefore, the tendency in the public schools would be to increase expenditure, and as the expenditure increased the wider would be the chasm between them and the contracted-out schools. The whole tendency of
466
the Bill, therefore, if it became law in its present form, would be to make the inferiority of the Catholic schools more marked. On what class of the community was this badge of inferiority to come? It was to come on the class which could least afford to be so treated. The Irish Catholic people in this country were engaged in the most drudgery, ill-paid, and unhealthy occupations, but they were to get less for education, he supposed, than the people of other races and creeds. That was not the whole grievance. These people who would not get a penny of rate aid from their schools because of their sectarian Catholic teaching, would be compelled to contribute to the rate-aided schools which were Protestant. He spoke with some feeling on this question. It was among the Irish of England, Scotland and Wales that his political life had been spent. It was on their behalf that he made an appeal to this House—the tragic figures of Irishmen cast without trained minds and hands on the shores of this country, condemned to live in slums and alleys, and to work in chemical works, at gas retorts, and at docks. He was glad that the Government had declared that this Bill was not their last word on the question. He hoped, to use the language of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the means of goodwill and toleration all round would yet be found by which the Catholic school could form part of the national settlement, and that it would be put in a position of educational equality instead of inferiority. The right hon. Gentleman described his Bill a few months ago as a Protestant settlement demanded by a Protestant nation. It was a Protestant settlement mainly asked by a Protestant land, but in describing it as a Protestant settlement he gave it, from the Catholic point of view, both its epitome and its condemnation.
SIR GEORGE WHITEsaid the hon. Member for the Scotland division always presented his case in the most able and most liberal way in which it could be presented—perhaps more liberally than some of the other representatives of his Church might present it. He had always felt that in this Protestant country the Catholic

467
case was an extremely difficult one to deal with if justice was to be done all round. The demand was made that they should have Catholic schools for Catholic children, taught by Catholic teachers, at the public expense. He submitted that that demand could not in that form be met by a community such as that for which an Education Bill like this provided. Therefore he was not disposed to follow his hon. friend in the pathetic appeal he made with so much power. At the same time he was bound to point out that when he claimed that his Church had been worse used in connection with the principle of contracting out than other Churches, he had enunciated a statement for which there was no ground. It seemed to him that when the principle of contracting out was adopted by either the Anglican or the Catholic Church, both Churches would be treated on an equal basis. It was a question of finance which could be better debated in Committee, and, therefore, he did not propose to follow the argument which the hon. Member had put before the House. Whatever the opinions they might hold in regard to this Bill, he thought the House was to be congratulated upon the able manner in which the opposition to it had been presented by his hon. friend the Member for the Morley division. The House had the advantage of hearing from him the best that could be said on behalf of those who opposed the measure. He wished he could compliment the seconder in the same way, but the gross extravagances in which he indulged, and the innuendoes he threw out, really vitiated the good points in his argument. The hon. Member said he had the greatest pain in opposing the Government, but it seemed to him as the hon. Member progressed that he was in a state of great happiness and delight in being able to oppose the Bill. He himself had to ask the indulgence of the House, because he had to occupy a position somewhat foreign to that which he usually occupied on this question. It had not been natural to him to be a party to, or to help forward, compromises. He confessed that it would be at this moment more congenial to his natural man to stand side by side with his hon. friend the Member for the Morley division and those who were
468
vigorously attacking the Bill. It would not only be more congenial, but it would be a great deal easier for him to take that position. [OPPOSITION cheers]. Yea, for the simple reason that it was always very much easier to pull down than to build. But, after thirty-five years of public educational work he had reached certain conclusions, and one of these was that he should never get his ideal except by instalments. He accepted this Bill because it brought him nearer, though only to a small degree, to his ideal as to education, but as a citizen he could not find in it the basis of a final settlement. It was evident from what was said by the mover and seconder of the Amendment that they had made great concessions. As he listened to those speeches he thought that they would do a great deal to convert Members opposite to support the Government on this occasion, for he ventured to say that no stronger speeches against the Bill would be made than those. They had to make concessions in the interests of education. He differed very seriously from the statement that no advance had been made in favour of education in this Bill. But in. the interests of peace in the country and in this House they tried to agree to some settlement which did not vitiate the principles to which he, and those who agreed with him, had a life-long attachment. To whatever charge of inconsistency which might be levelled against him his answer was that in supporting this Bill he would be serving the interests of the children, and through the children the nation at large. As he had said, it was much more easy to break down than to build up; and if by any combination of votes in this House the Amendment could be carried, and his hon. friend the Member for Morley were placed in the position of Minister for Education which his great talents fitted him to occupy, and if he were to bring in a Bill based on his ideal of education, he appealed to him with his experience of the House whether he could pass such a Bill even here, to say nothing of the reception it would meet with in another place. Even the withdrawn Bill might be opposed on much the same grounds as this Bill was opposed by the hon. Gentleman.

469
But in that event, not an inch would be moved as a result of the attitude which his hon. friends had taken. That was the situation in which they were placed; and which they had to face. Did his hon. friends think that he liked the situation? Far from it, he did not like to stand where he did. [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear."] He must be frank with the House. He did not like to stand in that place and advocate the passing of a measure which contained some things with the principle of which he totally disagreed. He was not there to defend the Bill per se, but he was prepared to defend it, or most of it, as what he might call an emergency proposal for securing what he thought were the immediate demands for a settlement of the education question. He had friends who were quite willing to admit the principle of compromise, but the moment they were asked what they were willing to concede, it was found that they would concede nothing whatever that was of any value to the other side. Holding that principle one should not enter into a compromise at all; but when once he admitted that the situation was such as demanded an earnest consideration for a compromise he must admit that he must concede something which he was unwilling to give up, but which he gave up only because he considered the interests at stake were greater than the things which he was willing to concede. He was not sacrificing any fundamental principle. He was not a peace-at-any-price man. There were unfortunately many in the House, and thousands outside it, who were willing to settle this question on any terms in order to get rid of it; but he affirmed what had often been affirmed before, that there were some defeats more honourable than victories. He had been in a minority before, and therefore if he felt that the proposals in this Bill were as disastrous as had been described by his hon. friends, he would be compelled to vote against the Government, much as he respected their action in this matter. But he examined the position from a totally different standpoint from that taken by the mover and seconder of the Amendment. He started with the belief that an agreement was possible, and that if it were possible,
470
then it was wise under the circumstance to make that agreement. His hon. friends started with an ideal Bill in their minds, which would contain all that they believed was necessary for a national system of education, and they demanded that such a Bill should be presented by the Government to which they were attached. Having that ideal Bill in their minds they contrasted it with that of the Government, and found in the latter may defects and grievous errors. That was the ground of their opposition to it; they must have their own Bill or nothing. His hon. friend the Member for Morley had spoken of the old Nonconformist position on this matter. What was it? Up to 1870, the Nonconformists took the position that education should not be undertaken by the State; because religion was an essential part of education, and as the State could not, in their judgment, lawfully give religious instruction, therefore the State could not give education at all. That was the principle firmly held by the old Nonconformists. But circumstances were too strong for the principle. They found that by adhering to that principle thousands and tens of thousands of children were growing up in the grossest ignorance, and therefore, they had to forego their choicest and dearest principle in order to save the State from the enormous amount of ignorance that was growing up in and around it. He asked his friends who took the position which they did to-day to consider that the circumstances now were somewhat analogous to those in 1870. They might and could demonstrate that their position was logical, but he contended that as before 1870 the circumstances were too strong for the logical position of the old Nonconformist?, so the circumstances of to-day were too strong for the logical position of his hon. friends. They ignored the existence of a large number of Church schools, and they also ignored the influence of the power in another place to prevent any real system of national education becoming law. He did not say that an idealist was always inadmissable. As an irresponsible citizen it was delightful to hear what he said. He influenced the public mind, and to a certain extent

471
the mind of the Government. Therefore he rejoiced that there were idealists amongst them. He found no fault with the idealist at all; he had occupied that position himself many a time; hut he was not a statesman, or expected to be called one. However, they could not have legislation such as his hon. friends desired, and, therefore, they must take the nearest obtainable approach to it as they could get, by accepting an agreed scheme such as was now before them. They must regard the interests of the children of the nation as paramount in this matter; and if they could get this religious question, as he believed they could largely, out of the way by this compromise they should all rejoice. It was only because of their pessimistic views that his hon. friends were led to take up the position they had done that day. What would they get under this arrangement? They got all the schools transferred to the various local authorities. His hon. friends had often discoursed about the value of free rural schools; he regarded the freeing of the rural schools as one of the greatest and most essential features of this Bill, as it was one of the features of the withdrawn Bill. The clergy had to a large extent regarded these rural schools as part of their Church work, and therefore they had taken control in their administration. That had often grated on the consciences and the happiness of those who lived in rural districts. He was not throwing a stone at the clergy for that, because from their point of view they were justified. But now that the nation paid the expenses of the schools, these schools could not exist any longer in their old condition. The late Archbishop of Canterbury saw further on this question than any of his colleagues when he declared that rate aid for these schools would ultimately bring them under public control. Therefore, while it might be said, on the one hand, that they were falling in with Lord Salisbury's dictum, and allowing the schools to be captured by the Church, there was another side to the question, and that was that they were now under this Bill evolving the prophecy of the late Archbishop of Canterbury when he said that to transfer the payments for
472
these schools so that they came out of the rates must ultimately result in complete local control. He would remind those who were deeply interested in the rural districts of one or two consequences that followed these schools coming under local control. They had objected to Nonconformists being kept off the teaching staff of the schools, but now all teachers were to be appointed by the local authority, and consequently the Nonconformists would stand, for the first time in those districts, on the same footing as the Anglican or the members of any other Church. Village shopkeepers, and others, therefore, who looked to school teaching as one of the avenues for their children would, without any difficulty, be able to have that avenue opened. The county council would have complete control of these schools, and there would be in all of them, as he understood it, simple Bible-teaching on all days of the week, with denominational teaching for those children whose parents required it. They would therefore have, for the first time, the whole of the elementary schools in this nation, except the contracted-out schools, placed upon one footing, and that, he believed, was one of the conditions that the Leader of the Opposition said he was always anxious to see secured. Then there was the appointment of all the teachers, which, surely, was a great advantage. They had argued again and again that for any denominational body of people to appoint teachers, for which the people of the country had to pay, was an anomaly which ought to be abolished. It was abolished from this time, and after this Bill passed they would have no rates for denominational teaching. This was one of the recommendations, he said most unhesitatingly, which induced him to support this Bill. He knew the passive resister had been laughed at, and he would be laughed at again, but he also knew that there were thousands of poor ministers in this country who had been passive resisters from the first, and had paid their last shilling to discharge the claim which was made upon them through a Police Court, who would not receive financial assistance in their troubles and would go on passively resisting while the

473
present Act remained in force. Whatever might be their principles, he said that these men deserved consideration at the hands of legislators, because, while perhaps 100,000 had been passive resisters, there were many more thousands of men who had believed in the same principle, if they had not seen their way to defend it on the same lines. His hon. friends had not attempted to show how the pledges for which they voted at the general election were violated by this Bill. He contended that when he claimed to be a supporter of popular control, of the abolition of tests, and the prevention of denominational teaching being paid out of the rates—he contended that they had secured those three things by this Bill, and if they had, surely something had been gained. He knew his hon. friends had laboured to show that a great deal more had been given than had been gained, but when both sides were charged with having sold the pass, as, in fact, they were charged in connection with this measure, there must be some confusion somewhere, and he would leave those who charged both sides with having sold the pass to settle it between themselves. It had been attempted to be shown that they had given everything, and got nothing. That depended upon which side of the shield they cared to look at. He could understand a state submitting the adjustment of its frontiers to arbitration, and on one side of the country they relinquished their hold upon thirty square miles of territory, and on the other side they got sixty square miles. Of course, if they only looked at what was going on the one side they might say that a great tactical stretch of country had been abandoned, and great advantages given away. That was because they simply looked at the one side and not the other, and when his hon. friends replied that that was nothing at all, the rights belonged to them before the arbitration began, he submitted that when one went to arbitration, they had to consider things as they stood at the moment, and could not put in any predetermined rights in order to establish their claim to a greater share of the spoil. What he felt was that if they argued as might be argued that they had gained everything and given up nothing, then they set an example of
474
cupidity to the other side. Each side in the interests of peace had conceded what was necessary and nothing more than was necessary to get this compromise through, and he thought it could be shown that the party for which he stood had given some things which were a very great advantage to the other side, but still they were things about which no great principle was concerned. He thought they had done what was right and just, and he was sure that those who had carried on the negotiations for the other side had acted in the same spirit. It was regarded as a very serious question that the right of entry had been conceded, but that depended very largely upon the way in which it was conceded, and the spirit in which it was used. He thought the spirit in which this concession was going to be used very largely depended upon whether it was going to be a permanent part of the settlement. Of course, there were some things in the Bill which he had not seen or known, and for which perhaps the draftsman might be responsible. There were one or two things which he did not fully understand, but he was content to wait until they got closer in discussion of the details of this Bill in Committee. They included the way in which the Cowper-Temple teaching was arranged, which he thought was likely to be misunderstood, as he understood it, that teaching was to go on practically as it did in all the schools at the present moment. Then the question of regulations as to parents might well have a little more elucidation, and the question of fees was another matter, though it was not a matter of principle, upon which he should like to have some fresh light. Something ought also to be said on the power to apply the new contracting-out clause. Following the example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite the late President of the Board of Education, might he give a final word of caution to his friends. He hoped that they would all feel that the principles of this agreement must be adhered to, and that no attempts must be made, either here or elsewhere, to enlarge those principles upon any points which they might relatively consider essential to the settlement. Some of them had it on their consciences—

475
he used the expression cautiously, because he knew what the Nonconformist conscience was considered to be by some hon. Gentlemen—but they had had their consciences considerably on the rack, in regard to some of the proposals which had been conceded to the other side, and, therefore, when he said that the utmost limits of concession had been conceded by those for whom he had the honour to speak, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would understand him. If they were to have war at any time, he would rather have war with a foreign Power than he would have a civil war in his own community, and he spoke with all seriousness when he said it would be a great misfortune if any attempt were made to enlarge this settlement on any essential principles. He would point out, in conclusion, that those who were opposing this Bill did so because they desired a secular solution. [Cries of "No."] He was speaking for his own side of this House, and he also thought that members of the Labour Party believed that the secular solution was the only one in regard to this question. He noticed that the very loud cheers which his right hon. friend the Member for Islington gave during the speeches of the mover and seconder showed that he concurred in all that they expressed.
MR. LOUGH: Not in favour of secularism.
SIR GEORGE WHITEsaid he did not mean in favour of secularism, but in regard to other matters, but he could not forget the great assiduity with which his right hon. friend tried to convert him and others to the views which were expressed in another place in regard to the Bill of the Chief Secretary, and although he could get up and charge him with inconsistency, he could remind him that that was a game that they could both play at, for if he was seduced from the paths of virtue on that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman was one of the chief agents in bringing that about. He had received the testimony of men largely engaged in the administration of education, and they had given a large amount of encouragement, and that had
476
more than counterbalanced the letters of other kinds that he had received from some of his closest friends. But, whatever the result of this controversy, he should feel that he had taken his present position in what he regarded as the interests of peace and for the dismissal of strife. Remembering that the Bill was opposed by those who believed in secular education, he wanted to ask those Gentlemen to define what they meant by secular education, because he had no doubt he would agree with a great many of them. He desired no religious teaching in the school but such as was got from the simple reading of the Bible, which he believed to be a Book of Divine origin, and he thought it should be its own witness in the schools. Therefore, he had no doubt that with a large number of so-called secularists he was at one, but he felt that the position was one that now merited a reasonable conference to see whether there were not some terms of agreement. He believed those terms had been found on a fair basis. He had had many more congenial tasks in his lifetime, but never one which he was more satisfied that a sense of duty called him to fulfil. He should make no complaint of those friends of his who had taken an antagonistic view to his own, but he appealed to them not to aggravate the situation by exaggeration such as was indulged in by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment. He need only refer to one remark, when he said that the Archbishop of Canterbury would have £3,500,000 to distribute if the Bill became law. Nothing could be further from the truth. That was not the way in which to arrive at a conclusion. If hon. Members desired to prevent the Bill passing, he did not think that that was the way either, for a well-reasoned speech like that of the hon. Member for Morley carried much more conviction.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was reminded by the debate of an old legal story. A certain judge was sitting with two learned brethren who differed from one another and he contented himself by saying that he agreed with his learned brother on the right for the reasons given by his learned brother on the left. He

477
found himself inclined to follow the conclusions of the hon. Member for Morley, being largely moved thereto by the arguments of the hon. Member for Norfolk, who took, much more nearly than the hon. Member for Morley, the view of the effect of the Bill which seemed to him to be accurate. The Bill had been recommended to them as a treaty of peace, and hon. Members who had spoken all professed to be in favour of peace. Certainly he was. There was no one in the House who, for personal as well as political grounds, was more in favour of peace than he was. But when he was asked to support the Bill on the ground that it was to be a treaty of peace, he found it rather difficult to accept that contorting belief when he reflected that it was violently opposed by the National Union of Teachers, by a large section of the Nonconformists, he believed by the Jewish community, and chiefly and particularly by his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. That fact alone would make it impossible for him to support this measure. He did not think he would be justified as a Member of Parliament in voting for any measure which the Roman Catholic community said, with every appearance of reason, offended their conscientious convictions. He did not assent to one observation of the hon. Member for the Scotland division, viz., that the failure of the 1906 Bill was due to the action of the English Roman Catholics. That appeared to him to be a travesty of history.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: That was one of the factors.
LORD R. CECILsaid the real and immediate cause was the action of the Liberal Government in declining to consider the Amendments of the House of Lords. This Bill had many aspects, but he did not propose to say anything, for instance, about the money provisions, the provisions for the rent of schools. They were, of course, quite inadequate from his point of view, and he admitted that he looked with some anxiety to the position in which he and others would be placed, who had recommended people to spend in the last two or three years large sums of money in order to meet the requirements of the Education Depart-
478
ment, and who would now have to tell them that, by the action of Parliament, they would get about a fifth or a sixth of the money they had expended. He understood that that did not trouble the episcopal conscience, but the working of the episcopal mind he confessed he had some difficulty in following. Nor did he propose to say anything about the curious provisions in one of the clauses of the Bill establishing a religious instruction committee. He understood that that was a thing which could be done at present, and as far as he could see it was either absolutely superfluous or, if it was going to force a committee upon a local authority and compel them to send to a committee, it might be of contending divines, all their proposals for religious instruction, then he thought it was not only superfluous but pernicious. He desired to come to what seemed to him to be the real question to consider, and that was: what security was there that denominational teaching would continue to be an integral part of the education of this country? He knew that hon. Members opposite regarded that as a merely sectarian question. They were entitled to their opinion; but it was not his. He did not regard the maintenance of denominational teaching as important in any degree because it would favour this or that Church. He did not believe that it did so, and he did not care about it if it did. That was not his object. In his judgment, it was futile to expect that they could have any real chance of preserving Christian teaching—real, effective Christian teaching—except through the medium of a denomination. He asked the House to consider whether it had ever been done in the whole eighteen or nineteen centuries of Christianity. Was there any instance that had ever occurred of effective Christian teaching that had not been connected with some religious body? It was quite clear that in dealing with the schools there must be some. What chance was there that a boy would continue to be a definite and sincere and active Christian, unless he had become allied to some religious body or another? It seemed to him to be a question whether they wished to make Christian teaching a part of their education or not. If so, surely they must

479
teach Christianity effectively. Therefore, he denied that this was in any important sense a sectarian question. It was a religious question. They constantly heard it said that they should get rid of this question and go back to the true interests of education. That was an antithesis which he rejected with all the emphasis that he could. It was an absurdity to put the religious and educational questions as in opposition to one another. Their education was absolutely valueless, from the point of view, he believed, of the enormous majority of the people of this country, unless it was founded upon religion, and to say that they could get rid of the religious question and go back to the true interests of education, was to misunderstand the issue before them. Holding those views, he had to consider what was the theory on which this Bill was based. It had been stated with great frankness by the Minister for Education, who said that the normal religious teaching was to be undenominational, that denominational teaching was intended to be exceptional, and be was not sure that he might not add, although the right hon. Gentleman did not say so, temporary. He thought that according to the scheme of the Bill, it was also to be temporary.
MR. RUNCIMAN: There is no intention of that kind in the Bill at all. The bargain is to be a permanent bargain.
LORD R. CECILsaid he did not mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman contemplated an amending Act, but when he considered all the provisions which applied only to existing voluntary schools, for instance, and when he took the single instance which only allowed the existing voluntary school head teacher to give religious teaching and put a limit of five years even to that permission, then he thought the idea of the Bill seemed to be that the denominational teaching was to be an excrescence which was gradually to diminish and eventually to disappear. When they came to look at the machinery by which it was proposed to be kept alive, they had first of all the contracting-out. He was quite content to take the view of the Minister for Education, who said that they had got to provide for those
480
who conscientiously desired a denominational school. Therefore, though they were not entitled to kill them altogether, they seemed to think there was nothing wrong in slowly starving them. This attitude reminded him a good deal of the old view that the Ecclesiastical Courts were not entitled to execute because they were not allowed to shed blood, though they could order persons to be burned to death. He thought they were entitled to ask what kind of equality was provided for the denominational as compared with the undenominational teaching. There was no equality of payment; there was not to be equality of choice; the children were to get undenominational teaching unless they specially demanded denominational. Therefore, it was clear that all the children were to have undenominational teaching. It was only if their parents were sufficiently conversant with the terms of the Act to know the steps to be taken, and if they took those steps, that the children would get denominational teaching. That was really the vital part of the whole Bill. It was useless to make provisions of this kind unless they also made provisions for the schools having adequate staffs. They did not get any head teachers in the denominational council schools and only got them temporarily in the voluntary schools. He would be very much surprised if that was regarded as a satisfactory arrangement. What did that mean? It meant that the head teacher was debarred from giving that instruction which the assistant teachers would be allowed to impart. Was it in accordance with human nature to suppose that the head teacher would be in favour of any form of teaching being given which he was unable to give? Of course, he would not. He would discourage it in every way he could. Nor had they any right to any assistant teachers. It depended on whether they volunteered. They had no means of securing their appointment; nor had they any security that there would be any teachers who were qualified to give the teaching. It was one of the chief claims of the promoters of the Bill that there was to be no test of the qualifications of teachers who were to give this denominational teaching. He did not see how it was possible for them to imagine or

481
hope that denominational teaching on those terms was going to be effective, or such as would really give the children the teaching to which they were entitled. One aspect of the Bill to which he wished to call attention was what, but for the speech of the Minister, he would call the studied ambiguity of its terms. It was very difficult to say what it was that was granted and what it was that was withheld. One could not help feeling that, as the hon. Member for Morley had said, the supporters of the Government justified the Bill to the Nonconformists by saying that it was true that there was right of entry, but they need not bother about it, because the conditions were such that it would never be exercised. And then they went to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other excellent prelates who had been in negotiation about this matter, and said: "The whole of the principles you contend for are in the Bill, but we must impose some conditions in the interests of administrative efficiency." In other words, the principles had been granted to the Church, but conditions had been put upon them which Nonconformists were asked to believe would render those principles ineffective. That appeared to him, he did not wish to exaggerate, to be the effect of the provisions of this Bill. How could a Bill of that description possibly make for peace? The hon. Member for Morley had remarked, quite correctly, that if the Bill became law, the Church of England would make a great effort. She would be bound conscientiously to make a great effort in order that the facilities might be made effective to secure denominational teaching. She would make an enormous effort in that direction. What a commentary on that they had from the hon. Member for Norfolk, who said it was absurd that Nonconformists should expect to get all they wished for at a step, but that this at any rate was an instalment of what they wanted. And Dr. Clifford had put the matter even more clearly. He said the question was: "Did this measure, taken as a whole, carry them really nearer to a system of education generally national"; and "that that idea could not be reached at a bound; nobody could expect it." That was the prospect of peace which
482
lay before them. The militant Nonconformists regarded this as merely a step forward in the direction they desired to go; and it was these very gentlemen who said at the same time, and with great truth that it would be the duty of the Church to press such privileges as were left to her to the utmost, if they were possibly to be made effective. They had only to look at the Bill to see that so far from being a means of bringing about peace, it would introduce religious strife, not only into Parliamentary elections but into every election throughout the country. The education authorities were given administrative control, and they were to allow the services of the assistant teachers if they could be spared from their other duties. The obvious course of those who desired these facilities was to fight every local election in the country on strictly sectarian grounds. He did not understand why this Bill was supposed to make for peace. They asked for nothing except equality; they asked for no privilege. They felt that the settlement of 1870 had broken down, and they felt that their demand must be met on a basis of logic and justice. He believed there was no practical difficulty in carrying out such a settlement. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty was fond of saying that to give free play to the principle that each parent might demand for his child teaching in the religion he chose would produce pandemonium in the schools. The hon. Gentleman could not say that any more, because the principle had been conceded in the present Bill. He had been at some trouble in the course of the last few months to investigate the working out of the day industrial school system in regard to the rights of parents to require that their children should be taught in their faith. No difficulty had been experienced. There was an industrial school in Drury Lane where some sixty Church of England, some thirty Roman Catholics, and a comparatively small number of children of other denomnations were provided with religious instruction according to their wants. This was done without difficulty. That was the experience, not of a single school, but of some fifteen other schools in the country dealing

483
with 1,500 children. It was one of the arguments on the other side that this system split the children up into groups, and they would not associate with one another. He had inquired of the master of the school in Drury Lane whether this was the fact, and he declared that there was no truth whatever in the statement, but that, on the contrary, the boys made friendships which endured through the whole of their lives, while the esprit de corps of the school was complete. They asked for religious equality; they asked the Government to carry out that principle which the hon. Member for North West Ham, at that time in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility, said to the House he was obliged to support. This was what he said—
"As I understand the local authority in Scotland can decide to give religious teaching in conformity with the desires of the people of the locality. That is not offered by this Bill. The people are allowed to choose religion if they like, but only one form of religion. If they wish to choose another they must pay for it. That is playing with loaded dice. It is only the religion endowed by the State that is to be free. I do not know, but I do not think that the majority of the Members of this House went to their constituents and asked them to record their votes in favour of this particular religion being taught universally in the schools. I admit that in my innocence I exhibited 'religious equality' in my posters. I shall have hereafter to explain that that was a terminological inexactitude,"
He did not quote these words of the hon. Gentleman with any desire to attack him. He was sure the hon. Member was perfectly sincere when he made those observations, and if he was able to support this Bill it was because he was convinced in some mysterious way that it did confer religious equality. Why should the House not grant this religious equality? What possible ground of Liberalism was there which could justify the House in elevating one particular form of religious instruction above another, and making that form the established and endowed religion in the State schools?
MR. YOXALLsaid that whatever might be the case in the industrial schools, he would do his best to prevent any such departure in the case of the council schools.
484
On the general question of the Bill he had to say that this was not the Bill which his constituency sent him to support, and he had not the least hesitation in condemning it and refusing to support it. He objected entirely to the conditions of some parts of it, and he objected to it as a whole. It was not a Liberal Bill; it was not a measure calculated to carry out the principle which Nonconformists held dear. It was not for him to be more Royalist than the King, and if the Liberal Government and the Member for Norfolk could give this measure their support on what were supposed to be Liberal and Nonconformist grounds, he must leave them to settle that for themselves. He preferred to go on and deal with the matter on other grounds entirely. He had heard with great interest the speech of the Minister for Education. He complimented him upon it. It was clear, fair, and conspicuously sincere, though mistaken as he thought. There were perhaps two statements in it to which he should take exception on points of fact. He heard the right hon. Gentleman say that most of the time of the officers in the Board of Education was occupied with difficulties arising out of these theological disputes. That might be so in the case of the political heads of the Departments, but so far as he knew, and he had known the Department for many years, it was not the case with regard to the permanent staff.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member will allow me to express some view about my own staff. I assure him that half the time of the capable heads of the Department, with the exception of the technical branch, is taken up with matters which arise out of the religious question.
MR. YOXALLsaid he was surprised to hear it. He had not been in the Department in the capacity of his right hon. friend, but he had known it for many years, and he should have thought it an error to state that anything like half the time of the heads of the Department was taken up with difficulties arising out of theological disputes. The fact did not coincide with the other statement to which he took exception,

485
and that was that the members of education committees and local administrative bodies all over the country found themselves hampered to the extent mentioned by this religious difficulty. In the councils everywhere there was no religious difficulty. He believed it was the case in, he might almost say all the education committees under county and county councils, that peace now existed. Why were they going to have the opposite of peace introduced into the work of the council schools and education committees? He wished he could transport the House to what would be the state of a council school if this Bill became law. There was to be a right of entry between nine o'clock and quarter to ten on two mornings per week. At nine o'clock, as a rule, school assembled, and the register was marked for the first time. Then came the hymn, and then the prayer. About a quarter past nine the Bible lesson began. That was the state of things now. It appeared, however, that not only were they to have in the council schools a right of entry, different lessons on religion by different teachers, but different hymns, and different prayers in different class-rooms. That was in the name of peace. If peace did not now exist he would consent to a great deal to bring about peace. But peace did exist there, and this Bill was not going to bring peace but a sword. This was no olive branch. This was no method of improving the condition of the school. That right of entry would be carried out, he did not doubt in the least. The churches would take care of that, and they would destroy what peace now existed. They would bring enmity and discord where there was now peace, and for what gain? There would be no educational gain resulting from this change. What political gain would there be? Would Ministers satisfy their friends in the country by this Bill? When the general election came round their case would be far worse if this Bill became law than if they had introduced no Bill at all. His feeling was that it sacrificed to political expediency and Parliamentary emergency the present peace and the present rate of progress of the schools. Eight of entry was not compatible with administrative convenience and with peace in the schools. It involved separa-
486
tion of children who were not separated now. It set up at the youngest age—it might be three years of age in the infant classes—distinctions and differences which the children did not, and could not, understand. They would not know why they were classified here and there, and taught different doctrines and formulæ and catechisms by different teachers. They would know that in this class-room the crucifix was hung on the wall while the lesson was being given, and the symbol of the bleeding heart could be worshipped during the lesson, while in the next room instruction that that was blasphemy would be given by the representative of some ultra-Protestant organisation. This in the council school which had represented hitherto what Liberalism and Nonconformity held dear, brought about as a result of the Bill of a Liberal Government! Had that Government which sat on those benches three years ago dared to bring forward a Bill of this kind there would not only have been passive resistance but there would have been a revolution in the land. For ten years they had had the demand for the right of entry. It had always been opposed until recently by those with whom he associated politically. He had never before known the principle conceded. To this was now added as a further concession, amplifying it and rendering it real and vital and permanent, the permission given to paid teachers in the council schools to volunteer to give the kind of teaching which was provided for under the right of entry. The head teacher was not allowed to volunteer, but it was not so much a matter of the head teacher. He was in this particular nothing like so important as the assistant. The head teachers were much fewer than the assistants, and administrative difficulties entirely apart from theological opinion would in the case of nearly every school make it impracticable for the head teacher to volunteer, no matter how much he might wish, even if he were permitted to do so. He supposed it would be most unfair of anybody to object to an assistant teacher volunteering to give this instruction if the volunteer were motived by a sincere desire to teach the religion.

487
But they mixed in all sorts of incentives and invitations and indirect bribes of a mercenary kind. The noble Lord said the Church of England would make a great effort to make the right of entry a real thing. He supposed that effort would consist largely of an endeavour to obtain the entrance of the clergy—the superior clergy, the vicar or rector, the curate, a lay reader or some worthy earnest layman—to go into the schools. That was tried in Birmingham for many years. It did not fail all at once. It went on for a very long period—for nearly thirty years. Some of his hon. friends consoled themselves with the idea that it would break down and that the teachers would help it to break down. It went on under special difficulties in Birmingham. They had to pay 5s. per week per room rent. The Bill proposed no such rent to be paid by the denomination. It came to an end because the present Bishop of Manchester, then the leader of the Church in Birmingham, preferred that there should be in all the council schools in Birmingham religious education given under the Cowper-Temple clause by the stipendiary teachers of the school, and that had gone on with the greatest satisfaction for several years now. It might be that all over the country the clergy and their lay helpers would show the same energy and the same continuous zeal and industry in this matter and use that right of entry to the same extent and for as many years, as was the case in Birmingham. But if they did not, it required very little power of prophecy to see what would happen. He did not know what the Socialist Labour Churches would have to say to this. They would be perfectly right in claiming the same entry, and it would be quite within the province of the law. Various churches would be able to do all sorts of indirect and improper things, and this was just the kind of provision which often made members of a church do things in their corporate capacity which they would not think of doing in private life. Under this Bill dishonourable incentives would be held out to teachers. At the present moment there were many assistant teachers and a few head teachers un-employed. There was a glut of teachers, and there were over 1,000 more certificated teachers more than
488
work could be found for in the schools. That state of things would be probably worse next year and the year after, so wise had been the policy of the Board of Education. Just when this glut of teachers was at its worst the Government proposed to allow assistant teachers to give sectarian teaching. There would be many schools managed by a nominated committee upon which there was a majority of persons belonging to one particular church, and in all those schools the assistant teachers would by this Bill be placed under an indirect compulsion to volunteer to give the sectarian teaching which the majority of the committee would like to see taught. He agreed with those hon. Members who said it was cowardly to cast upon the Organisation of the teachers the responsibility of protecting the teachers. They were imposing this task upon persons who were in all respects public servants, almost on the same footing as those in the Civil Service. They were placing upon the teachers the onus of refusing these invitations to give sectarian teaching, coupled with the danger of offending the committee. As a teacher for many years his objection to this Bill was very great, and from the administrative point of view his objections were tremendous. They were greater still from the point of view of a Liberal and a Nonconformist. Those three points of view taken together made him feel so strongly against this Bill that he could hardly find words forcible enough to express his feeling on this question. It was difficult to realise that such a measure could come from a Liberal Government. The noble Lord opposite appeared to be exceedingly doubtful whether this Bill was a good bargain from his point of view, and he gathered from hon. Members opposite that they thought they were giving a great deal away. He wished to assure them that they were not. Let them take, for example, a village school managed by six persons, four appointed as foundation managers by the trust upon which the school was held, one by the parish council, and another by the local education authority. Under this Bill the vicar and his churchwarden, and some good laywoman, would probably be managers of the school, and there might be two or three

489
persons of another complexion and another school of religious thought. They would not appoint the teacher or dismiss the head teacher, but with that exception they would have under this Bill as much power as they had at present. Under the present law in that school, upon four days out of five religious instruction of the Cowper-Temple order was taught, and on not more than one morning per week was Church of England instruction given as a rule. Now it was proposed to allow two mornings per week expressly for that purpose, and on three mornings of the week only would the children receive Cowper-Temple instruction from the paid teachers. The proposal under this Bill was that if the parents wished it on two mornings in the week their children could have religious instruction from those other teachers in those very forms which had hitherto been tolerated only on one day per week. He could assure the noble Lord opposite that he was losing so little that he ought to close with this bargain while he might. Another characteristic of this Bill was that it included the odious name of "contracting-out." The whole of the secular instruction was directly under the control of the local education authority, and very little real power rested in the hands of the voluntary schools committee. Every month the education committees were absorbing into their hands more power, and every month more voluntary schools were being closed. Nearly 1,000 Church of England schools had been closed or transferred since 1902. In the last year reported upon Church of England schools were being closed at the rate of three per week and the rate would soon be four per week. That process would go on in an increasing ratio if this Bill did not interfere with the process. This was inevitable because the managers could not find the money to keep up the fabric and the repairs of the schools for which the managers were responsible. In this Bill they said to managers of those schools: "You need not do that; you can contract-out and come out of the control of the local education authority and then you need not rebuild your school or go to the expense of getting better lighting, ventilation, or warming." Under those
490
circumstances, having contracted-out, the local authority could not make them put their schools in a proper condition, and of course they would contract out. As a matter of fact, they were getting a bribe to induce them to take that course by the higher grant which would be given them. From every point of view, whether Liberal, Nonconformist, or educational, this was a bad Bill. It was a Bill that would damage principles which on the Ministerial side of the House they held very dear. It was a Bill which would damage what every hon. Member of this House ought to protect, namely, educational efficiency. It was a Bill to divide, not to unite; to bring a sword, not an olive-branch. Any Liberal Member who supported this Bill would regret it in days to come.
MR. MASSIEsaid the primary attitude which he, for one, adopted towards this Bill was not one of the negative criticism of which they had heard so much that night, and which, when combined, with dismal prophecy and an entire absence of constructiveness, was so remarkably easy to give utterance to, but an earnest desire to see whether the Bill could not be made to do. He thought that was a reasonable attitude. He certainly did not accept at all the view that the educational system of this country was a matter to be decided between Nonconformists and Churchmen or any other religious bodies. But it seemed that nothing practical could just now be achieved without such a conference as that which had taken place. Now they had an honest Minister mediating between two mutually suspicious, yet equally honest parties, and like an honest broker, as he had described himself, he was endeavouring to help two delicately situated clients to drive a bargain. There were things, he assumed, in the Bill which were not fundamentally connected with the compromise, and he therefore assumed that in Committee criticisms and suggestions would be welcomed by the Minister for Education, provided they did not fundamentally subvert the agreement which had been arrived at. If they could not turn a blind eye to the defects of the Bill, they could, and he thought

491
they ought to, turn a favourable eye towards those elements in it which were open to favourable construction. Their aim was peace, if not entirely with honour, with as much honour as the circumstances permitted. They were not to be drawn aside in order to balance too finely the two sides of the treaty, the give and take. When they were offered an extension of public control and public appointment of teachers they were not disposed to carp at it because it was not more complete. Nor did they feel inclined to refuse abolition of direct tests because some intriguers here and there might scheme to get behind the protecting statute and induce the assistant teacher to promise, before his appointment, to give denominational instruction. It had been suggested by the National Union of Teachers that those assistant teachers who so volunteered would afterwards be picked out for promotion, and that others who did not volunteer would proportionately suffer; but it occurred to him that it was not likely that the Church party would take away from his post an assistant teacher who was there serving them well in order to promote him to a head teachership where he could not serve them at all in the same capacity. Further, when they got rid of public payment for denominational teaching they were not going to treat it as a fatal flaw because the occasional use of class rooms might be permitted which were kept in order, with the rest of the school house, from public money. So much for what they received, and they did not wish to exaggerate its importance. Now as to what they gave. He would say that it was more substantial than some of its recipients acknowledged it to be. The right of entry stuck in the throat not only of Nonconformists but of a vast number who stood aloof from churches and clergy of all kinds, and who had always been satisfied and proud, like the railway men of Swindon, because of the harmonious working of their schools, which they had attributed, perhaps disproportionately, to their freedom from the clerical presence. To them the right of entry—even if it was not the right of the parson to put his thumb on the latch and walk in at pleasure and count his flock and summon
492
them to follow him, but only access under strict regulations to a class room for the teaching of the children whom the parents expressly and individually consigned to him—nevertheless this right of entry would be a bitter pill. Would the clergy just consider, if the patients were reversed, if they had to swallow it themselves, what gall and wormwood it would be! But he drew comfort for himself from two reflections: first, that it was in a sense just; for if the contentious subject of religion was taught in the schools at all, then, besides the religion, broadly speaking, common to all, it was just to give facilities to special consciences when they were in evidence, so long as the unity and discipline of the school and administrative practicabilities admitted it. This was the plan in some parts of Australia, and it worked well, but he must remember that in Australia there was no Established Church. If this plan did not work, then the only alternative for the State was to confine itself to the provision of secular education. He himself held the opinion that the secular function was the only function of a secular State. If he disbelieved in the State establishment of religion in the country he could not believe at the same time in the State establishment of religion in the schools. Such an arrangement, therefore, would be contrary to his own strong conviction; but he hoped he was not only a man of conviction, but a man of practicability, and he felt assured that England was not yet ripe for the secular solution, though he could not help thinking that, owing partly to the bitterness of recent religious or anti-religious discussion, England was ripening fast for it. If England was still far off from it, she was nearer than once she was to a general acknowledgment of the truth of Guizot's saying, that the State had no function either to teach religion or to have religion taught in its name. He admitted that, especially to the adherents of a State secular system, right of entry was a step backwards, but that step backward must not lead them to overlook the step forward. There were those whose dislike would be palliated if option were left to the local authorities. He could not, however, exalt into a principle the

493
difference between a statute of a representative Parliament and a statute of the representative local authority, provided the local authority was left free to consider local possibilities. It was mainly a question of expediency, and many local authorities for reasons of expediency preferred the statute by the State. He knew that these facilities, however carefully regulated, would be—or were at present—obnoxious to the teachers themselves. He had shown they were not alone, and they had, like others, good reasons on their side. They, and others with them, found the plan of contrasting-out obnoxious too. But schools demanding a peculiar atmosphere from the first moment to the last, from the opening of the door to the closing of it, and limited by tests in the choice of teachers, while one of the fundamental tenets there taught was that their Church was right and all other Churches wrong, could not be national schools and should not be part of a national system. That did seem to him a question of principle, and it was not sacrificed in the Bill. Expediencies, as in the Bill, could be sacrificed on the shrine of an expediency which was greater. But, in that case, every one must give something. Even religion could not have all it wanted, neither could administration, nor teachership, nor even education. All things, even good things, must contribute their item to the sacrifice; only by that means, it appeared, could what was on the whole a great step forward be taken and a long postponed boon to the country be at last attained.
LORD EDMUND TALBOT: The hon. Member opposite very good-naturedly rather chaffed me for being responsible for breaking down the Bill of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland in 1906. Well, Sir, if I could take credit for the loss of that I should be extremely proud, but I do not regret it in the least. I think that the hon. Member's affection, at the present time, at any rate, for the Chief Secretary rather leads him to forget what the final outcome of that Bill was as regards the Catholics. He had in his mind what was known as Clause 4, but that proposal in its latest form, so far as the Catholics are
494
concerned, was liable to break down distinctly, from either of two causes. First, there were conditions of getting four-fifths or three-quarters—I forget which—but at any rate of getting that proportion of all the parents whether voting or not, and, secondly, there was the fact that the whole scheme would collapse if an infinitesimal number of children who could not be turned out of the school demanded Cowper-Temple teaching, and alternative accommodation could not be found for them. That, from the Catholic point of view, as we were advised by our experts, rendered it absolutely unsafe for us to accept the Bill. But in addition to that the whole thing might have been set aside by a recalcitrant local authority who could have compelled the schools to have recourse to an even worse form of contracting-out than that proposed in the present Bill. If the Bill had become law that would have been the Catholic situation, and we should have been deprived of some of our schools. I have no hesitation in repeating that I, for one, am truly thankful that that Bill never became law. Now, as regards the present Bill, like the hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool, I venture to say in the name of the Catholics, it is quite impossible for us to accept this Bill. From start to finish of the measure there is only one point which to my mind is in any degree acceptable. I allude to Clause 3, which lays down the condition regarding new schools. I quite admit that that admission of new schools—of future voluntary schools—is an enormous surrender by the party opposite. My special gratitude, however, speaking as a Catholic, is to the Archbishop of Canterbury for having insisted that that clause should be put in this Bill. It is clear from the correspondence that not only is the insertion of this clause in the Bill entirely due to him, and although of course I am sure it will be taken full advantage of by the Church of England, none the less I recognise gratefully and as publicly as I can, that the Archbishop in asking for that clause knew that it would be of special advantage to my co-religionists. At the same time I do not think it would be fair of me if I did not also thank the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill for having persuaded the Nonconformists to accept this condition. I appreciate

495
the fact that it lays down as a principle of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman hopes is going to become an Act that definite denominational schools will be able to be established in the future in this country where they do not now exist. However impossible it may be to maintain these schools when we get them, still I admit and repeat that that is an enormous surrender on the part of the Government on this particular point. I regret that that is the only point in the whole Bill which, speaking as a Catholic, I can possibly find for which to say a good word. As regards the right of entry, I can quite understand the views of the Church of England. I recognise that they feel that there are in the council schools a large number of children belonging to their faith. They want to get into these schools and to teach these children the religion of the Church of England, but I do not see that in this Bill what they ask for is obtained. As the conditions appeal to me, the right of entry seems to be purely illusory. That may be a strong thing to say, but I believe it. I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, I quite recognise that he does not mean that they should be illusory. I did see, however, a report of a speech of a colleague of his, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and I certainly took it for granted that that hon. Gentleman was speaking the views of the Government. I distinctly understood his speech to mean that, whatever sacrifice the Nonconformists were making in theory by giving way to this right of entry, in practice it would prove quite nugatory and that they need not trouble about it. If I have misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman's remarks, of course I will at once recall what I have stated, but that is my recollection of how I read his speech, and I have no doubt that there are other hon. Members who have seen it and may have a copy of it. Though I am a Catholic, and in the division which I have the honour to represent in this House there are only six Catholic schools, still, there are an enormous number of Church of England schools, and if the Church of England will allow me to speak for these schools, I would say that I think this Bill, as far as they are concerned, well, is not dishonest, but is
496
absolutely illusory for the purposes of a definite right of entry. As far as we Catholics are concerned it practically amounts to this: we are told that if we have a conscience we have got to suffer for it; we have got to pay our rates for other schools to which we cannot send our children. You give us grants for our own schools which you know places us outside the national system of education and will compel us to underpay our teachers. It will place us absolutely at the mercy of the local authority for all extras, scholarships, etc. That is as I understand; and all the time the Board of Education will insist on our keeping up the same measure of efficiency as the other schools in the country. They will be the judges of whether we do so or not, and when they consider that we are not doing so—and it will be impossible for us to do so—then they will come down upon us and deprive us of the grant given under this Bill and gradually attempt to crush us out of existence. That is the treatment we get from the great Liberal party; the party of freedom, of equality, and of toleration! And to whom do you give this freedom? To that one community, that one religious body in this country, which admittedly has the largest percentage of the very poor. Now what are these grants? The late Bill of the Government gave us 47s. I understand that an Answer was given at Question time to-day to the effect that the new arrangement of the grants as calculated by the Board of Education would give to the Catholics an average of 48s. 9d. Well, it is quite impossible in the time that the Government have allowed us in their hurry to press on with this Bill to obtain and work out our own figures with any sufficient accuracy. But I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that we give them credit for having given us 1s. more, and I am quite willing to think that that 1s. is coming, because we have always been told that the 47s. would become 50s. I am afraid that will not by any means meet the situation. We worked out this Bill, not at 48s. 9d., but 49s. 9d., let us call it 50s. I have got here a return of a Catholic school in Clerkenwell. The average attendance last year was 787; the present salaries of the

497
teachers amount to £2,407 and the present cost of maintenance to £495, making a total of £2,902. Assuming that this school got its allowance under the schedule of this Bill it would receive £1,869, which would leave a balance to be found annually of £1,033 for this one school. A school in a poor part of London—and all our schools are in poor parts of London—one school alone will have from voluntary sources to obtain over a thousand pounds to keep it up to its present state of efficiency. That is not all. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon in his speech said that he had specially adopted this scheme in the Schedule raising the proportion, in order to meet the Catholic case.
MR. RUNCIMAN: No. I did not say that. I did not do it specially to meet the Catholic case, but what I did say was that at that scale and upwards there would be more money for the smaller schools, because it was anticipated that in many cases, many non-Catholic children would come out of the schools and make the cost correspondingly higher.
LORD EDMUND TALBOT: That is my point. I should like to say about the school I was mentioning just now that in that school there were five non-Catholic children. The right hon. Gentleman admits that this 55s. is specially put in the Bill for the benefit of the Catholics.
MR. RUNCIMAN: No, I do not admit that. It is for the benefit of others.
LORD EDMUND TALBOT: Will, it will be an advantage to us, but will the House believe that the number of schools we have got in this country which will draw the 55s. is only sixty-four, and that the number of Catholic children that will be entitled to earn that higher grant is only about 3,000? The right hon. Gentleman comes down here and advocates his putting in this 55s. because it is going to benefit the Catholics. I am not suggesting for a moment that he was aware of the conditions of the figures I have quoted, but if my figures are right I think the Catholics of this country are entitled to an apology from the right
498
hon. Gentleman for that part of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman said with reference to our figure of £35,000 being required in London alone under this Bill, that our figures were wrong and that we did not know how many non-Catholic children may go out of our schools. Well, the right hon. Gentleman does not know either, and if he disputes our figures I will undertake to get our financial experts from Liverpool and London and let them meet him and his round a table and see who has got them right. Under this Bill, we maintain that in London we shall have to find £35,000 a year. I cannot speak with any definite accuracy as to the amount we shall have to find in the country, but taking the country as a whole, I understand that the Catholic body will have to find no less than about £214,500. Let me tell the House that in London alone since the 1902 Act, in order to comply with its demands—its legitimate demands—that our schools should be brought up to date and put into a proper state of efficiency, we, the Catholics in London, have spent no less than £200,000, and now we are to be further fined by an annual sum of about £35,000. Of course, it is absolutely impossible for the Catholics to accept this Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the pooling system would be of benefit to us, but I must remind the House that whereas pooling may very likely be advantageous to the Church of England, it is of no use to us. Our schools are practically all on the same level of poverty, and it is quite useless to think that pooling will be any advantage whatever to the Catholic schools of this country. When. I came down here this afternoon I received a copy of a statement drawn up by the Roman Catholic bishops of this country, which will be published in the newspapers to-morrow, and the unanimous opinion of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales absolutely condemns this Bill. We have heard also to-day that this Bill has been unanimously condemned by the Education Committee of the London County Council, and I can well imagine that other county councils will also condemn it. We know it is condemned by all the associations of teachers throughout the country. It can be no settlement. From the Catholic point of view the Government ought to remember this. What our bishops have

499
said to-day every Catholic man and woman in the country will say to-morrow, every Catholic father and every Catholic mother. They will not accept this Bill. It not only will be no settlement, but what is far more serious, it certainly will not bring peace.
MR. HELMEsaid that in considering this question of education, which was of such intense interest to the country, he asked the House to look at the situation as it had developed in the past since 1870, when for the first time a national system under which the children were compulsorily trained was instituted. They had had the advantage of something like forty years experience, and during that time the nation had risen to an appreciation of the advantages and the absolute necessity of developing that system throughout the country. In order to make the system more complete it was felt that public funds must be available for higher education, and so technical instruction had been recognised as an important element, on the extension of which the commercial interests of the country depended. In 1902 the late Government brought in a Bill to make further financial provision for elementary schools, and also to co-ordinate the higher branches of education. At that time it was found that the civic idea under which the board schools were being developed was challenged by the denominational interest that had been included in the national settlement of 1870, upon terms that were well understood and at the time accepted. If he mistook not, by the arrangements that were then made, it was agreed that in return for the privilege of teaching the denominational catechisms and special aspects of religious truth in the interest of the various churches, they, enjoying these privileges, were willing to subscribe a certain amount of money over and above the ordinary Parliamentary grants, and thus with the help of the pence of the school children the cost of the maintenance of denominational schools was met by them, whilst the Government and Parliament at that time in developing the school board system recognised that as municipal institutions having the Parliamentary grants and also the rates, they must of necessity be kept apart from the conflicting interests into which they as individuals divided themselves in regard
500
to religious matters. So the dual system was continued, but at that time, although they were then sitting on the other side of the House, they endeavoured as far as it was possible with their limited opportunities to influence the Government, although they failed, to insist that where public money was paid public control must follow. At that time he remembered well that a very large number of Unionist Members, recognising the danger to which the policy of the Government would lead, endeavoured to induce the Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, to alter the basis upon which the management in future would be conducted in the voluntary schools, which then carried with it the selection of the head teacher by the vote of a committee the majority of which was appointed by the vicar, in the interest of the church. The result of this had been that the nation had divided itself into two hostile camps, and they found themselves to-day in an unfortunate position, which he would not dwell upon. In the interest of education they were all agreed that an end should be put. to this strife. How could it be done? It had been urged that in a secular system there was the easiest and most logical method. To many of them such a proposal was highly dangerous and unsatisfactory. At the present moment many of them believed that it was far better to meet those from whom they differed in religious matters in order that they might secure a continuance of the Bible as the basis of religious instruction in the schools, and so they were striving to arrive at a settlement by consent. Material interests were important, but in the large mass of the people of this country there was a deep conviction that the highest welfare of the State could only be secured by an educated race of citizens who recognised the claims of religion and high character. In looking at this question they were face to face with the fact that there were vested interests. Prior to 1870 the Church of England backed by the resources entrusted to it as the established church of the nation by Parliament did its best to fulfil its duties in regard to the education of the young, and, therefore, it was right that the interests of its schools should

501
be carefully considered. In the measure now before the House a continuance of Parliamentary grants at least equal to, and he would venture to say far beyond, the figures on which these schools were originally established, was now offered to them by the Government. A scheme of contracting out was proposed, and, notwithstanding the objections which could easily be urged against it, it was a scheme which ought to meet the views of those earnest religionists who, for the sake of conscience, could not accept the control of the State. Under these circumstances the scheme was worthy of the careful consideration of everyone affected. The teachers strongly objected to the contracting out clause; they did not like serving under clerical influences, and they feared that these would be promoted in contracted-out schools. At the present time these must be recognised and fairly dealt with. The right of entry given by the Bill was a concession to the religious feelings of those whose case the Government were anxious to meet, while endeavouring to secure a national system which should be open to as little criticism as possible. The Minister for Education had admitted that this was in no sense an ideal system, but at the same time he was bringing it forward in the interest of peace. Members for the House were there to deal with public questions in the public interest, and not to bring about the Immediate gain of the Churches with which they might be connected. At the same time there were matters in which interests were so conflicting that it was desirable to move by way of compromise. That was the only plan which would prevent a continuance of the fighting between the voluntary system and what was known as the board school or public school system. In the interest of religious peace and educational efficiency the sooner they got rid of the present difficulty the better. Under this scheme Churchmen on the one hand, and Nonconformists on the other, might feel that, without sacrifice of principle, a via media had been found. The right of entry was seriously objected to by many, and on the other hand it was urged that it would not be largely used. Experience alone would show which was right, both
502
sides might however be content in not legislating in advance of public opinion. If both would give up some of the things they had been contending for, surely there might be evolved a scheme which would settle the question for many years to come. If it was not a permanent settlement, it would be because the nation did not support it, and those who came after the present representatives would have to deal with fresh legislative proposals to meet the feelings of the day. The Minister for Education and the Prime Minister, together with the Archbishop of Canterbury, had striven to secure a compromise in the interest of peace and educational progress, and the House might congratulate them on the spirit in which they had conducted the negotiations. When the question appeared to be nearing a settlement, it was deemed necessary that the various sections of Nonconformists should meet and consider what course should be pursued with reference to the action of the Government in the matter. A meeting was held upstairs at which he moved a Resolution which assured the Government of their support, and that Resolution was carried by an overwhelming majority. It was premature yet to speak in regard to the volume of opinion in the country in favour of this measure, but there was evidence which was accumulating day by day that the great bulk of the people of England were anxious to have the difficulty settled in a fair and reasonable spirit. As to the Wesleyan Methodist Church, with which he was connected, he had to say that a large and important committee called from all parts of the country would meet on Friday to consider the question. In the meantime the President of the Wesleyan Conference had in the Press expressed a personal opinion which led them to recognise that his great influence would be decidedly on the side of those who were endeavouring to settle this question. He believed that his own church and the great mass of moderate opinion throughout the country was on the side of those who desired, if possible, to bring to an end the disastrous conflicts of the past. He heartily supported the scheme now put before the House

503
by the Government, believing that in doing so he was serving the best interests of the children and of education.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid he did not think he had ever addressed a meeting with a greater sense of responsibility than he felt in addressing the House on the question of this Bill. During the last few days he had received many communications from the county of Lancashire asking him to express, and express strongly, the voice and feeling of the people of Lancashire on the Bill, and their entire disapproval of the compromise embodied in it. He was glad the Minister for Education gave those who were opposed to the Bill credit for conscientious motives. He could not help feeling that the extremists on both sides—those who like the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill were extreme Nonconformists and those who opposed the Bill and were of the Church of England or the Church of Rome—might really be considered most conscientious in the matter; and that if the Bill was to be carried at all it would be carried through by pressure of a large mass of public opinion which was tired of the question and wanted to get it out of the way. A very large number of people went about and said they did not care a button about the question if they could only get it out of the way. He was not troubled by any of those conscientious scruples which some of the supporters of the Government seemed to have. There never was a better example of a good man struggling with adversity than the hon. Member for Norfolk. He did his very utmost to square his conscience with his previous speeches, and with the compromise embodied in the Bill. Whilst he endeavoured to persuade the House that the Bill was one which Nonconformists of his type could conscientiously recommend and support, he gave them a warning—a warning which he thought those bishops and others who were supporting the compromise might well take to heart—that this by no means ensured finality. He described them as emergency proposals, as the immediate demands of Nonconformists, and as instalments.
504
He wanted to know when the other instalments were going to be asked for. How long was this educational truce going to last? When was the hon. Member's conscience going to get the better of his compromising spirit, and when was he going to come down to the House and ask for further instalments, and to have the Church and denominational schools handed over entirely to the Cowper-Temple system? The hon. Member was good enough to tell them that he could not get the legislation he wanted. He agreed. The Government had brought in three Bills all more or less pleasing to the hon. Member opposite, and they had been unable to carry any of them, because they knew the feeling of the country was diametrically opposed to them. They had, therefore, been bound to bring in some Bill which they thought might effect a compromise. He was wondering when the argument of the mandate was going to be trotted out. The last speaker referred to it. He was going to ask whether this Bill represented the mandate and whether indeed that mandate was really in existence to-day. He denied that the 1906 election gave any mandate for the suppresson of the Church of England, Roman Catholic, or other denominational schools. He was prepared to admit there was a mandate, considerably overlaid by Chinese labour and other subjects, to remove the legitimate grievances of Nonconformists in single school areas, and they would be perfectly prepared, as he had said on many platforms in Lancashire, to sup-part a compromise which would remove those grievances without imposing tenfold grievances in the Church of England, Roman Catholics, and Jews in the multiple school areas. This Bill, while removing the Nonconformist grievances in single school areas, did impose tenfold grievances on Churchmen in multiple school areas. It was on behalf of the great county of Lancashire that he desired to put some views before the House with regard to the multiple school areas. They had perhaps in Lancashire more than in other parts of the country adhered to their Church schools. They had heard of the devotion of the Roman Catholics to their schools, but the Church—he did not mean the

505
clergy, but the people like the working men of the great towns of Lancashire—were just as devoted to their Church schools, and just as determined to secure their continuance as their Roman Catholic friends on the other side of St. George's Channel were determined to secure the continuance of their schools. They made sacrifices prior and subsequent to the Act of 1870, and even after the Act of 1902, to keep their schools going, and he wanted the House to realise that a large number of children were still being educated in their schools. Roughly speaking, there were 2,500,000 children being educated to-day in the voluntary schools, despite the efforts to hinder their continuance and the difficulties they had in keeping their funds going. There were nearly as many children being educated in voluntary as in provided schools. They asked for no privileges, and they had had no privileges. The Nonconformists could have built schools. He saw opposite one of the most prominent members of the Wesleyan community. They had built schools. There was a considerable number of Wesleyan schools in existence, and they had exactly the same share under the Act of 1902 in the rates, which were provided not merely by Wesleyans, but also by Churchmen and Roman Catholics. He had been wondering how the hon. Baronet the Member for Louth felt with, regard to the provisions of the Bill. He remembered that on the Second Reading of the Bill of the present First Lord of the Admiralty the hon. Member made an eloquent speech in which he said that the Nonconformist party felt that they had been sold. If that was so with regard to that Bill, he must feel to-day that he had not been sold, but given away. That was the feeling of a vast body of Church people, not merely in the country districts, where their schools were to be swept away, but in the large towns of Lancashire. In Lancashire they had a very large majority of voluntary schools. There were eight large boroughs with no provided schools at all, the whole of the schools were denominational. The people of Lancashire desired a system of concurrent endowments which would be perfectly fair and which could be perfectly easily granted. The Minister
506
for Education had referred to the system of education in Germany. They would like that system. They had there a system of concurrently endowed Roman and Lutheran and other forms of Protestant schools. Let them have the same in this country—Roman, Jewish, Church, and Nonconformist schools. He did not believe there was so much difference amongst Nonconformists as to make it a real necessity—
MR. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member says there is no difference between the different Nonconformist bodies, he certainly does not know much about them.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid he thought there was not so much difference in the doctrines of the various Nonconformist bodies as would make it difficult for them to unite in a school on Cowper-Temple teaching. They were apparently all satisfied to-day with Cowper-Temple teaching.
MR. WILLIAM JONES: That is not Nonconformist teaching.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: They are satisfied with Cowper-Temple teaching.
MR. WILLIAM JONES: Not because it is Nonconformist teaching.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid he had sufficient faith in the honesty and conscientious motive of the great Nonconformist bodies to assume that if they were not satisfied with Cowper-Temple teaching they would make the same disturbance they did when they were not satisfied. In 1870 there were two or three courses open to the Government. He could hardly venture to imagine' what the view of Mr. Gladstone would have been if anyone had proposed the secular solution. They could have abolished the denominational school and have given Cowper-Temple religion. That was not the policy of the Liberal Party, or of Mr. Gladstone, or of Mr. Forster. Their policy was to allow two systems

507
of schools to run side by side with equal contributions from the State, and it was only because of the extreme pressure of denominational needs in the latter years of the last century that denominationalists were compelled to come to Parliament in 1902 and ask, not for any favour or privilege, but merely for a share of those rates they themselves paid in order that their schools could be kept up and have a chance of coming up to the standard of efficiency of the schools in which Cowper-Temple religion was taught. To-day, after all their sacrifices, they were to be asked by the Government—and he said very bitterly by their Archbishop—to surrender. The Licensing Bill and this Bill afforded the only instances of modern times of the Liberal Party being supported by the bishops, and of the Liberal Party supporting the bishops in the way they were doing to-day. They did not intend to be ridden down even by the opinion of so eminent a man as the Archbishop. This was a layman's question. When the right hon. Gentleman wanted the opinion of the Nonconformists he did not go to Dr. Clifford.
MR. RUNCIMAN: Oh, yes; Dr. Clifford is supporting the Bill.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSdid not understand that the right hon. Gentleman went exclusively to Dr. Clifford or the Nonconformist divines. He took a hundred representatives of Nonconformist lay opinion into his confidence and asked them their opinion; but when he wanted to know the opinion and the needs of the Church of England so far as he could see he went to the Archbishop and did not consult a single Member in the House, or one single representative of the parents in that body. They were being asked to surrender their schools which they had kept up for so many years past at great personal sacrifice. Those who knew anything of Lancashire knew what sacrifices the working-men had made to keep their schools, their bazaars, their sales, their collections, and their individual contributions. It was those men, and not the Bishops, for whom he was pleading. They were asked to surrender the right of appointing their
508
teachers, to surrender what they considered their right to an equal share in the rates which they themselves paid. They were asked to tear up the trust-deeds of those who gave money or land for the building of schools in bygone years, and to hand the whole of their buildings, with a very inadequate recompense, over to the public authority. Someone had suggested that if he had to choose between hanging and drowning he did not very much mind which it was. The choice here lay between joining in the scheme of education and handing their schools over to the public authority, and contracting-out. The choice was between sudden death and death by slow process of starvation. It was perfectly clear that if they contracted-out it could only result in slow process of starvation. What did they receive for all those surrenders which, they were asked by the Government and by their own Archbishop to make? They received the right of entry into the council schools. Some of them thought that the right of entry belonged to them to-day, and that they had been kept out of it by the action of the opposite party. Some of them believed that the council schools belonged to them as much as to others, because they paid rates for their maintenance just as much as the Nonconformists did. But he went farther. The right of entry he believed to be entirely insufficient. They wanted more than the right of entry. They wanted schools of their own. That was the demand of Lancashire. They wanted religious education to be given to their children because they felt that religion was a necessary part of education. Education was made compulsory and free, and they had no right to compel them to send their children to a school where the fundamental teaching—that of religion—was not that which they approved. That, he understood from the Member for North-West Norfolk, was the old Nonconformist position. "You may not take my child under the provision of compulsory education and bring him up as an atheist. That is diametrically opposed to the inherent rights of manhood and of parenthood. You may not take a Nonconformist child and bring him up as a Churchman or a Roman Catholic, and you have no right to take the child

509
of a Churchman and bring him up as a Cowper-Templer." That was the view which had been sanctioned at bye-election after bye-election during the past few months; and that was the view which was sanctioned all over Lancashire last month in the unprecedented number of gains at the municipal elections. Throughout the whole of the large towns of Lancashire where denominational schools predominated there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the maintenance of denominational schools. They were asked to accept the right of entry for two days a week, and on the other days they were to have Cowper-Temple teaching. One of the great reasons why they had been asked to support this Bill was that it ensured throughout the land simple Christian teaching in every school. That, however, was not provided for under the Bill. He did not represent the extreme wing of the English Church. He happened to be a decided Low Churchman, and simple Bible teaching was absolutely sufficient for his child. But when they asked him, or any one of the parents in his constituency, why he was not satisfied with simple Bible teaching the reply was: "What right have you to discuss the question of the kind, of religious education with which I am satisfied. Go and deal with your child and leave me to deal with the religious education of mine." The Bill did not provide for simple Christian teaching. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the bench of bishops had been misled on that point. What the Bill provided for was Cowper-Templeism, which was very different from simple Christian teaching. It simply meant the teaching of religion which did not touch any creeds or formularies.
MR. MALLET: The Apostles Creed.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSasked if the Apostles Creed was a compulsory part of Cowper-Temple teaching. [Cries of "No."] That was his point, that the local education authorities throughout the country could and did give teaching under the provisions of the Cowper-Temple clause, which was, undoubtedly, not simple Bible teaching, not even Christian teaching. They gave moral
510
teaching, and one knew there was a certain number of schools and of school boards which gave no Christian teaching at all, particularly in the Nonconformist centres of Wales. He should like an explanation how the right hon. Gentleman was going to enforce simple Bible teaching throughout the schools of the land. How was he going to deal with those school areas which did not even have a prayer or a hymn, which did not read the Bible at all, and those which read it without explanation? Were they going to mandamus half the education authorities in Wales, and some of the large borough authorities, to make them give the simple Bible teaching which the Archbishop thought he had secured by the provisions of this Bill? Even if Cowper-Temple teaching was a reality, and was going to be made a reality by the right hon. Gentleman, what were they who believed in denominational teaching to have? The right two days in the week to go into the schools, subject to the consent of the local education authority, and either by themselves, by the clergy or anybody nominated by them, or by the existing teachers, if the local education authorities permitted, to give denominational education. Existing head teachers were allowed to give it for life. Were they to speculate on the life of the headmaster? If he lived twenty years a transferred school might remain with some guarantee of denominational education. But he might die to-morrow, and then denominational teaching in that school would quickly go by the board. Though they might insure his life they could not insure his denominational teaching. A new headmaster might be brought in without any test, without any question being asked whether he believed the religious education he was prepared to give. He understood there were few teachers in the transferred schools who could be the donors of denominational teaching, because in poor districts it would be impossible to get voluntary teachers to come day by day. They could not afford it. The only available teachers would be those who might be prepared to volunteer. They were not to have the right to ask them when they were being appointed whether they believed, not merely in the denominational teaching they professed to give,

511
but in the simple Bible teaching which they were also to give. If the local education authority did not mean to deal fairly by the Act there would be very little denominational teaching. What would be the condition in the West Riding of Yorkshire? Were the local education authorities there likely to find it scholastically convenient to set aside rooms for denominational teaching? Were they likely to find it convenient to allow the teachers to give it? If they got denominational teaching they had to pay a portion of the teachers' salaries in addition to rent. They were to pay a certain sum of money towards the cost of denominational teaching in order that Cowper-Temple teaching might be made cheaper for their Nonconformist friends. From the educational standpoint the position was absolute folly. Any parent could nominate someone to give the denominational instruction to his child, and 100 parents might send 100 different teachers. In one part of the country a plan of campaign on those lines was being drawn up by people who wished to wreck the Bill. There would be no discipline in the denominational classes, no organisation provided for them if the headmaster was against it, and there would be no compulsion to attend denominational teaching. There might be ten religions at once being taught in any school. The Secretary to the Admiralty described the right of entry two years ago as pandemonium.
DR. MACNAMARA: No.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid that it was on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Marylebone that the hon. Member had said that. There was one council school in North-West Manchester where there were ten different religions represented, but there were not ten class rooms. How was right of entry going to be carried out there? The Liberal Party justified the right of entry concession by the fact that it had got something in return. He had always thought the Liberals' objection to it was a matter of conscience. If it was, it did not matter one iota what they got in return. With regard to the transfer of the schools they were being asked, in single-school areas, to transfer schools
512
which were the property of the denomination, of the trustees and of the parents, and they were given the option in the multiple-school area of transferring them or contracting-out. There was to be no appeal to the Law Courts, for the Minister for Education did not care to face twelve men in a jury box, but preferred to be both prosecutor and Judge. If the schools of the Church had been for sale they might have been prepared to bargain, but they were not erected for the purpose of being sold, and he objected most strongly to their being taken at any price. In the case of the Swansea School £18,000 had been spent upon it, and the price they would get for that school would be £3,225. There was a case in London where £24,000 had been spent on new schools, all of which had been raised by voluntary contributions, and they would receive for that £3,942. At St. Peter's School, Walworth, £8,000 had been spent and they would get £1,350; and St. Saviour's, Southwark, had spent £13,000 on schools and they would receive £1,600. He could go through Lancashire, Surrey, and other places where all they would get would be about one-fifth of the money they had spent on them, not in bygone days, but in the last year or two. If they availed themselves of the privilege of contracting-out it meant death by starvation. From the point of view of the parents who desired to retain their schools the Bill was absolutely impossible. In his constituency there was a Jewish school of 2,000 children, which last year cost £6,122 to carry on. Under the new Bill it would get £4,650, leaving £1,742 to be found annually by the Jewish community, to say nothing of the cost of repairs and upkeep of the building. How was that money to be obtained, and, if it was obtained, was it fair that the Jewish community should, at the same time, be paying rates towards other schools? There was a Roman Catholic school in his constituency where the grants under the Bill would not cover the cost of the teachers' salaries.
MR. RUNCIMAN: What about pooling?
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid pooling would be no remedy. All the small

513
schools in Lancashire were in the single school areas, and so far as Lancashire schools were concerned the grant under that Bill would be sixpence less per child than under the Bill of the First Lord of the Admiralty. In the big towns in Lancashire nearly all the schools had over 1,300 pupils. By this Bill a large number of small schools would be swept out of existence. In Lancashire there were 100 single-school areas and all the rest were large schools and had nearly 1,000 pupils in each of them. In the case of schools in the East End of London and in Manchester pooling would not give them the 47s. per head because they were under the limit of 1,300. Were the to go back to the bad old days prior to the year 1902? They would be bound in Lancashire to oppose this Bill. With regard to the correspondence which had been published, he could not help feeling as he read it through, that the right hon. Gentleman had got the better of the Archbishop. He did not wish to use hard words, but he certainly thought the Archbishop had been "jockeyed" over these negotiations. The Archbishop imposed the condition that the arrangement should not cause an intolerable strain upon the subscribers, but it was impossible to get more subscriptions in the large areas. Year after year they would have to provide in Lancashire, even with this pooling arrangement, 25s. per head to keep their schools efficient, although they contained over 1,000 children. That meant that £1,250 a year would have to be found in a poor parish, where there was not a single person living who was rich enough to keep a servant, in order to maintain their schools. How was it possible to get the money? There must have been a smile on the right hon. Gentleman's face when he made that bargain. That was the whole position. He agreed that contracting out was entirely undesirable, but the terms of the compromise depended upon whether the Church schools could be successfully continued without an intolerable strain upon the subscribers. In the unfortunate parishes of Lancashire they had no subscribers. The friends of denominational schools did not rest their claim to the continuance
514
of those schools in a state of efficiency upon subscriptions, but upon a right to share in the rates which they paid for educational purposes. Speaking on behalf of all the Conservative Party in Lancashire, he could assure the Prime Minister that there would not be peace until they secured justice and equal rights for their voluntary schools.
DR. MACNAMARA: I hope the House will permit me to say a word or two on this very familiar, though rather threadbare, topic. I am no longer directly responsible in any way for the educational administration of the country. I am now at the Admiralty, but I may be excused if, like the sailor, I decline to be off with the old love though I am on with the new. Now, I may remind the House that this dangerous and disastrous educational civil war has raged intermittently in this country for exactly 100 years. The moment the State looked like taking up some responsibility in regard to the education of the people, or advancing on responsibility already entered into, then the common school became the cockpit of contending theologians, and so it has been, more or less, ever since. The last speech to which we have listened does not give a very happy augury for anything different in the future. Meanwhile other nations have been feverishly active sharpening their brains for the international competition in which all are plunged, and meanwhile, too, the governing forces of the civilised nations of the world are being rapidly revolutionised. No longer is the race to the swift and the battle to the strong; more and more must victory fall to the most highly equipped intellectually. The directors general of to-day's campaign are the electrician, the chemist, the inventor, and the scientist; and the school teacher is their agent in advance. While we have been squabbling all these years, a disparity, always deepening and widening, has been growing up between the education given to our children and that given by other great countries to theirs. It is no good for the British people to delude themselves with the characteristic complacent view that they have been divinely endowed with a monopoly of supremacy. They have not. It is perfectly true that we are a strong,

515
enduring, and enterprising people, and we are above all a people with a unique genius for local self-government. Therefore, with these qualifications, if you will make our equipment as good as that of other people's, we are bound to come to the top; but if you leave joints in the educational armour, there is no power on earth, no rearrangement of your fiscal system, which can ultimately save us in the relentless campaign from becoming mere hewers of wood and drawers of water to the more highly equipped people of the world. Therefore, it is urgent and it is vital, that we should clear the way for educational progress; and certainly any man, in my opinion, who vexatiously persists in blocking the way, whether Liberal or Tory, Churchman or Chapelgoer, layman or cleric, has in the interests of national self-defence to be taken very firmly and very respectfully and put on one side. I think all parties in this House must be very glad to know that for a long time past there has been a growing spirit of accommodation in regard to this educational problem, and particularly among contending factions. That spirit of accommodation, though belated, is nevertheless welcome; I rejoice to see it, and I have done all I can in my small way to endeavour to foster it. This Bill—our fourth attempt in three years—is an endeavour to take advantage of that spirit. Under the Bill each party gives up cherished and long defended territory. The noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone told us to-day that this is very far indeed from being the denominational idea of a settlement. That is true. We have heard also very frequently during the day from this side of the House that it is very far indeed from being the Radical idea of a settlement. It contains features extremely distasteful to both. I am personally not in love with two or three of its features. Let me try if I can quite dispassionately, and I hope in a non-controversial spirit, to examine what each of the main belligerents gains. In the first place, the denominationalist gets the right to give denominational teaching twice a week in Council schools. If I have understood him a rightly that alone is an enormous gain, for him. Secondly, he gets the right
516
to ask council school assistant teachers to give that denominational teaching; thirdly, in his own schools (which he now transfers to the local education authority) he gets the right to continue denominational teaching twice a week; fourthly, in these transferred schools he may ask the existing head teacher to be the denominational volunteer so long as he remains in his present post; and if that head teacher removes to another transferred school he may be invited to become the denominational volunteer any time up to five years after passing this Act; and fifthly, for all time the assistant teacher in the transferred school—as in the council school—may be invited to become the denominational volunteer. But let me add in. passing about this volunteering that the teacher may refuse without prejudice; that the local education committee must give its sanction in every case, or rather show cause if it refuses; and that the denominationalist may pay the local education committee for the value of the teacher's services as a denominational volunteer; finally, the denominationalist, except in the single-school area, gets the right to take his school entirely outside the national system and carry with it, subject to inspection of the Board of Education, large and augmented sums of public money from the central Exchequer. Certainly, if I remember correctly the debates in 1906 both in the House of Commons and in another place, denominationalists themselves laid great stress upon the necessity for such a provision as this. They were prepared to accept it even at the then existing scale of grants. I do not wish to rake amongst the embers of the old controversies to which constant references have been made to-day as to the question of contracting-out, but those who complain of contracting-out must remember that that came first of all from the hon. Member for Glasgow University. He was the first person to move for a system of contracting-out. It was afterwards moved by the hon. Member for Preston, and it was finally suggested by the Archbishop of Canterbury in another place. The hon. Member for Oxford University and the hon. Member for the Scotland division were critical to-day in their comments on

517
contracting-out. Really, I must ask them in fairness to remember that on 24th July, 1906, the hon. Member for Preston moved a contracting-out scheme which, like this scheme, was not to apply to single-school areas. It was based on the then existing grants. My hon. friend made no provision for additional grants. The Leader of the Opposition on that occasion said—
"A peaceful settlement of the question was to be found in the direction of accepting rather than rejecting the Amendment."
He voted for it, and the whole of his party voted for it except the Member for South Birmingham. The whole of the Irish Party voted for it. The grants were then about 40s., and they are now round about 50s. I do not like contracting-out; but it is really a little hard that hon. Members should now be so severe on a 50s. scheme having voted themselves for a 40s. scheme. The hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs said that this Bill involved the violation of every Radical principle. Let us see. Let us see what the Radical gains. The Bill secures, first of all, the abolition of the dual system—an enormously important reform of a far-reaching character if I understand anything about the education of this country; secondly, except for contracted-out schools, the area of which I hope and believe will be strictly limited as a result of conceding the right of entry, he secures for the local education authority full control of all the schools in the country; thirdly, all the managers (not two out of six only), and all the teachers fall completely under the control and direction of the local education authority, except so far as the contracted out schools are concerned. It would be difficult for me as a Radical to overstate the significance of this reform. Fourthly, the Radical secures that wherever denominational teaching is given, it must be paid for by the denominationalist himself, and not out of the public fund; and finally, and of enormous importance, he secures for every parent who wants it a free and Undenominational school place for his child. I do not know how many times when Chairman of the School Accommodation Committee of the London School Board, I had to take part in compelling parents, who resided in areas where there was no board school
518
to satisfy the law and send their children to Roman Catholic and Church of England schools. Such compulsion will exist no longer. So much for the gains of either side. Now, what does each party lose? First, the denominationalist gives up his schools, or if he continues to hold them he gets no rate-aid; secondly, in every case he pays for denominational teaching, and if he still continues to get rate-aid he can only get denominational teaching for only two days a week; thirdly, he is shut out, unless he be a member of the local education authority or its education committee, from any further voice in the selection, appointment, or promotion of the teacher; and finally, except in contracted-out schools, undenominational teaching becomes the recognised State provision for religious teaching. Denominational teaching becomes, throughout, what I may perhaps call an ancillary feature paid for by the denominationalists themselves. Then what does the Radical lose? First, he is asked to concede the right of entry into the council school, and that is a very considerable sacrifice. Consider the case of the village board school. For years the people could not get that school; territorial and ecclesiastical influences checked them at every stage. At last they surmounted all, and taxed themselves up to 1s., 2s., and even 2s. 6d. in the £, to get their little school. From that day, the children have met every morning in family unity, for religious worship and instruction. I have heard them praying together, singing their hymns together, and listening to Bible stories together. Now, the little family may be broken up, by right of entry. Sociologically I think it is a great pity, and I very much sympathise with the comment of my hon. friend, the Member for West Nottingham, that this is a very big sacrifice indeed. But, more than that, the Radical has, in the second place, to contemplate the prospect of council teachers giving denominational religious teaching; and in the third place he has to contemplate the prospect of a number of schools going right out from local control, and taking with them large grants of public money. That, in short, is a profit and loss account for each of the main parties to this dispute. I suggest that what each

519
party has to ask itself is this: "Considering the vital national necessity to call a 'Truce of God' on this unhappy and dangerous feud, ought I to make the sacrifices involved, and if made, will they lead to a cessation of hostilities?" There is a further question which every friend of the continuance of religious education, in any form must put to himself. And that is this: "If this fails, what is the only outstanding alternative?" How long do the friends of religious education think that the mass of the people of this country are going to tolerate this unseemly and dangerous wrangle? I come now to the case of the teachers. All will acknowledge the greet power, circumspection, and intimate knowledge with which the hon. Member for West Nottingham has put that case. The teacher's criticisms are obviously sincere; they are not selfish; there was not a single word of selfishness in the speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham. The teachers, I know, are inspired soleiy by a desire to promote and to secure educational progress so far as they understand it. That has always been their aim; and I am confident that every section, of this House, recognising, as it must do, the enormous service rendered to the State by the teachers, will be ready to consider the practicability in the present situation of any representation made on behalf of men and women upon whom, in the main, the whole fabric of public elementary education rests. The teachers fear that if the council school teacher be allowed to volunteer you will have in effect a creed test imposed upon those who, since 1870, have been entirely immune from any question respecting their religious beliefs. That is a legitimate fear, as was so
520
forcibly and eloquently stated by the hon. Member for West Nottingham. But I am entitled to point out to those who have that fear, as was stated by the Member for Denbigh very vigorously that we have sought to meet it in the Bill by sharply divorcing those who will select, appoint, and promote the teacher from those who may ask him hereafter to volunteer. Besides, I am entitled to point out that, for the first time in the educational history of this country, if this Bill passes, we leave the council school teacher free to refuse to give even Cowper-Temple teaching. Again, teachers strongly dislike contracting-out; so do I, and so does the President of the Board of Education who told the House to-night that it was educationally objectionable, but it seems inevitable to this compromise, and as my right hon. friend said, the right of entry ought to reduce its proportions. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition voted for it, and the hon. Member for Preston in the interests of peace in 1906.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There was then something better than the Bill now before us.
DR. MACNAMARA: At any rate, it was not better financially than this Bill, because the grant in 1906 was round about 40s.; and under this Bill it is round about 50s.
SIR HENRY CRAIK: The grants were not fixed by the Bill of 1906. You fix them here.
DR. MACNAMARA: All I can say is that if the Bill of 1906 had passed

521
you would have left the grant round about 40s., whereas now by this scheme of compromise you will get roughly 10s. per child more than under the scheme of 1906. As I have already said, the right of entry which is conceded ought substantially, in my opinion, if it is of any value at all, to reduce and restrict the area of contracted-out schools. We have hedged contracting-out with all sort of precautions, and all sorts of assurances for continued educational efficiency, and I hope that I shall have the support of the right hon. Gentleman opposite when we do that. Further, we have augmented the grants to contracted-out schools; we have specially designed a scheme of pooling grants which will, I hope, enable the richer districts to help the poorer, and thus to mitigate the loss which will inevitably be sustained by their coming off the rates. There remains an entirely negligible factor so far as most of our past educational debates, as I remember them, are concerned; and that is, the parent of the child who uses the school. The hon. Member for North-West Manchester says that this is a parent's question. So it is. What does this Bill do for the parent? The hon. Member for North-West Manchester says: "Nothing." Well, in the first place, this Bill retains all the old protection of a conscience clause, except, of course, in the contracted-out schools; but the parent cannot be compelled to send his child to a contracted-out school. In the second place, everywhere the parent may now claim a free unsectarian school place for his child, if he does not believe in the denominational system taught in the contracted-out schools. That is a general right for the first time conceded. Thirdly, if a child attends a council school, and Bible-teaching is not
522
enough, he may have something more on two days a week. Fourthly, on the other hand, you can no longer compel him to send his child to a denominational school. Fifthly, you set aside more money for education; and finally, you set free the Board of Education, with all its garnered experience, and high technical knowledge, to devote itself much more uninterruptedly than hitherto to the development of educational progress. Thus, you open the way to a due consideration of the real educational problems of the moment. I would go almost any distance in the direction of securing that. We must have the way open to the adequate treatment of real educational problems. And what are they? The health of the children; the warming, lighting, and ventilating of schools; the size of the classes; the qualifications of the teachers; the length of school life; the half-time system; the range and suitability of the curriculum—a matter of urgent importance—and the endeavour to arrive at a scientific discrimination between children who are fitted by capacity to profit by scholarships, and those who are not, a matter of even more urgent importance. Finally, the endeavour to secure the scientific treatment of the relationship which should subsist between the amount to be charged against the State for education, and the amount to be charged against the locality—also a matter of great and urgent importance, and one which, if left untreated, will lead to educational re-action, and heavily rated areas. These are the real problems, as I see them, and while the theologian blocks the way you cannot effectively get at them. But we cannot let the matter rest where it is. This Bill is an attempt to find a modus vivendi, and it does

523
not please either party who have an ideal settlement in their pockets. I believe it to be an honest and sincere attempt to set our hands free, and I do appeal to the men of all parties for nothing more than this, that they should bring to the discussion of this measure the spirit in which it is conceived. Then, perchance, we may get on quietly with the educational problem and with the task of so equipping our children that they may adequately steward the great heritage which, in due course, will fall into their safe keeping.
MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid he voted for the Second Reading of the Education Bills which the Government previously introduced into this House, and he desired to explain why he should certainly not vote for the Second Reading of this particular measure. He felt perfectly certain that if hon. Members opposite on the Ministerial benches had been asked by a Government composed of a majority of hon. Members above the gangway on the Opposition side of the House, to accept a measure containing the provisions of this Bill, they would have received it by a most militant challenge. The Liberal majority of the House approaching this Bill produced by a Conservative Government would have declared that it was obnoxious to their consciences and that it was a bad educational proposal. It was all very well for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that those who criticised this Bill were rejecting peace. He was bound to confess that if they could only convince him on that point he would go into the lobby against the Second Reading of this Bill with a great deal more reluctance than he was going to feel
524
on that occasion. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had told them that certain extremists must be firmly and boldly set aside. He quite agreed that was a very good course to take with extremists, but as a moderate middle course sort of man, he would also remind the hon. Gentleman that those who cried "Peace, peace" when there was no peace ought also quietly and firmly to be set aside. Did any hon. Member who listened to the two speeches before the dinner-hour, one by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, and the other by the hon. Member for he Scotland division—one representing the Conservative and Church of England policy, in so far as it had been expressed from the front Opposition bench and the other representing the Catholic sentiment and the Catholic spirit of education—did any hon. Member really mean to say, after those two speeches, that the Bill was a proclamation of peace? Was it not really apparent that at the very best it created only a breathing space? The sections which had been responsible for war up to now were prepared perhaps to accept for the time being the proposals of this Bill. But every one of them—the Nonconformist, with the idea that the right of entry was going to be pared away either by non-practice or administrative obstruction—the Catholics, the High Church, the representatives of the Jews, each with ultimate intentions in mind—accepted it with the idea that as time went on some "intolerable strain" would make itself apparent and they were going to have a situation created precisely the same as before the Act of 1902. From the administrative and educational point of view there was nothing in this settlement fundamentally and essentially different from the state

525
of things existing before 1902, and five or six years hence claims for special consideration would be made on behalf of the contracted-out schools similar to those which were successfully advanced on behalf of voluntary schools six years ago. He admitted what the hon. Gentleman said about educational progress in other countries, but he was not so sure that he was right about the relative position of this country. The more one understood and saw with his own eyes on the spot the reality of the well-advertised progress in Germany and America, the more one was thankful that he belonged to England and had the benefit of the English educational system in spite of its many drawbacks. He quite admitted that in some respects they might do very much better, but really after all, the religious difficulty was standing less in their educational way to-day than it had ever done before It was real; it ought to be removed; it would be wise to remove it; but it must be done away with on some sort of a plan which would prevent contracting-out. Any system of dualism in education with one section contracted-out could not be a satisfactory or peaceful settlement. That was the fundamental principle which every Minister for Education must grasp before he proceeded to construct a policy which was to be a declaration of peace. He should like to summarise what, to his mind, were the chief points of this Bill, raising particular issues that ought to be discussed now, though there were many other points which would be debated during the Committee stage. For the first time Cowper-Templeism became statutory. It was not to be an act of grace by the education authority;
526
up to now it had been that. And the curious thing was that a Liberal Government recognised parental right in this respect. Cowper-Templeism now was to be a recognition of the right of the parent to have his child educated in a particular creed at the expense of the State. That was a new proposition. It was a new proposition for the Liberal Party in particular, and it was condemned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking for the Liberal Party in 1906 in a passage of such remarkable force that he was sure it remained clear in the mind of everyone who heard him. The right hon. Gentleman denied absolutely and specifically the right of the parent to have his child educated at the expense of the State. He said it was not in the book of nature and was not recognised by the law of the land, but it was so recognised in this Bill. His second point was as to the right of entry to all schools. This was really a surrender of all the classical principles of Liberalism, and his third had reference to the provision that the assistants might teach if they cared. They were told that teachers were protected against tests. Every Member who had sat upon an education committee knew that in the appointment of teachers there were always some members of the committee who knew what denomination the teachers belonged to and what position they occupied with regard to the various conflicting denominations represented upon the body, and he ventured to say they could put down as many paper safeguards to the rights and liberties of the teachers as they liked, and as they had done in this Bill, and they would all be dead letters in six or seven years, provided teachers were allowed to give denominational instruction. This simple proposal that

527
assistants in schools might be asked to volunteer was the beginning of a new inquisition in a very subtle form. He objected to the new religious education committee provided for in Clause 7, and did not know why the clause was there at all. He did not think it was necessary to put such a provision in to enable the clergymen of various denominations to assist in drawing up a syllabus.
MR. RUNCIMANwas understood to say that if the work was to be carried on it was necessary to put this clause in.
MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid that with all due deference to the right hon. Gentleman he thought he was mistaken, but they would see about it when the Committee stage was reached, if the Government would be good enough to construct their guillotine in such a way that they could deal with it. His next point was that the contracting-out system destroyed all idea of unity. The hon. Gentleman who had just addressed this House had said that it would be used to an exceedingly limited extent, but he thought it would be used to the maximum extent. He was told that the right of entry would not meet the desire of people who otherwise might wish to contract out. That missed the whole point. Those who would ant to contract out were those who wanted an atmosphere in their schools; and three quarters of an hour every morning was absolutely valueless from the point of view of religious instructors and people who wanted the religious atmosphere. If it was meant that religious instruction was a knowledge of the procession of the Kings of Judah that was a different thing, but if he sent his children
528
to school for the purpose of being religiously taught and trained, three-quarters of an hour reading from the Bible would not fulfil that desire. Therefore, the right of entry did not meet the desire to contract out. What did meet the desire to contract out were the financial facilities. These the Government proposed to give in a substantially increased grant with the liberty to impose fees, and by so doing they imposed a premium on contracting-out which would be very largely taken advantage of. The one virtue of the Bill from his point of view was the single school area alteration, but that could have been secured in other ways. The core of the whole Bill—that part of it around which everything else was built up—was the right to enter. Take that away, and the whole Bill fell. That was why he was going to vote against the Second Reading. All the Members of the Government had said the right to enter now proposed was radically different from the right of entry proposed in 1906, and his hon. friend in referring to that very delightful expression that the right of entry would create pandemonium, tried to put some sort of meaning on it which he thought he would find he had not in his mind at the time. The extract was this—
"He was violently against the segregation of children of tender age."
Were not children of a tender age going to be segregated by the right of entry as proposed in this Bill? If not, what was the use of entry? His hon. friend proceeded to say—
"They would have them set aside in sections, and there would be pandemonium."
That was the position now. He cheered the hon. Gentleman when he

529
made that statement in 1906, and he was appalled and amazed that he now tried to get out of it and delivered a speech in defence of a Bill which flew violently in the teeth of the position which he took up when he sat below the gangway. Every Minister, with one exception, had declared against the right of entry. There was one proudly consistent Member of the Treasury Bench who could indulge in an amplitude of self-satisfaction which was unusual in hon. Members who crossed from below the Gangway to take up responsible positions. The hon. Member for West Ham had always declared in favour of this and supported an Amendment in that direction in 1906. The party who were going to follow in his footsteps to-morrow night and declare that, after all, he saw more clearly and more accurately than their own leader did two years ago, only gave him three supporters on that occasion. Now they were told that they were all converted, and that for the sake of a peace that was no peace they were going to vote against their principles, against educational efficiency, and against proposals that two years ago they regarded as educational anathema. Why did they oppose the right of entry, and why did he oppose it now? They only required to quote Ministers' speeches. The first point was that it would create administrative chaos. They believed it would do it in 1906, and they believed it now. Their next point was that it was detrimental to the children. They believed it then, and they believed it now. Their next point was that it would militate against general peace. Two years ago hon. Members were cheering that very sentiment. The fourth point that they
530
made use of in 1906 was that it would impose disabilities on those creeds which did not believe in accepting the facilities provided by it. That was to say the right of entry simply allowed creeds that believed in the right of entry to take advantage of it, and those creeds, like, for instance, certain sections of the Baptists and the old-fashioned Nonconformists who held firmly to their old notions of the relations of Church and State, would refuse to accept those facilities, and the right of entry was thus merely a selective process by which certain particular sects took advantage of the sects that held other views. That view was put forcibly and ably by hon. Members opposite two years ago. All these arguments had now gone. The Government were going to create what they imagined to be peace at the price of destroying administrative order, sacrificing the interests of the children, militating against the best religious spirit of the country, and imposing disabilities on those sects which did not believe it was in accord with their principles to take advantage of the right of entry. They did not oppose the right of entry as sectarians two years ago, but on educational grounds, and nothing that had happened since had changed that position. Every argument that they used then could be used now against it, and therefore the House was entitled to ask Ministers to reply to-morrow a little more accurately, and more in detail, not to the criticism that they might pass upon the Bill, but to their speeches which were only two years old. The position he took up was perfectly clear. He did not do this in a lightsome partisan frame of mind. He regretted exceedingly that he could not support the Government

531
in the Second Reading of this Bill. He had always done it in the previous Bills, but this contained so much that was objectionable to him from the religious and educational points of view that he must vote against it. His final point, and he put it with all sincerity was this. He was deeply and sincerely interested in the religious life of this country. He believed that unless there was a better spiritual life among the people, they could educate them as much as they liked and make them as magnificent productive machines as they liked, but the country was not thus going to remain great and maintain its leading position in the world. He opposed all this make-believe of religious instruction, because it was destroying at the very root the best sentiment of their religious life. Over and over again they had challenged those who were in favour of denominational instruction to produce their results in the form of statistics. Let them examine the figures of crime. Had the scholars educated in the dead, immobile, uninspired, and uninspiring skeleton of their faith been better citizens? Had they had better manners? Had they done more than the board school children? Had they done more for upright, noble citizenship than these? No, they had not. Let them examine the statistics of juvenile offenders and they found that a mere drop in the bucket of the forces of civilisation was this miserable fraud which was imposed on the people in the name of religious instruction, the mere reading of the Bible and answering questions from the Bible for half-an-hour or three-quarters every morning. It was because he was so deeply sensible of the absolute failure of the present form of religious
532
instruction that he begged and prayed the House to face the question of substituting something which was, perhaps, a little more heroic, although it might be a little more difficult. When hon. Members told them the secular solution was no good, and was impossible, he would remind them that every argument which was common to the right of entry and the secular solution was used by them two years ago against the right of entry. He wanted to lay the very greatest emphasis on the fact that this really was not religious instruction at all. The Archbishop of Canterbury and everyone else in this curious joint committee which was being formed, told them it was a guarantee that the Christian education of England was being looked after. God help Christian education in England if all they could do was to teach the children from the Bible for half-an-hour or three-quarters—a mere intellectual exercise. Because the Bill was opposed to education and religion, he should not vote in favour of its Second Reading.
Motion made and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour)—
Put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at one minute before Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord Cranworth took the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  Petition of Messrs. Rees and Freres, of 5, Victoria Street, Westminster, Parliamentary Agents, praying for leave to present a petition of owners and ratepayers in the borough of Hanley, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 93 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table, and Standing Order No. 93 to be considered To-morrow in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
PETITIONS.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour of; Of Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Carlos Bay, Newquay, Fenton, Birtley, Chartershaugh, Brecon Hill, Bromley Road, Hanwood; Temperance Meeting, Moss Side, Manchester; Wesley Guild, Ilford; Sunday School Teachers, Brentwood; Church Officers and Sunday School, Argyle Street, Hull; Officers, West Parade Mission, Hull; Officers and Members, Providence Row Mission, Hull; Teachers and Officers of Sunday School, Grosvenor Street, Hull; Bible Class, Walthown Street, Hull; Sunday School, Princes Avenue, Hull; Wesley Guild, Princes Avenue, Hull; Trustees, Stewards, etc., Princes Avenue, Hull; Temperance Meeting, Society Class, Wesleyan Methodist Mission, and Sunday School, Hamilton Place, Hull; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Wesley Guild, and Sunday School, Beverley Road, Hull; Free Church Council, Sunday School Teachers, Leaders and Stewards, Wesley Guild, and Trustees, Wesleyan Church, Hebburn; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Knight Street, Jarrow, and Bolton Colliery; Officers, Wesleyan Church, Hebburn Colliery; Officers, Wesleyan Church, Argyle Street,
  258
  Hebburn; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Overthorpe; Band of Hope, Fern Hill, Salop; Wesleyan Mission, Broad Ma Hall, Bristol; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Brontrewyn Talsarhan; Wesley Churches at Carew, Penmaer; Wesley Guild, Takingates; Brotherhood, Norton, Stockton-on-Tees; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Dilhorn; Wesley Guild, Park Road, Newcastle; Band of Hope, Bolton; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Danley, Salop; Welsh Wesleyan Churches at Kidwelty, Hesenon Bembrey; Temperance Society, Newport, Isle of Wight; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Shorwill; Wesley Guilds at Newport, Isle of Wight; Finsbury Park; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Etrington Street, Plymouth; Brotherhood and Sunday School at Conway Road, Cardiff; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Steyne Gardens, Worthing, Trinity, Paddington; Band of Hope, Lancing; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Shoreham; Sunday School, South Bank, Middlesbrough; Wesleyan Methodist Church, South Bank; Wesley Guild, Leigh; Band of Hope, Wellington; Leaders Meeting, Tadcaster; Free Churches, Grassington, York; Wesley Guild, Horden, Sunderland; Men's Bible Class, Sidcup; Band of Hope, Kingsley, Cheadle; Wesley Bible Class, Baptist Mills, Bristol; Temperance Committee, Fartown; Sunday School, Fartown; Band of Hope, Fartown; Local Preachers Meeting, Queen's Street, Huddersfield; Sunday School, Rowley Hill; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Rowley Hill; Sunday School, Upperheaton; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Upperheaton; Band of Hope, Upperheaton; Sunday School, Houses Hill; Mutual Improvement Society, Dartmouth; Wesley Guild and Wesleyan Methodist Church, Tynemouth; Wesley Guild and Wesleyan Methodist Church, Clarendon Park; Wesleyan Mission, Mansfield Street; Wesleyan Institute, Bishop Street; Wesleyan School', The Glen; Missionary Meeting, Glen Magna; Mission Service, Bread Street; Men's Bible Class and Sunday School, Clarendon Park; Sunday School Teachers, Ayleston Park; Wesleyan Congregation, Bread Street; Two Senior Classes, Clarence Hall; Society Class, Llanishen; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Ebbw Vale

  259
  and Beaufort; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Cardiff; Wesley Guild's District Council, Cardiff; Brotherhood and Sisterhood, Sheffield; Good Templars Sub-Conference, Houghton-le-Spring; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Philadelphia, Durham; Band of Hops, New Bury, Farnworth; Brotherhood, Albert Hall, Nottingham; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Victoria Hall, Nottingham; Society Class, Montford Bridge; Bands of Hope at Rilla Mill and Venterdon; Adult Bible Class, Frankwell, Shrewsbury; Society Classes at Montford Bridge and Morton Mill; Wesleyan Churches at Keswick and Cockermouth; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Dalton-in-Furness and Barrow-in-Furness; Mission Service, Wesleyan Methodist Church, and Public Conference, White-haven; Men's Bible Class, Whitehaven; Wesleyan Methodist Church, North Street, Nottingham; Temperance and Band of Hope Committee, Manchester; Wesley Guild, Cheadle Holme; Women's Temperance Association, Manchester; Central Hall Service, Eccles, Manchester; Sunday School and Band of Hope, Trinity, Eccles; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Longsight, Manchester; Sunday School, Ely; Wesley Guild, Clare Garden, Glamorgan; Sunday School, Clare Gardens, Cardiff; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Ely; Sunday School and Band of Hope and Wesleyan Society, Ludlow Street, Cardiff; Wesleyan Methodist Church, Pelton Fell; Sunday School, Ivybridge; Brotherhood and Sisterhood, Ebenezer, Sheffield; Temperance Society, King Street, Hammersmith; Wesley Guild, Victoria Road, Southsea; Congregational Church, Ebenezer, Uppermill; Congregational Church, Dobcross, Saddleworth; Men's Class, Delph; Local Preachers, Saddle-worth; Wesley Guild, Upper Mill; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Hartland and Kirkampton; Gospel Temperance Society and Wesley Guild at Ivybridge; Executive of Wesley Guild, Manvers Street, Trowbridge; Wesley Guild, Market Rasen, Lincolnshire; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Padstow, Sydenham; Wesley Guilds at Helperton, Wesley Road, Trowbridge, Ridgway, Plympton; Sunday School Teacher's Convention, Woodford; Seven Kings; Wesley House Chapel, Romford; Cran-
  260
  brook Park; Wesleyan Church, Ilford; Wesleyan Church, Cotham; Wesleyan Church, Beckenham; Wesleyan Methodists, West London Mission; Whitchurch; Dartford; Wesleyan Methodists, Banbury; Porth; Ferrdale; Woodhouse, Sheffield; Warmington, Banbury; Wesleyan Methodists Huddersfield; Wesleyan Circuit, Swansea; Public Meetings at Bolingey, Weston-super-Mare, Ellesmere Road, Sheffield; Rechabites, Leicester; Porthleven, Cornwall, Chester-le-Street, Hetton-le-Hole, Roupell Park, Brant Broughton, Haworth, Conisborough, Sheffield, Ecclesfield, Sheffield, St. Alban's Road, Market Street, Bristol, Bridlington, Regent Road, Salford, Regent Road, Manchester, Central Hall, Manchester, Mostyn Road, S.W., Langwir Priory Road, Wilford Haven, Plumstead Hall, Woolwich, Cadishead, Manchester, Congleton, Rhyl, Quay, Marazion, St. Denis, St. Agnes, Regurced, Oswaldtwistle, Rishton, Forest Gate, E., St. Columb, St. Newlyn, Stow-on-the-Wold, Upper Mill, Laddleworth, Spilsby, Moseley Road, Birmingham, St. Alban's, Cottingham, Market Harborough, Trustees, Cottingham, Market Harborough, West Streatham, S.W., Durham Road, Sunderland, North Hill, Trevadlock Cross, Audley, Stafford, Easington Lane, County Durham, Statheon, Commercial Road, Steburn, West Heslerton, South London Mission, Maryport, Fothergill, Flimby, Netherton, Gilcrux, Mowbray, Broughton Moor, Flimby, Aspatrix, Baldhu, Zelah, St. Day, Frogpool, Cavdynham, Truro, Shildon, Riseburn, Heighington, St. Merryn, Upper Tooting, S.W., Lune Street, Preston, Hackney Wick, N.W., Temperance Union, Rochdale, East Street Portswood, Bevers Town, Bitterne Park, Staniland, Halifax, Silverstone, Leonard Stanley, New Barnet, Hazel Grove, Barnes Square, Clayton-le-Moors, Milwall, Poplar (2), Granby, Minehead, Sutton Bonington, Chester Moor, Mawgan, Gweek Helstone, Constantine, Waltham Abbey, Cross Street, Market Drayton, Braunton, Helstone, Cheadle, Hales, Clapham, Dewsbury, Marble Arch, Hyde Park, Pitt Street, Rotherhithe, E., Salisbury, Leicester, Sheffield, Rishton, Grays, Whitehaven, Sale, Cross Bank, Padiham, Woodford, Churches, Public Meetings, Temperance Societies, etc.,

  261
  at the following places: Aberavon, Port Talbot, Abersychan, Accrington, Adwalton, Audenshaw, Hooley Hall, Armley, Steaker Lane, Arreton, Isle of Wight, Barnsley (2), Barry, Batley (2), Beeston, Beighton, Bellingham, Benwell, Bere Alston, Devon, Birdwell, Bishop Auckland, Bishopstoke, Blackheath (2), Bishopstoke Common, Blaenavon, Bolton (2), Boston, Bradford (3), Bristol, Bury, Cammelford, Canning Town, E., Castlemere, Chorley, Churchill, Cwmtylery, Colne, Connah's Quay, Coombewater, Cowes (2), Cowling, Crossbills, Crosslanes, Dalton-in-Furness, Dalwood, Devon, Darlington, Darwin, Lower, Diss, Derby, Downham Market, Drybrook, Dunston-on-Tyne, Eccleshill, Bradford, Egremont, Featherstone, Yorkshire, Forest Hill S.E., Frodsham, Fulwell, Durham, Garndiffaith, Gateshead, Gillingham, Great Harwood (2), Hedge End, Hartlepool, Helsby, Herodsfoot, Higginshaw, High Southwick, High Town, Holt, Hove, Hull, Heywood, Kensington West, Kingsley, Cheshire, King's Lynn, Laisterdyke, Lancaster, Launceston (2), Leeds (3), Leicester, Love West (3), Loughborough, Sparrow Hill, Lostwithiel, Louth, Manchester, Market Rasen, Midddleton, Lancashire, Mirfield, Mitcham Hold Green, Monkwearmouth, Mossley, Neath, Nelson, Lancashire, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Newcastle-under-Lyne (2), Newquay, Nantwich, Castle Street, Old-ham (3), Ossett, Dale Street, Oswald-twistle, Pear Tree Green, Pendleton (2). Penzance, Peterborough, Polperro, Poynton, Pudsey, Porthleven, Radstock and District, Ramsbottom, Patmos, Redditch, Roadwater, West Somerset, Ridsdale, Northumberland, Rochdale and District (2), Ryde, St. Bees, St. Dennis, St. Mary's, Scilly Isles, St. Pinnock, St. Teath, Salisbury, Salterhebble, Sheerness, Sheffield (5), Sheringham (2) Shiney Row, Shirley, Sittingbourne Southampton, South Shields, Southwick-on-Wear, Stanhill, Stanningley, Stonebroom, Sunderland (3), Sutton Bridge Skewen, Taunton, Tavistock (2), Trecan, gate, Trewalder, Tontine, Upham. Ventnor, Wakefield, West End, West Woodburn, Weston-super-Mare (2) Whitegate, Whiteheath, Whitford Whittington Moor, Whittlesea, Wigan (3), Woolton, Isle of Wight, Bristol,
  262
  Huddersfield, Walham Grove; the following Lodges of the Independent Order of Good Templars: Mount Pleasant, Birmingham, Britain's Pride, Birmingham, Hope of Carlisle, Carlisle, Temple, London, Northumbrian Pioneer North Shields, Excelsior, New Barnet, Rescue, Workington, Cumberland, Livingstone, Wolverhampton, Alexandra Star, Wood Green, Shamrock, Thistle and Rose, New Herrington, Rising Sun Sunderland, True and Steadfast, Castle-town, Florida, Chester-le-Street, The Heather Bell, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Furness, Barrow-in-Furness, Beacon, Egremont, Cumberland, Three Nots, Frizington, Hope of Dartford, Dartford, John Hudson, Clay Cross, Hope, Seaton. John Bowen, Deptford, The Re-union, Islington, Araham Lincoln, Exeter. Mounts Bay, Penzance, Sunlight, Falmouth, James Teare, Devonport, Peter Spence, Newton, George Thomas, Bristol, Dr. Meacham's Memorial, Manchester, St. Pancras, London, Victoria Park Lodge, Hackney, Star of Hope, Northampton, Earnest Workers, Batley, Dulwich United, Dulwich, Star of Peace South Shields, Montpelier, Southport, Commonwealth, Plaistow, Benefactor of Mankind, Torpoint, Lambeth Perseverance, South Lambeth, Attercliff, Sheffield, George Wilson MacCree, London, Franklin Home Circle, Stoke-on-Trent, St. Hilda, Hartlepool, Alexander, Woodford, Wesley Hall, Liverpool, The Eldon, Manchester, Middlesbrough Rescue, Middlesbrough-on-Tees, Plymouth Girded Loins, Plymouth, Steadfast Union, Leicester, Ashton's Hope, Ashton-under Lyne, Benjamin Whitworth, Fleetwood, Rose of Somerset, Wincanton, Nil Desperandum, Wigan, Corinium and Pitts United, Cirencester, The Happy Home, Barrow-in-Furness, George Cruikshank, Canning Town, Dare to be a Daniel, Gateshead, Sunbeam, Ramsgate, Rose of Salford, Salford, Hope of Glossop, Glossop, Rev. Charles Garrett, Manchester, Stockwell's Hope, Lambeth, The Concord, Somerton, Faith and Hope, Stone, Up and Onward, South Hetton, Hope of Summertown, Oxford, Halifax (Halifax), Beeston Guild, Beeston, Keynsham (Keynsham) Enterprise, Nottingham, Oldbury Excelsior, Oldbury, Weston, Bath, Hope

  263
  of Pomphlett, Pomphlett, Edward Moore, Wallsend-on-Tyne, Burnley Rescue, Burnley, Pride of South. Moor, South Moor, Hope of Colne, Colne, Hugh Bourne, Bath, Good Intent, Openshaw, Pride of Pangbourne (Pangbourne), George Bird, South Shields, St. George's, North Ormesby, William Boulton, Burslem, Bernard Gilpin, Houghton-le-Spring, St. George's, Liverpool, Star of Ilkeston, Ilkeston, The Vectis, Shanklin, Wansbeck, Morpeth Tower, Birkenhead, Walthamstow, Walthamstow, Welcome, Chippenham, Margate Perseverance, Margate, Goodwin Light, Deal, John Cottier, Liscard, Cheshire, Aim at Right, Hyde, Bethesda, Bristol, Fountain of Hope, Sandown, I.W. Hope of Queenboro', Queenboro', Ashley Vale, Bristol, Safeguard of Folkestone, Folkestone, Safeguard of Andover, Andover, Pride of Oldham, Oldham, Pride of Norton, Norton-on-Tees, Jubilee Star of the East, Sunderland, Stand like the Brave, Craghead, Wigston, St. Wolstens, Wigston, St. Helens Pioneer, St. Helens, Freedom of London, Bethnal Green, Advance, Ramsgate, Bridport Crusader, Bridport, Cobden, Stratford, Roberts-bridge, Robertsbridge, Benjamin Parson's Ebley, Unity and Advance, Truro, Dawn of Hope, Hebburn New Town, Waterloo, Sheffield, Work of Love, Birmingham, Rising Star, Bedlington, Stratford Excelsior, Stratford, Right over Wrong, Petersfield, John Williams, Leicester, Harbour of Safety, Dipton, New Hope, Huddersfield, Pant of Renown, Loftus, Stillington Progressive, Stillington, Hope of Heeley, Sheffield, Sir Francis Chantrey, Sheffield, Temperance Mission, Warrington, Liverpool Zion, Liverpool, Samaritan, Cheltenham, Rose of Eden, Shildon, Hope of Dunston, Dunston-on-Tyne, The Herschel, Slough, Happy Family, Preston, No Surrender, Nottingham, Guiding Star, Bootle, Mizpah, Tooting, Northern Light, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Golden Rule, Doncaster, Home Mission, Huddersfield, Eastbourne, Eastbourne, Earnest and True, Weston-super-Mare, Edward Saunders, Lavington, Cromwell, Huntingdon, Reformer, Seaton Delavel, Progress, Yatton, Star of Hope, Timsbury, Cestrian, Chester, Excelsior, Nottingham, Catherine Couzens, King's Lynn, Par Star of Hope, Par, Hope of Earlstown, Earlestown, Truro Guiding Star,
  264
  Truro, Hope of Wick, Littlehampton, Sparkling Water, Gurney Valley, Beacon Light, Cleethorpes, Spa, Melksham, Blossom of Friendship, Leeds, General Gordon, Bedlington, Lady Boyne, Langley Moor, The Central, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Hope of Hayden, Haydon Bridge, Help and Refuge, Redruth, Templar's Pride, Liverpool, Everton Excelsior, Liverpool, Brandon Mount Beulah, Brandon Colliery, Star of Worcester, Worcester, Watford, Watford, Chelmsford, Chelmsford, Barnes, Barnes, Dawn of Liberty, Southampton, Come and Welcome, Yeovil, The Refuge, Wallingford, Whitfield Excelsior, Ashford, Kent, Widnes Consolation, Widnes, Hope of Murton, Murton, Harbour Light, Rotherhithe, Kirkbride, Delight, Kirkbride, Jubilee, Lynton, Emblem of Purity, Sunnyside, near Tow Law, Sidcup Advance, Sidcup, Charity, Eastbourne, Star of the Glen, Hedley Hill, Pull Together, Shipley, New Seaham Jubilee, New Seaham, Auckland Reformer, Bishop Auckland, Hope of Tiverton, Tiverton, London Tabernacle, Chelsea, Hope of Howden, Howden-le-Wear, Alpha, Leigh, Rose of England, Tyward-reath, Light of the Valley, Bishop Auckland, Rose of Sunnybrow, Bishop Auckland, Red Hill Safeguard, Red Hill, George Thorneleo, Walworth, Myrtle Grove, Eastwood, Unity Camp, Folkestone, Onward and Upward, Dartmouth, Brunswick, West Hartlepool, Bolden Jubilee, Bolden Colliery, St. James, Sheffield, Harbour of Refuge, Haswell, Rose of Love, Coundon, Riverside, Liverpool, Tiverton, Bath, Royal Sussex Brighton, Neal Dow, Ardingley, Excelsior, Newport Pagnell, Star of Hope, West Hartlepool, Offspring of Hope, Bootle, Perseverance, Exeter, Peace and Unity, Workington, Eltringham Prospect, Prudhoe, Thomas Munday, Blackfriars, The Corsham, Gleaner, Corsham,, Gordon, Lympstone, Hope of Ruspidge, Cinderford, Henshaw, Oldham, John Harrison, Birkenhead, Hope of St. Bartholomew, Pendleton, Bolton Claremoat, Bolton, Perseverance, Rotherham, Kensington Royal Standard, Liverpool, Lacock Perseverance, Lacock, Newbury Endeavour, Newbury, Sir Horace Neol, Hinckley, Friends of Godalming, Godalming, Castle, Launceston, Cranbrook, Ilford, Birmingham Cambrian, Aston Manor,

  265
  Hugh Bourne, Kingston, United Effort Hull, Friend, Stockton-on-Tees, Perseverance, Norwich, Victory of Chopwell, Chopwell, Pride of Ipswich, Ipswich, Ernest Jones, Consett, Bond of Unity, Manor Park, Hope of Mount Pleasant, Crook, Failsworth Welcome Stranger, Failsworth, California Rescue, Derby, Ark of Safety, Carlingcott, The Home Again, Burslem, Jubilee Pansy, Darlaston, Elizabeth Box Memorial, Dursley, Hope of Ealing, Ealing, Star of Gorleston, Gorleston, Crusaders of Chertsey, Chertsey, Avon Valley, Ringwood, James Towers', Birkenhead, Wild Rose, Evenwood, Edward Pease, Darlington, Direct Veto, Birmingham, Invincible Crusader, Maidstone, Nil Desperandum, Birmingham, Neal Dow, Honiton, Sobriety, Birtley, S.O., Amicable, Chesterfield, Never Die, Peasedown St. John, Brampton Lifeboat, Chesterfield, Southsea Royal Albert, Portsmouth, Hurstmoncieux Castle, Hurstmoncieux, Southtown, Great Yarmouth, Stantonbury Pioneer, Wolverton, The Isle of Thanet, Margate, Charltons Excelsior, Stangbrow, Trinity Pioneer, London, Queen's Own, London, Star of the East, Broadstairs, Olive Branch Cockfield, The Heart and Hand, Byers Green, Armoury Lodge, Southall, Walmer Castle, Lower Walmer, William Tweedie, Camberwell, Lifeboat, Irthlingborough, Sileby United, Sileby, Morecambe, Morecambe, The Turn of the Tide, Walworth, Hope of Brixton, Clapham, Hope of Haverton Hill, Haverton Hill, Go Forward, Wandsworth, The Mizpah, Plumstead, Humanity, Willesden, Bradford Onward, Bradford, Yorkshire, Hope of Kennington, Ashford, Kent, Work and Win, Blyth Bridge, Roselands Jubilee, Eastbourne, Sunbeam, Wakefield, Happy Home, South Wigston, One More Effort, Wandsworth, David Melvin, Oxford, Valley of Peace, Pentonville, Battersea Welcome, Battersea, Park Vale, Leicester, Harmonius, Hull, Parton Jubilee, Parton, Heart of Oak, North Shields, Bowes Park, Wood Green, Jubilee Emancipation, Witton Gilbert, Rose of Newbottle, Newbottle, Answorth Jubilee, Answorth, W. E. Gladstone, Wallsend-on-Tyne, Mantle Memorial, Leicester, Jacks Palace, Limehouse, Workers-on-the-Hill, Tunstall, Topsham, Topsham, Hope of Paignton, Paignton, Hope, Crawley, Darnall Reformers, Sheffield, Rayleigh Endeavour,
  266
  Rayleigh, East Ham Samaritan, East Ham, Dulwich Victorious, East Dulwich, Standard, Gorton, Willis Loyal and True, Greencroft, The Harmony, Hackney, Star of Cravan, Barnoldswick, Star of St. Mary, Southampton, Burnham, Burnham, Teesdale Social, Middleton-in-Teesdale, Star of Hove, Hove, Hope of Wadsley Bridge, Wadsley Bridge, Pride of Stowmarket, Stowmarket, Edgbaston United, Birmingham, Southwick Seamen's Friend, Southwick, Parkeston Alexandra, Parkeston, Port, Coventry, Seven Kings, Seven Kings, Rose of Derby, Derby, Home of Peace, Barrow-in-Furness, Goldsithney, Goldsithney, Hope of Disley, Disley, Frederick Meyer, Lambeth, Staithes Rescue, Staithes, Hope of Henfield, Henfield, Essex Onward, Leyton, Lord Nelson's Memorial, Ashton-under-Lyne, Hope of Staindrop, Staindrop, Hope of Laindon, Laindon, The Whitgift, Croydon, Manningham Progressive, Bradford, Hope of Hasland, Hasland, James Mackenie, South Shields, The Coleridge, Ottery St. Mary, Swan Templars, Liverpool, Pride of Chilton, Chilton, Whitgift Effort, Southbourne, St. James of Watford, Watford, Mary Gibbs, Custom House, Sandiacre and Stapleford United, Sandiacre, Monument, Wellington, Somerset, Vale of Tanfield Lea, Tanfield, Hope of Vange, Vange, Sherwood Forest, Nottingham, Hornsey St. George, Hornsey, J. S. Vorley, Coalville, Ephphatha, Sheffield, Hope of Ropley, Ropley, Nil Desperandum, Rochford, Kislingbury, Kislingbury, Anchor, Grimsby, East Ham Nazareth, East Ham, Hope of Grays, Grays, Hope of Greenhill, Harrow, Crediton, Crediton, Bedfont Unity, Bedfont, Hope of Ardwick, Manchester, Grassmoor Forward, Grassmoor, Carlton, Birmingham, Adderbury Ark of Love, Adderbury, Pride of Gillingham, Gillingham, Dorset, The Crystal, Workington, Solway Spring, Flimby, Hope of Crook, Crook, Ever Welcome, Stretford, Star of Belgravia, London, Surbiton, Surbiton, The Tramway Beacon Light, Broadstairs, Edridge, Croydon, Wardley Rover, Wardley Colliery, The United, Reigate, Moorland Pioneer, Leek, Dover Emmanuel, Dover, Kensington Perseverance, Kensington, Hope of Potters Green, Coventry, Wimbledon, Wimbledon, Ellesmere Pioneer, Farnworth, Hope of Erdington, Birmingham, Reddish, Stockport,

  267
  Mildred Forth, Leicester, North Walbottle Reform, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Pride of the Isle, Barrow-in-Furness, M. A. Pearce, Deptford, Peckham, Peckham Rye, Excelsior, Birmingham, Crystal Palace, Penge, St. Andrew's, Hebburn, Golden Stream, Bermondsey, Sir Wilfred Lawson, Cockermouth, Southsea, Portsmouth, William Palmer, Tottenham, Flower of the West, Whitehaven, James McCurry, Chelsea, Press Forward, Maidenhead, Felling Safeguard, Felling-on-Tyne, United Jubilee, Leeds, Temperance Hall, Walsall, Caroline Lawson, Aspatria, City of London, Clerkenwell, Dingle, Liverpool, Star of the Cotswold, Chedworth, Manchester Pioneer, Manchester, Hope of Chorley, Chorley, Grand Alliance, Manchester, Jesse Sessions, Gloucester, Lincolnshire's First, Lincoln, City of Oxford, Oxford, Onward, Stockton-on-Tees, Samuel Albert, Newton Abbot, Torbay, Brixham, Black Diamond, Dearham, Enterprise, Wigton, Hope of Weston, Bath, Spellow Templars, Liverpool, Winton, Marylebone, Birkenhead Hope, Birkenhead, Toxteth, Liverpool, Pure Stream, Broughton, Open Door, Belmont, William Woodall, Hull, Undercliff, Ventnor, Flow of Severn, Newnham, Wilberforce, Middlesbrough, Harmony, Huddersfield, Richmond Hill, Richmond, Good Hope, Norwich, No Surrender, Shildon, Star of Solway, Maryport, Hope of Mitcham, Mitcham, Champion, Lee, Pride of Birkenhead, Birkenhead, Seacomb Bethel, Seacombe, Benjamin Hill, Bermondsey, James Thorne, Bristol, Torquay Excelsior, Torquay, Star of Hope, Poole, Charles Garrett, Burslem, Reading, Reading, Henry Ansell, London. Ephraim Ellis, Derby, Surrey Commercial, Rotherhithe, Swindon United, Swindon, London Olive Branch, London. Hand of Friendship, Hoxton, Templars Alliance, Portsmouth, Jabez Burns, London, Lindum, Linooln, Wiveliscombe, Wiveliscombe, Rock of Safety, Leicester, Hope of Bearwood, Smethwick, Forward, Birmingham, County Palatine, Lancaster, Northampton Pioneer, Northampton, Highworth Perseverance, Highworth, Abingdon, Abingdon, Rialto, Sheffield, Frederick Shaw, Northampton, Star of Brotton, Brotton, Ralph Walton, North Shields, First Suffolk St. Edmunds, Bury St. Edmunds, Hebburn's Hope, Hebburn,
  268
  Hope of Rushdon, Rushdon, Fair City, Gloucester, Hope of Landport, Portsmouth, Silver Stream, Lewisham, St. Leonards, Hastings, Seghill Blake, Seghill, St. Oswald, Oswestry, Whitefield, London Henry Kirke White, Nottingham, Rother, Rotherham, Ark of Love, Plymouth, Hope of Banbury, Banbury, Croydon Pioneer, Croydon, Aldershot, Aldershot, Ellesmere, Sheffield, Nephalia, Southport, Hope of Droylesden, Borough Market, Southwark, Rochdale Pioneer, Rochdale, Gleam of Sunshine, Birkenhead, Plumstead Victory, Plumstead, Hope to Prosper, Clenchwarton, Guildford, Guildford, Tivolian, Cheltenham, Liskeard, Liskeard, Forest Gate Perseverance, Forest Gate, Lewes Castle, Lewes, Hope of Nunhead, Nunhead, True and Ever Faithful, High Brooms, Central, Stockport, Dawn of Peace, Guisbrough, Hope of Whitchurch, Whitchurch, Charnwood, Loughborough, Admiral Blake, Bridgwater, Sir Walter C. Trevelyan, Blyth, Bracknell, Bracknell, Dawn of Hope, Southampton, Hope of South Norwood, South Norwood, Olive Branch, North Shields, Rose of Brentford,, Brentford, Star of Peace, Hinckley, Nelson Welcome, Nelson, Tiverton, Tiverton, Hope of Newchurch, Newchurch, Bilston, Rainbow, Bilston, Peaceful Progress, Birkdale, George Clark, Yeovil, Wolcot Good Samaritan, Bath, Cheltonian, Cheltenham, Star of Faith, Barn-staple, James Rewcastle, Hartlepool, Morning Star, Rawtenstall, Jubilee, Scarborough, Star of Hope, Wroxall, Pride of Thornaby, Thornaby, Plymouth, Plymouth, Beacon of Hope, Tow Law, Ark of Safety, Coalville, Nil Desperandum, Wales, Hope of Louth, Louth, Light on the Hill, Newcastle-on-Tyne, George Dodds, Tudhoe Colliery, England's Pride, Brierley Hill, Marlborough, Chelsea, Hope of Teesdale, Barnard Castle, Hope of Hindley, Hindley, Wesley, Exeter, Pride of Fishponds, Fishponds, Hope of Annfield Plain, Annfield Plain, Colne Valley, Huddersfield, Enterprise, Oldham, Star of Blackburn, Blackburn, Robert Raikes, Gloucester, Hope of Longtown, Longtown, Hope of Willington, Willington, Bona Fide, Porthleven, True Friendship, North Shields, Faithful Friend, Butterknowle, Three Town Excelsior, Stone-house, Good of the Order, Catford, Hope

  269
  of Burton, Burton-on-Trent, Hamilton Square, Birkenhead, Pride of Grimesthorpe, Sheffield, Hope of West Stanley, West Stanley, Rose of Radford, Nottingham. Dr. John Fothergill, Darlington, Rose of Accrington, Accrington, Pride of East Ham, East Ham, Active, Newark, Star of Bethlehem, Hull, Pride of the West, Tow Law, Granite Rock, Mount Sorrell, Hope of New Trimdon, Trimdon, Nuneaton's Hope, Nuneaton, Hambledon Hill, Market Rasen, Julius Benn, Bow, Hope of Leytonstone, Leytonstone, Floreat Hova, Hove, Hope of Nettleworth and Plawsworth, Nettlesworth, Pride of Rusholme, Manchester, Safeguard, Wymondham, John Bright, Aylesford, Bournville, Bournville, Ray of Hope, Southampton, William Woods Memorial, Ashton-under-Lyne, Alert, Bermondsey, Triumph, Accrington, Star of Teddington, Teddington, Emanuel, Leicester, Alpaca, Bradford, Hope of Marley Hill, Sunniside, Anchor, Merton, Retford Excelsior, Retford, General Gordon, Bedlington Station, Crescent, Northwich, Perseverance, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Hope of Tyldesley, Tyldesley, John Ingram, Stamford, Edmondsley Safeguard, Edmondsley, Carshalton Rainbow, Carshalton, Parkstone, Poole, Sturdy Colyton, Norman, Wellingborough, Advance Guard, Brighton, Star of Hope, Burslem, Boscombe, Bournemouth, Crown of Surrey, Norwood, Pride of Exeter, Exeter, Friendly Help, Arnold, Memorial, Hull, Endeavour, Nantwich, Bonehill Branch, Warrington, Bethel, Great Yarmouth, Beacon Light, Stratford, Stand like the Brave, Tynemouth, Island Centre, Newport, Welcome, Lowestoft, Laurel Mount, Shipley, Josiah Wedgwood, Burslem, Hope of Browney, Browney, Pilsley Jubilee, Pilsley, Jubilee Effort, High Littleton, Sutton Excelsior, Sutton, Tower of Refuge, Manchester, East Anglia, Beccles, Isaac Love, Durham, Star of Hammersmith, Hammersmith, Bradford City, Bradford, Good Shepherd, Hammersmith, Peter the Hermit, Plymouth, Cowes Harbour Light, Cowes, Stratford Enterprise, Stratford, Robert Nicholson, Rosehill-on-Tyne, Shepherd's Bush Reform, Hammersmith, City of Newcastle, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Star of St. Denys, Southampton, William Tyndale, Gloucester, Lighthouse, Westyn Rhyn, Shaftesbury Park, Battersea,
  270
  Diamond Jubilee, Salford, Crystal Water, Hetton-le-Hole, Stephen Percy, Guild-ford, Deus Vult, Cambridge, Undaunted; Highbridge, Star of Widnes, Widnes, Energy, Gillingham, Chesterton Providence, Cambridge, Maybury Sunbeam, Woking, Lily of the Valley, Quebec, Star of Hope, Harwich, Excelsior, Staines, Fenny Stratford, Fenny Stratford, Hope of Wem, Wem, Oxford Nimshi, Sheffield, Hope of Worksop, Worksop, Gainsborough, Sudbury, Thomas Guthrie, Sheerness, Deal with them Kindly, Fenton, George Peabody, Pelton Fell, Star of Hope, Normanton, Rose of Wheatley Hill, Wheatley Hill, Farnham, Farnham, Sunbury Ark of Safety, Sunbury, Devon Excelsior, North Tawton, Triumph of Hope, Spennymoor, Hope of Rugby, Rugby, Unity and Liberty, West Ham, Sure Refuge, New Maiden, Southampton, Southampton, Hope of Silksworth, New Silksworth, Ocean Grimsby, Oldham, Perseverance, Oldham, Stamford, Southwark, No Surrender, Sheffield, Totterdown Excelsior, Bristol, St. Ivo, St. Ives, Grosvenor, London, Charles Walsham, Hull, Workman's Own, Worthing, St. John's Hill, Clapham, Hope of All Souls, Liverpool, Advance Battersea, Grovelands, Reading, King's Cross Excelsior, London, Sir Thomas White, Coventry, Ryhope Ebenezer, Ryhope, Fortress, Peterborough, Hope of Billy Row, Crook, Loyal Favourite, Islington, Sumus, Middlesborough, Trinity Star, Sittingbourne, St. Aubyn, Devon-port, Hopeful, Uxbridge, St. Paul's Excelsior, Wolverhampton, Hill of Zion, Swanscombe, Jubilee Lighthouse, Brierley Hill, Pride of Hythe, Hythe, Hand of Friendship, Southampton, Beacon of the Border, Carlisle, Nil Desperandum Leeds, Rose of Blisworth, Blisworth, Hope of Lingdale, Lingdale, Equal Rights, Felling, Friend of All, Lemington-on-Tyne, Corner Stone, Poplar, Excelsior, Northampton, Vale of Hope, S'ourbridge, James Eaton, Camberwell, Holloway United, Holloway, Always Aspiring, West Hartlepool, Rescue of Throckley, Throckley, Prince of Peace, Leicester, Frederick Cavendish, Chiswick, Stability Thurlby, Hope to Win, Sounthorpe, Stand Firm, Burnopfield, Pride of Essex, West Ham, Manors, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Pride of the Lea, Luton, Never Venture Never Win, Haverhill, Long Reign, New

  271
  Brancepeth, Ivy, Acton, Western Star, Maidstone, King of the Forest, Drybrook, Hope of Streatham, Streatham, Cheddington Progress, Cheddington, Helping Hand, Gosforth, Fetter Lane, Leytonstone, Elizabeth Fry, East Ham, Victory Win, Fulham, Northgate, Great Yarmouth, Valediction, Iver, Never Too Late, Tunbridge Wells, Pride of Tranmere, Birkenhead, Pleasant Here, Ashton-under-Lyne, Sunshine and Gladness, Catchgate, Henry Browne, London, Burnley Lily White, Burnley, Bletchley, Bletchley, Westbourne, Bournemouth, Tustin, Horley, Albany, Finsbury, Mintern Pioneer, Hoxton, Walton Olive Branch, Walton, Shepherd's Rescue, Leeds, Providence, Sheffield, Pendlebury Blue Ribbon, Pendlebury, Pride of Normanton, Derby, Christian Workers, Highbury, Barrowford, Barrowford, Gleam of Hope, Middlesbrough, Edmonton, Edmonton, Alexandra, Blackpool, Hope for Success, Keighley, Thomas Whittaker, Weston-super-Mare, Hope of Coulsdon, Croydon, Richard Cadbury, Birmingham, Fellowship, Croydon, St. Margaret's Excelsior, Isleworth, Bishop Beveridge, Barrow-on-Soar, Bromsgrove, Invincible, Bromsgrove, Tongham Aggresive, Tongham, Sileby Star of Hope, Sileby, Hope of Claydon, Steeple Claydon, Warspite, Silvertown, Leyton Coronation, Leyton, Ashford, Middlesex, Ashford, Sussex Rescue, Portslade-by-the-Sea, George Muller, Bristol, Westcliffe-on-Sea, Southend-on-Sea, Tring Excelsior, Tring, Borough, Torquay, Smallbridge Crusaders, Rochdale, Congress, Seven-oaks, Progress, Farnworth, J. B. Finch, Peckham, Excelsior, Carlisle, Pilots Safeguard, South Shields, Camberley and Yorktown United, Camberley, Hope of St. Andrew's, Bishop Auckland, Warwick Victory, Warwick, Eldon Rescue, Eldon, Hope of Mapperley, Mapperley, Shepherd's Bush Advance, Hammersmith, Bootle Excelsior, Bootle, Bow Brickhill, Bow Brickhill, Hope of Southchurch, Southend-on-Sea, Faversham Out and Out, Faversham, Victory, London, Burnley Good Samaritan, Burnley, Good Hope of King's Norton, King's Norton, Mona of Douglas, Douglas, Swallowfield, Swallowfield, Hinckley's Pride, Hinckley, Lily of the Green, Bradford, Frederick James, Twickenham, Good Hope of Isleworth, Isleworth, Talbot Rescue,
  272
  South Shields, Pride of Bembridge, Bembridge, Silverton Primrose, Silver-town, Perseverance, Oswestry, Beckenham, Beckenham, Lily of Ludworth, Ludworth, Caldecote Excelsior, Caldecote, Bournemouth Safeguard, Bournemouth, Fulham Perseverance, Fulham, Ridgemont, Ridgmont, Beacon Light, Gloucester, Ivy Branch, Gravesend, Hope of Conisborough, Conisborough, Pride of Long Eaton, Long Eaton, Mirfield, Mirfield, Victoria, Grimsby, Aintree Pioneer, Liverpool, Neston Endeavour, Neston, Beehive, Birmingham, Lily of the Valley, Haslingden, Hand in Hand, Stafford, Hope of Redfields, Bristol, Dove Valley, Ashbourne, Manor Park, East Ham, Mortlake Pioneer, Mortlake, Star of Oswaldtwistle, Oswaldtwistle, Peaceful Home, Dronfield, Egremont Excelsior, Egremont, De Winton Memorial, Easington Lane, Whitley Bay, Whitley Bay, Beacon Light of New Boultham, New Boultham, Cambois Progress, Cambois, Branksome Forward, Poole, Ashfield, Liverpool, Fraternity, Kingswood, Railway Mission, Bedford, Egerton Mission, New Brighton, Ilford Welcome, Ilford, Pride of Beacontree Heath, Romford, Wolverton St. George's, Wolverton, Essex Exempler, Plaistow, Hope of Ferryhill Station, Ferryhill, Herne Bay, Herne Bay, Staveley Onward, Staveley, Hope of St. Anne's, St. Anne's-on-Sea, Woking Rescue, Woking, Shiney Row, Shiney Row, Upper Parkstone Sunbeam, Parkstone, Sunbeam of Worrall Hill, Gloucester, Sir Wilfrid, Leytonstone, Star of Acomb, Acomb, Pride of Washington Washington, Good Intent of Cleator Moor, Cleator Moor, Waterfoot Prosperity, Waterfoot, West Kirby Endeavour, West Kirby, Loyal Hope, York, Blackpool Lifeboat, Blackpool, Central, Leicester, Hugh Bourne Memorial, Tunstall, Dawn of Day, Ash Vale, Sir W. Lawson Memorial, Wandsworth, Hope of Kelly Bray, Callington, Hope of Holmes, Rotherham, Watson Street Mission, Plaistow, John Stobbs, Cullercoacs, Helping Hand, Droitwich, Hope of Willenhall, Willenhall, Work and Win, Yardley Hastings, United Conquerors, Plaistow, Star of St. George, Devonport, The Hartlepool's Friend, West Hartlepool, Earlsfield, Wandsworth, Grenfell Memorial, King's Norton, Nutfield City of Refuge, Nutfield, Hope of Southwark,

  273
  Southwark, Raynes Park, Merton, Wood-side Progress, Croydon, Heart of Britain, Daventry, Rehoboth, Percy Main, Good Courage, Bitterne, Excelsior, Carterton, Heavitree, Heavitree, Blackpool Welcome Blackpool, Young People's Refuge, Lumley, Good Treasure, Southwark, Meadow United, Nottingham, Pride of Apperley, Bradford, Mayflower, West Ham, Life Line, Torquay, Tranmere St. Paul's, Birkenhead, Pride of Station Gates, Prudhoe, Star of Victory, Scunthorpe, Mansfield Reform, Mansfield, Hope of Everton, Liverpool, Washington, Little Brington, Henry Bloomer, Holloway, Pride of South Shields, South Shields; Of the following District Lodges of the Good Templars: Berkshire, Devonshire, Mid, Devonshire, South-West, Essex, Kent, East, Kent, West, Lancashire, South-East, Norfolk, Salop, Somerset, East, Surrey, East and Mid, Worcestershire, Yorkshire, Central, Yorkshire, East Executive Committees of Cumberland, North and Mid District Lodge, Durham, South District Lodge, Middlesex District Lodge, Yorkshire, South-West District Lodge; Quarterly Session of the Devonshire, South-West, Juvenile Council; United Sunday Service of Lodges in Devonshire, South-West; United Meeting of Good Templars of Northamptonshire at Rushden; Temperance Meeting in connection with the Good Templars at Levenshulme; Quarterly Meeting of the Leicestershire District Juvenile Council; Lancashire, South-East District Juvenile Council; Good Templars of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes in United Session at Grimsby; Romford Group (Constituency) Convention at East Ham; Weekly Meeting of Good Templars at Darlington, Sub-District of Good Templars comprising Reigate, Redhill, Horley, and Nutfield; Surrey East and Mid District Political Council Meeting (7th November); Surrey East and Mid District Political Council Meeting (11th November); Surrey East and Mid District Good of Order Committee; Sheffield Convention of Lodges; Public Meeting in connection with Surrey East and Mid Juvenile Council; Public Meeting of Citizens at Dover; Public Meeting of Inhabitants of Torquay and neighbourhood; Public Meeting of Inhabitants of Half-Way House, Minster; Petition of Congregational Church,
  274
  Staithes, Yorkshire; Resolution from Primitive Methodist Church, Bedlington Station; Resolution from Primitive Methodist Church, Browney Colliery; Public Meeting of Citizens held at Worthing; Railway Mission Christian Endeavour Society, Bedford; Public Meeting held at Leicester; Public Temperance Meeting held in Leeds; Public Temperance Meeting held at Croydon; Public Temperance Meeting held at Salford; Public Meeting of Inhabitants, Eastbourne; Public Meeting of Inhabitants, Sutton, Surrey; Justices of the Peace, Poor Law Guardians, University Professors, etc., Members of the Medical Profession; Head Masters, Mistresser, and Teachers in the Elementary and Secondary Schools (2); Birmingham Nurses (3); Independent Labour Party; Religious Institutions of Various Denominations (8); General Petitions from the Inhabitants of Birmingham and District (19); Societies and Guilds at Colne (2); Downham and District, Leeds, Birkenshaw, South Shields, Tyne Dock, Shoreham, Swindon, Mansfield, Downham Market, High Bentham, 25 Lodges of the International Order of Good Templars, Bands of Hope at Barton St. David, Vobster, Brampton, South Shields, Bacup, Sheffield, Yorkshire, Bromley Common, Carshalton, Bolton, Colne (3), Tonbridge, Desborough, Bude (2), Winton, Waddock, Penryn, Mid-Somerset, Whaddon, Paulton and District, Littleworth, Gospel Temperance Union and United Temperance Action Council, South Shields; League of Sympathy and Band of Hope, Derby; Temperance Societies at Melbourne, Mat-lock, Rothwell; Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants and Peaceful Dove Friendly Society, Keighley; Temperance Council, Leeds; Total Abstinence Society, Downham Market; Temperance Workers Somerton; Temperance Societies, Weston-super-Mare; United Temperance Council, Swindon; Baptist Temperance Society, Ilfracombe; United Temperance Council, Ilfracombe; Great Western Railway Temperance Union, Swindon; Help Myself Society and Temperance Society, Reading; Band of Hope, Barnstaple; Temperance Society Bedminster; Total Abstinence Societies at Churchill, Ilchester, Shebbear; Temperance Societies at Bourton and Yeats,

  275
  Land Key, Portesham, Winscombe, Clawton, Calne, Mere, Finsbury; Anti-Smoking League, Bristol; Presbyterian Guild, Willington; North Eastern Railway Temperance Union, Hartlepool; Sons of Temperance Friendly Society, Hull; Wesley Church, Hartlepool; Christian Temperance Association, Sheffield; Temperance Societies at Rotherham, Morley; Temperance Workers, Liverpool; Temperance Society, Midsomer Norton; Band of Hope, Nelson; Public Meetings at Neston, Liverpool, Colnbrook, Bicester, Preston, Croston, Lancashire, Burnley, Freckleton, Ashton-on-Ribble, Bradford, Golcar; Employees of 9 Firms at Plymouth; United Methodist Churches at Bedlington, Cambois, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Peckham; Primitive Methodists of Rudgeway, Bedlington; Wesleyan Churches at Greenhill, Polbathic; United Methodists, Liskeard; Congregational Churches at Liskeard, Rainham, Hawkesbury, Buckley; Baptist Church, Wandsworth; Free; Christian Church, Dover, Unitarian Church, Belper; Free Church Council, Woolwich; Public Meetings at Westmarsh, Tollington Park, Inhabitants of Tollington Park, Westhay and Meath, Wincanton, East Leeds; Public Meetings at Wandsworth (2), Sutton-on-Trent, Walworth and Newington, Royal Victoria Hall, Waterloo Road (3), Broadstairs, Stourmouth; British Women's Temperance Associations at Scotswood-on-Tyne, Gillingham, Putney, Heaton, Gloucestershire; Adult School Union, Bradford; Baptist Church, Walworth; Baptist Christian Endeavour, Earlsfield; Wesleyan Sunday School, Bromley, Church of England Temperance Society, Strood; Band of Hope, Folkestone; Temperance Associations at Eastington, Hunslet; Total Abstinence Society, Ash, Middlesex Temperance Federation, Unitarian Temperance Society, East Hill, Wandsworth; Pleasant Sunday Afternoon Society, Camberwell; Total Abstinence Society, Highgate; Temperance Union, Wandsworth; Temperance Societies, Huddersfield, Stone-house; Adult School, Wakefield; National Citizens' Convention, St. James's Hall; 250 Tents of the Independent Order of Rechabites; Public Meetings at Newport, Kendal, Disley, Reading, Ossett, Great Horton, Allerton, Wake-field, Mirfield, Purston Pontefract,
  276
  Outwood, Bradford, Guisley, Cottingley, Wrenthorpe, Shipley, Otley, Driglington, Earley, Little Horton, Barnoldswick, Littletown, Bradford, Wigan, Wyke, Frome, Wilton, Gospel Oak, Chertsey, South Norwood, Northampton, Clifton and Bristol, Bath; Baptist Churches at Bristol, Upper Tooting, Southfields; Baptist Mission at Southfields; Baptist Churches at Downend, Grays, Rotherham; Congregational Churches at Ockendon, Withenedge, Sandford, Oldham, Bristol (4), Clifton; United Methodist Churches at Bristol (9), Claverham, Sheffield; Independent Methodists Churches at Ince, Ashton; Primitive Methodists at Bristol (3), Sheffield, Walton, Liverpool, Two Missions at Bristol; Friends Meeting, Bristol; Free Church Council, Hants Federation Y.M.C.A., Mass Meeting Free Churches, Southampton; Chapels at Pilkington, Kendal; Churches, Chapels, and Missions at Hollinwood, Sheffield, Glossop, Beaminster, Bristol, Fishponds, Bristol (2), Methodist Churches at Barnsley, Sheffield, Garsgill, Port Clarence, Middlesborough, Stainton in Cleveland, Bristol (4), Brimington, Stockbridge, Brighton (2), Stainforth; Mission, Nottingham; Congregational Church, Pwhelli; Church of Our Father, Rotherham; Wesleyan Mission, Middlesborough; Sergeant Street Chapel, Bedminster, Bristol, Menhodist Missions at Bristol (2); Middlesborough Presbyterian Church and Society of Friends, Middlesborough, Women's Pleasant Hour, Shortlands; Sunday Schools at Claverham, Kennington, S.E., Shortlands; Schools at Sheffield (2), Hull, Stockton on Tees; Church of England Temperance Society at Ivegill, Reading; Inhabitants of Reading, Avonmouth, Shortlands; Congregational Church, Bristol; Press Forward Temperance Society, Reading; Public Meeting, Raunthorpe; Young Women's Christian Association, Bromley; Carbrook Reform Ladies Class, Sheffield; Railway Mission Christian Association, Sheffield; Nottingham Temperance Federation, Nottingham; Heavy Woollen Union Temperance Association, Dews-bury; Wesleyan Sunday School, Port Clarence; Wesley Guilds at Yeovil, Hoylake, Birkenhead, Middlesborough; Ladies Missionary Auxiliary, Claverham; Women's Total Abstinence Unions at

  277
  Thornton Heath, Claverham, British Women's Temperance Association, Leeds, Liberal Association, Street, Temperance and Total Abstinence Societies at Halifax, Winchmore Hill, Middlesboro', Nottingham; Bands of Hope at Crownhill, Yeovil, New Brighton, Liskeard, Bristol, Bromley, Cheriton Fitzpaine; Christian Endeavour Societies at Middlesboro', Sherwell, Plymouth (8), St. Budeaux, Devonport (7), Union Street, Plymouth, Embankment Road, Plymouth, Plympton, Maidstone, Bromley, Hull (2), Middlesborough; Men's Adult School, Staple Hill, Bristol; Men's Meeting, Longton, Bristol; Wesleyan Mothers Meeting, Middlesborough; Adult Schools at Dewsbury, Middlesborough (2); Mothers Meeting and Adult Bible Class, Middlesborough; Pleasant Sunday Afternoon Societies: West Kirby, Bristol (2); Young Men's Prayer Meeting, Pontadawe; Carbrook Reform Men's Class, Sheffield; Men's Meeting, Wandsworth, S.W.; Daniell's Society Classes at Middlesborough, New Brighton (3); Brotherhoods at Hoylake, Bromley, Bristol, Plymouth, Foots Cray, Balham; Whitehall Men's Bible Class, Bristol; Shaftesbury Crusade, Bristol; 92 tents of the Independent Order of Rechabites; Primitive Methodist Churches at West Pelton, South Moor, Annfield Plain (2), East Stanley, Tanfield Lea, Greencroft, Burnhope, Oxhill, West Stanley, Castletown, Lowick, Wooler, Milfield, Belford, Donaldson's Lodge, Ouston, Birtley, Fatfield, Pelton, Portobello, Kneblesworth, Waldridge Fell, Pilton Fell, Chester-le-Street, Pelsall, Grimsby (2), Fosdyke, Barton-on-Humber, Bonley, Goxill, South Fernby, Ulceby, Wootton, East Halton, Thornton, Kennington, Horkston, New Holland, Worlaby, Barrow-on-Humber, Market Rasen, Osgodby, Gainsboro' (2), Morton, Corningham, Gringley-on-the-Hill, Walkingham, Crowley, Keadley, Beltoft, Ealand, Crowle, Liskeard, Cheesewring, Tremar, King's Lynn, Clenchwarton, Massingham, Grimston, Gayton Thorpe, East Walton, Gayton, West Winch, St. Germans, St. Mary, Dalkeith, Blakenall, Lettleworth, Newcastle-on-Tyne (4), St. Antony-on-Tyne, Walker-on-Tyne, West Moor, Wallsend-on-Tyne, Baildon; Church of Christ at Erdington, Birmingham, Earlstown, Newton-le-Willows;
  278
  Wesleyan Churches, Windmill Hill, Shipley (2), Baildon Green, Rotherham, Masbro', Doncaster, Looe; Methodist New Connexion, Brighouse; United Methodists of Bristol (4), Nailsea, Mount Warleggan, St. Neot's, Bolventor, East Looe, Polperro, Widegates, St. Cleer, Alvaston Mission; Baptist Churches at Bristol (3), Leytonstone, Oxford; Congregational Churches at Looe, Keighley, Shipley, Bridlington, Brighouse; Old Meeting House, Framlingham; Independent Church, Windhill, Shipley; Broadmead Chapel, Bristol; Crossway Central Mission, Old Kent Road; Town Hall, Cottingley, Yorkshire; Popular Service Peoples Hall, Shipley; Robert Hall Memorial Chapel, Leicester; Mission Halls at Liverpool (4); Unitarian Churches at Bedfield, Sale; Free Churches at Ilminster, Halesowen, Weymouth; Society of Friends, Sheffield; Church of England Men's Society, Bournemouth; Adult Schools at Wanstead (2); Young Women's Christian Association, Leytonstone; Men's Own Brotherhood, Bristol; Adult Schools at Shipley, Bridlington (2), Weston-super-Mare; Men's Own Meeting, Saltaire; Men's Pleasant Sunday Afternoon, Enfield; Young Men's Bible Class, Derby; Men's Society, Oxford; Crown Hall, Men's, Liverpool; Men's Own (Baptist), Bristol; Christian Endeavour Rallies at Mexborough, Bridlington; Young People's Society, Bridlington; Wesley Guilds, etc. at Derby, North Cave, Handley; Adult Bible Class at Hosforth; Free Church Federation, Cheriton Fitzpaine; Congregational Church, Baughing; District Band of Hope Union, Keighley; Bands of Hope at Derby (2); Bands of Hope, Temperance Societies at Clifton, Doncaster (4), Alvaston, Bridgwater (2), Leytonstone, Swindon (2), Leicester, Weston, Keighley (2), Derby, Cottingham, Sheffield, Hull, Enderby, Blackburn, Newington Green, Tanfield Lea; Inhabitants of Thatcham, Horsham; Meetings at Hull, South Cave, Hither Green, Cheltenham, Gloucester, Brighouse, Great Coates, Healing; Inhabitants of Dursley; Wesleyan Sunday Schools at Rotherham, Rastrick, Baildon, Keighley (3), Halifax; Independent Order of Rechabites (23); Independent Methodist Church, Warmley; Cramtington Free Church Council; Some Members and

  279
  Adherents of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in England; Calvinistic Methodist Churches and Congregations: In Pembroke, Merioneth, Montgomery, Anglesey, and Flint (119); 1,200 Lodges of the International Order of Good Templars; Luton Friends Adult School; Meetings: At Tamworth, Derby, Reddish, Rochdale, Ilkley, Erdington, Peranzabula, Birmingham, Honiton, Bury, Gorton; Three Independent Methodist Churches, Colne District; United Methodist Church, Preston; Committee of Band of Hope Union, Burton-on-Trent; Congregational Churches at Derby and Twyford; Independent Methodist Church, Wigan; Wesley Church, Scittoway; International Order of Good Templars (8); Inhabitants of Liverpool, Ruardean, Bootle, Sandown, New Barnet, Maldon, Temperance Organisations: At Ipswich, Wellington, Bury, Derby, Carroz, West Norwood, Leeds (2), Ossett; National United Temperance Council; Methodist Churches: At Reading, Belper (2), Carnarvon, Newcastle (2), Pendleton, Soughton, Wigan, Oldham, Ashton, Liverpool, South Shields, Monmouth; Wesleyan Churches: At Walworth, Durham, Rechabites (5): Churches, Schools, etc.: At Rhymney, Frodham, Middlesborough, Doncaster, Usk, Middleton, Bury; Persons signing: Church of England Temperance Society (3), Good Templars (8), Temperance Societies and Bands of Hope at Buckland, Sway, Portsmouth (3), Winchester, Christchurch, Churches and Schools at Liss, Southsea, Portsmouth (4), Newcastle-on-Tyne (4), Capel Mawr. Gro, Doncaster, Vale of Dovey, Guernypant, Scarborough, Abertysswg (2), Clawton, Liscard (2), Halifax, Birmingham, East Ardsley; Inhabitants of Eastney; Churches, Societies, Public Meetings, Schools, Guilds, etc.: At Carrog, Ipswich, Barnsley, Glossop, Willington, Cheriton Fitzpaine, Pendleton, Kimberworth, Scarborough (3), Aston, Cockermouth, Middleton, South Shields, York, Chiswick, Tunstall, Sheffield, Ilkeston, Hornsey, Ossett (3), Enfield, Dunfermline, Bishop Stortford, Lye, Ripley, Winsford, Blisworth, Birmingham (3), Oakworth, London, St. Helens, Wood Greer, Hassocks (2), Ditchling, Prescot, Bowerbrook, King's Heath, Carnarvon, Norwood, Droylesden, Sirhowy, Soughton, Ynysybwl, Ladywood, Derby, Shipston, St.
  280
  Clears, Reigate, Thirsk, Fernhead, Mold, Middlesborough, Usk, Handley, Rowdon, Birmingham, Low Bentham, South Manchester, Rechabites (52), Leicester, South Wales, Dumbarton, Ayr, Dingwall, Sheffield, Dundee, Derby, Wellingborough, Mexborough, Bolton, Dunstable, New-castle-under-Lyme (3), Handford, Baldwins Gate, Macclesfield (2), Poynton, Good Templars (2), St. Helen's (3) Southmoor, Sheffield, Heald, Bristol, Colden, Pontefract, Liverpool' Hull, Grays, Rechabites (4), Whitehaven, Tarporley, Wrexham (3), Richmond, Oldham (2), Ince, King's Lynn, Boston, Wrangle, Leigh, Bury, Fulham, Salisbury, Chard, Birkenhead (2), Birmingham (5), Sons of the Phœnix, Crank, Varteg, Blaenavon, Gamdiffaith, Dudley, Walton, Northampton (2), Harlestone Road, Liverpool (2), Yarmouth, Upholland, Appleby, Seacombe, Gooch, Smethwick, Oldbury, New Barnet, Abercynon, New Brumby, Leeds (2), Croft, Irby, Leverton, Thame, Barlestone, Nelson (4), Burnley, Colne (2), Brierfield, Rechabites, Good Templars, Twyford, Cradley, Preston, Eastbourne, Aylesbury (2); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Petitions against: Of persons signing (7); Pontypridd and Rhondda Valleys Licensed Victuallers Association; Inhabitants of Liverpool, Chester and District (4); Inkpen. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  No. 671. China (Report on the physical commercial, social, and general conditions of Ichang and neighbourhood)
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: My

  281
  Lords, the task of commending to your Lordship's House a Bill, many of the provisions of which are known to be distasteful to the majority of the House, is at no time an easy or simple one, but on this occasion, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Licensing Bill, my task is one of additional difficulty owing to the very special and singular circumstances under which we meet for the purpose. Your Lordships' House is often an assembly of foregone conclusions, but in my experience I never remember an occasion in which the conclusion has been so completely, so palpably, and, I may say, so cynically foregone as it is on this occasion.
  I have learned, through what are known as the ordinary channels of information, that your Lordships held a sitting yesterday, not in this Chamber, but in a famous house in a famous square, and that at that sitting a novel stage of this Bill, interposed between the First and Second Readings, was considered. So far as I am able to gather from the published reports, the Bill was very rapidly considered. We hear of guillotine and closure by compartments, but yesterday, so far as I am able to understand, the measure was closured without compartments. I am bound to say that I do not think the manner in which that proceeding was conducted will redound in the country to the credit of your Lordships' House—I will not say as a revising Chamber, but as an assembly which assumes to be deliberative. We shall have, I suppose, to accept the result of that meeting, unless some general epidemic such as overtook the Egyptians in the days of Moses were to fall upon the noble Lords opposite, which for personal reasons we should deeply deplore. We must, I suppose, assume that the Amendment of the noble Marquess will be carried, and even if that unhappy epidemic were to take place, so great are the resources of the noble Marquess opposite that, if, like Pharaoh, he were to harden his heart, I have no doubt he could bring up a fresh host to overwhelm the stanch, but sparse, battalions on these benches.
  282
  In spite of what occurred yesterday, I feel it is due to the House, and due also to those who are sitting on these Benches, that we should state our case. I confess, however, that I am tempted to state it in a somewhat different manner from that which I should have employed if the Bill were going to be dealt with on its merits in the ordinary manner. It seems to me it would be reasonable to dwell less upon this, and that clause of the Bill in order, than to say something on the general principles on which the Bill is founded, and on the general effect which will result from setting aside this measure—if your Lordships do so—and leaving things in the condition in which they are at this moment.
  My Lords, this measure is designed to attack the most serious and the most tremendous of all our social problems. I may make a quotation from the Majority Report of the Commission of 1899, which has been quoted a hundred times in this controversy, but will bear quotation again. That majority, as your Lordships will remember, contained in its ranks eight gentlemen of the highest character who were themselves interested in the trade. In the course of their Report it was said—
  "A gigantic evil remains to be remedied, and hardly any sacrifice would be too great which would result in a marked diminution of this national degradation."
  I turn from that to the Amendment of the noble Marquess, and I see he does not speak of sacrifice. He speaks of inconvenience. "Grave" inconvenience would be caused to many of His Majesty's subjects by the passing of this Bill. My Lords, I do not believe it is possible to engage in any scheme of social reform on any subject without causing inconvenience to some person. Whether your object is better housing of the people, or social improvement in any direction, you cannot proceed without causing inconvenience, and I venture to say that, if this great problem is to be dealt with, there must be, beyond inconvenience, something of that spirit of sacrifice mentioned in the Majority Report. If there is to be a diminution of the drink trade, it must, no doubt, be accompanied by

  283
  some loss to those who are engaged in it, and it is also undoubtedly true that a serious diminution in the volume of the drink trade will involve a sacrifice of revenue on the part of the nation.
  It is said, on the authority of those who have studied this matter closely, that not less than one-sixth of the income of the working classes of this country is spent upon alcoholic drink. That bare statement is in itself, I think, a justification for attempting to deal with the subject. But it is said by some—true, this is a deplorable state of things, but you can do little or nothing by legislation; you must trust to moral agencies, to general social progress and the spread of education, and so forth. Well, I have noticed that those statements are not made by those who conduct the moral agencies of the country. They are made, as a rule, I think, by people who do not themselves take any very active part in promoting social progress. You do not hear those statements from those who spend their lives in working among the poor. I should be very much surprised to hear them—at any rate to any extent—from the right rev. bench, who have practical experience in these matters beyond any which is given to us lay Members of your Lordships' House. It is said you cannot make the people sober by Act of Parliament. It is true, in a sense, that you cannot. You cannot make people moral by Act of Parliament, but that does not prevent your combating open attempts to encourage immorality. The fact is, and surely it is well-known to those who attempt to study social problems, that there is an inter-action between these moral agencies and legislation. They act and re-act on each other and help each other towards the object it is their desire to attain. In this very matter I remember being told by the last Norwegian Minister to this country that he had been greatly impressed by the manner in which temperance legislation and what apparently was a voluntary change in the habits of the people in regard to excessive drinking had gone hand in hand, though it was difficult to say more than that it had been simultaneous, and it was not easy to say precisely what could be put down to the score of one and what to the score of the other. We believe that
  284
  similar results will be looked for by wise legislation in this country. My Lords, you cannot make people kind by Act of Parliament. Take, for instance, the different Acts of Parliament which have been passed in relation to children. A large part of the benefit of that legislation has not been the punishment of those who are actively cruel to children, but the inculcation of a higher standard and a better habit, and a sense of responsibility which is brought home to people by the fact of the legislation that has been passed. We are told that the licensed trade ought not to be harassed because excessive drinking, or at any rate drunkenness, is as much condemned by the trade, and, indeed, is as hostile to the interests of the trade, as anything can be. I should never doubt for a moment the sincerity of any person engaged either in the wholesale or the retail sale of alcoholic drink who reprehended drunkenness. Far from it, but the mere fact in itself, it seems to me, doss not take one very far. If anyone were to ask those who are responsible for the administration of such places as the Casino at Monte Carlo, whether they objected to high play and to people ruining themselves at the tables, I have no doubt they would say with the utmost candour that they did. How much more sensible, they would say, would it be, if instead of ten people coming to lose £1,000 1,000 people came and were prepared to lose a small sum like £10. Similarly no doubt, with the trade in drink. How much more rational if fewer people drank so much and more people drank a smaller amount. But this does not take you very far. What we want to know is whether the licensed trade as a whole is prepared to admit that the volume of the trade ought to be very greatly reduced in the interests of the public. I have no doubt that among those engaged in the trade there are a number who would be willing to agree to a pecuniary sacrifice for this object, but whether it is true of the trade as, a whole I confess that I feel some little doubt.
  We are at present under the Licensing Act of 1904. That measure must, I suppose, in view of the noble Marques's Amendment, be taken as representing the last word on temperance legislation in this country. We shall have to

  285
  conduct our affairs, if your Lordships reject the Bill, at any rate for a considerable time to come under the Act of 1904. We opposed the Act of 1904 because we thought that it made it more difficult to cope with this form of national degradation to which the Majority Report referred. But the Act of 1904 did recognise the principle of reduction in the number of public-houses. That principle of reduction we we carry further in the first clause of this Bill. By it we institute a system of statutory general reduction, according to a scale which will be found in the first schedule. The scale is uniform, but it is subject to certain exceptions. Where, for instance, it can be shown that a licence to sell alcoholic drink is merely auxiliary to other purposes; where it can be shown that, as, for instance, in the case of pleasure resorts, there is need for a larger supply owing to a great influx of visitors in the summer months—in such cases provision is made for exceptions to the general standard and the general rule.
  On this matter of reduction, there are two arguments which are not exactly compatible with each other, although they are often used by people speaking in the same interest. The first is that reduction in the number of public-houses has no proved relation to the diminution in the amount of drunkenness. What exactly is meant by drunkenness? Some people rely simply and solely on convictions for drunkenness, but I cannot conceive a more fallacious test than that. The real point is: Is there a relation between the reduction in the number of licences and excessive drinking? I believe that the testimony of the police on this point is almost unanimous. You cannot say of a particular place that because one public-house is closed, therefore a wave of sobriety passes over the neighbourhood. But speaking generally, and especially in regard to crowded centres of population, there can be no question that the reduction in the number of licences bears a very real relation to the amount of excessive drinking. After all, it almost stands to reason that it must be so. It is a commonplace of a hundred pulpits—we have heard it over and over again—that particular kinds of
  286
  temptations, such as those which induce people to drink—temptations, that is to say, which appeal to the senses—are made infinitely more difficult to resist by the multiplication of opportunity. That is a positive platitude; but, at the same time, it goes a long way towards proving this particular case. I would remind the House also that both the Majority and the Minority Report of the Commission of 1899 stated that in their view a large reduction in the number of licences was necessary for the improvement of the condition of the country.
  The other argument used against this Bill is that the reduction which is now proceeding under the Act of 1904 makes it needless to do anything to accelerate it. It is said that something like 1,200 licences a year have been reduced in the first three years operation of the Act. Even supposing that to be a sufficient number, which may well be disputed, there are one or two considerations that have to be borne in mind. That reduction is very unequal in its incidence and its inequality is not in proportion to the number of licences held in various places. Further, is there any guarantee that anything like this rate of reduction is likely to continue? In 1907, one licensing authority in five was doing nothing, was taking absolutely no steps at all towards extinguishing licences under the Act of 1904. In Great Yarmouth there is one public-house, including beer-houses, for every 200 inhabitants; that is to say, about one for every fifty adult males; and nothing has been done. In Huntingdonshire there is one public-house, including beer-houses, for just over 100 of the inhabitants, or one for every twenty-five adult males. The licensing authority there have recently informed the Home Office, under the Act of 1904, that they do not intend to impose any compensation levy, or to proceed any further under the Act. I do not know what the local circumstances may be, but the figures are as I have stated. There is no guarantee, indeed, that any licensing authority which is now proceeding with some activity under the Act may not discontinue its efforts at any moment. When therefore people argue that the present reduction ought to be multiplied by fourteen in respect of the next fourteen

  287
  years, I submit that this is a calculation for which there is no basis whatever.
  The reduction is now also an unequal one. It is subject to the peculiar views of the licensing authorities. We propose to institute a national system of reduction. I may mention, in relation to this question of reduction, two points contained in the Bill. One is the provision for what is known as optional reduction—allowing justices of the peace to reduce to a point even beyond the scale if they desire to do so, subject to a point which I will mention directly—that is to say, placing licensing, so far as they are concerned, in the position in which it was before the Act of 1904; and the other is the provision contained in Clause 9, allowing a special further reduction in Wales in consideration of the desire for temperance indicated by many of the inhabitants of that favoured country. But, my Lords, in relation to both of these this has to be borne in mind, that optional reduction and that further reduction can only take place when there is money from the compensation levy sufficient to meet the extra compensation. Now, a national system involves the creation of a central authority; and, therefore, the Bill proposes to create a Licensing Commission. Three gentlemen of standing and merit have been named as Licensing Commissioners. Their business is to approve schemes made by justices of the peace for carrying out statutory reduction, or, in the improbable event of a scheme not being made, of making one themselves. It is also their business to impose a scale of charges for the compensation levy, according to the second Schedule of the Bill. But what they do not do is almost as important as what they do. They do not select the particular licences which are to be extinguished. That duty is left to the justices in consideration of their superior local knowledge, and they do not determine the amount of compensation to be paid. That is determined by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
  I pass to what may be regarded in some respects as the central point of the Bill, I mean the institution of a time-limit—that is to say, at the end of fourteen years the compensation levy ceases and all licences become subject to the con-
  288
  ditions applicable to new licences. In addition to that, a further seven years of respite without payment of compensation levy, but qualified in a manner which I will explain later on, is given to the licence-holder. There is one point I desire to impress on the House, and it is this, that the addition of seven years is of much greater advantage to the trade than the difference between fourteen and twenty-one years. A sinking fund to provide £100 at the end of fourteen years at 4 per cent. would be £5 9s. 4d. To provide the same amount at the end of twenty-one years, at the same rate per cent., the sum necessary is only £3 2s. 7d., so that by the addition of seven years the charge is reduced by something between two-fifths and a half. That is a point which may have escaped the notice of some of your Lordships. The time limit is, of course, bound up with the question of monopoly value. The existence of monopoly value and the fact that it should properly be secured to the community was recognised in the Act of 1904, but only in regard to new licences. Our proposition is to apply it, under conditions, to all licences.
  Much argument has taken place as to the nature of a licence. We have, after a great deal of discussion, extracted from the principal opponents of the Bill the statement that a licence is not a freehold, but that it is a property, and apparently a property for more than one year. We prefer to speak of it as a property for one year with an expectation, and it is on those lines that we have dealt with it. After all, it is a very limited kind of property. You cannot sell it, you cannot exchange it, you cannot bequeath it, you must not even give it away; yet at the same time there is no reversion of it in favour of any other person. By law it is an annual gift from the State—not held during good behaviour, because, if it were, there would be no need to come every year for a fresh licence. And, finally, nobody disputes the power which the State or the Government of the day has to make it absolutely valueless, so far as monopoly is concerned, by the indefinite multiplication of licences. In these circumstances can the prospect of renewal be regarded as anything beyond an expectation? One of our complaints

  289
  against the Act of 1904 was that it attempted to give, and, as far as an Act of Parliament can, until reversed, did give in respect of that mere expectation, something like a vested interest in a licence, and it is in respect of that vested interest we offer the liberal terms of fourteen years plus seven years to those who hold a licence.
  It is said that death duties are paid on a licence on the expectation that it would be renewed. The answer to that is, of course, that estate duty is paid on what the value may be at the moment—and what the value may be in a year, or two years, or ten years time, the State does not take any cognisance of. In another place the Prime Minister mentioned the case of a racehorse with great expectations, but a very large sum might have to be paid by way of death duties, although the horse should never win another race. The same principle applies to works of art and articles of jewellery; they are valued according to what they will fetch at the moment, and the licence, therefore, at what the public at the moment believes expectation of renewal to be. But then it is said that in any case it is an unfair and a hard thing to impose a time-limit and to impose concurrently a system of insurance. The argument is that you insure against loss for a term of years, and at the end of the period you are not left with the property which you insured. That also is a very familiar operation. Insurances for limited periods are within the knowledge of all your Lordships, and the argument appears to have no basis, because a hundred parallel cases can easily be found by anybody who cares to look for them.
  It is true that the resumption at the end of the period is one of the prime features of this Bill. It is in respect of that resumption that the charges of confiscation and robbery have been so freely levelled at us with such a Wealth of imagination and invective. But if it is the case that the licence is not a freehold it must be determinable at some period in some such way as we have proposed. It is open to anybody to criticise the particular method, term, and plan that we have adopted; but after the admission which Mr. Balfour made in another
  290
  place on the Third Reading—namely, that a time-limit in itself could not be regarded as an unfair proposition—I really think that these charges of robbery and confiscation might be dropped or withdrawn. The charge of robbery is founded, I think, not so much on what would happen to the ordinary trader, be he brewer or licence-holder, but rather on what is supposed to be going to happen to the people who have invested their money in limited companies dealing with these matters.
  Joint stock enterprise has done a great deal for this country, though some disadvantages may have attached to it in some of its developments—even such developments as ordinary retail trading, and even banking. But so far as the application of the joint stock principle to the retail sale of drink is concerned, I believe it has been an absolutely unmitigated disadvantage to everybody concerned. To travesty a famous quotation, it is twice cursed. It curses him that takes and him that gives. It has not improved the quality of the article supplied to the public, and it has not added anything, so far as I am aware, to the convenience of the public; but it has caused a great loss to a very large number of people and it has placed a great number of highly respectable people—respectable themselves and worshipping respectability in others—in the position of being obliged, for their own profit, to exploit the vices and the weaknesses of their fellow-countrymen.
  One is almost tempted to wonder when one hears of the sanctity attaching to all these shareholders who have invested money in these unhappy enterprises, whether, if other enterprises had been carried on on the joint stock principle, they would have been equally fortunate. We have had at different times Bills dealing with another class of persons—a very hard-working class of people—the street bookmakers, who have received very little sympathy in this House. I cannot help wondering if it had occurred to any of them to float their enterprises on the market, with all the apparatus of preference and ordinary shares—and from what I have heard of the magnitude of their operations some of them might almost have done so—whether, instead

  291
  of receiving the very short shrift they have received in your Lordships' House, they would have received that overflowing measure of sympathy which you extend to the shareholders who own, tied houses. There is another class who were very severely dealt with in this House, a class who, I imagine, may do some service to the public, but whose trade is open to abuses—I mean the money-lenders. I am told they are very apt, while remaining individuals, to describe themselves as companies. I wonder whether, if some of them did become companies, while retaining their profits as individuals, when the Moneylenders' Bill was before the House they would have received the affectionate sympathy of the majority of your Lordships. We all regret that anybody should lose money in unfortunate enterprises. There has been, I am afraid, a very serious loss to many people who could ill afford to lose in connection with these great joint stock enterprises; but it has never been the custom, so far as I know, in your Lordships' House to regard the interests of the weak or foolish shareholder as overriding public advantage and public necessity. No one ever spoke more strongly on that point than the late Lord Salisbury. He often used to warn us that the pity which people must feel for the unfortunate shareholder, if indulged in too freely, may lead us into very deep water indeed.
  I pass for a moment to the consideration of another principle contained in this Bill—I mean the modified extent to which the principle of local option is introduced. That, I suppose, is one of the provisions of the Bill which, in the opinion of the noble Marquess, may cause inconvenience to some of His Majesty's subjects. By Part II. of the Bill, new licences of all kinds, on and off, are subjected to local option by a bare majority. That, of course, is a provision which is not of a very far-reaching character, but is of an experimental nature. Then we propose at the end of the fourteen years that there should be a general introduction of the principle of local option by a two-thirds majority, applicable to on but not to off-licences. I am one of those who always believed that local option was a principle that ought to be tried in a matter as difficult as this is, among other experiments
  292
  which I believe to be of value; and that, I think, is the manner in which local option is probably regarded by the majority of those in favour of temperance reform. There are others, we know, who regard it as the one panacea for the great national evil, but there are probably more who desire to sec it applied by way of experiment.
  On this question of local option, perhaps I may remind the House of this, that there is a very distinct possibility as matters now stand of the exercise in this, country, not of a local option, but of a local veto, because if a landlord objects to alcoholic drinks being sold upon his estate, he has an absolute power of veto. There are cases in which it has been exercised out of regard to the teetotal movement, but it is also exercised in another way by people who are not teetotallers, and do not care for teetotal principles. It is freely exercised by landowners and building speculators in respect of particular neighbourhoods. There are neighbourhoods which our forefathers would have called so genteel that they would not stand a public-house in the immediate neighbourhood. In that case the local veto comes into force without any reference to the wishes or needs of those inhabiting the district, who may not be genteel and who may desire a public-house. I confess that it does seem to me that the existence of these powers, whether they are right or wrong, to a great extent destroys the case against local option as understood and as laid down in this Bill. Whatever may be the objections to a large majority having power to deprive other people, not of drink, but of drinking in a particular way and in a particular place, they seem to me to sink into nothingness by the fact that that power should be exercised potentially, and, indeed, actually, by a single individual or by a small group of individuals.
  Now I turn to another matter in which the charge of robbery is freely used, I mean the question of the basis on which compensation under this Bill is to be assessed. It is a highly technical matter, and I do not wish to detain your Lordships long upon it. There has been some dispute as to what was intended on this subject by the Act of 1904, but I do not

  293
  know that we need trouble ourselves a great deal about that, because we know that the intentions of Parliament do not matter. What matters is what the Act actually says as interpreted by His Majesty's Judges; and in this case the Act has been interpreted by what is familiarly spoken of as the Kennedy judgment, by which compensation became payable, not as was supposed by most to be the case, on the value of the licence as such, but, in addition to that, on the value of the profits earned in the wholesale trade by the brewer who owns the tied houses.
  Whatever may be said of tied houses, there can be no doubt of the effect of the Kennedy judgment, that it does give a glorification to the tied house as compared with the free house. If you have two public-houses side by side—say the King's Head and the Red Lion, and the King's Head is a tied house in the occupation of a great firm of brewers such as Messrs. Watney, Combe & Company—I mention them as one of the greatest London firms—that is a tied house for the supply of beer and porter. If that house is compulsorily closed, under the Kennedy judgment the compensation payable is not only in respect to the trade done in the house, but also in respect to the loss sustained by Messrs. Watney in the profit upon the porter supplied by them. The other house next door—the "Red Lion"—is a free house, and the owner of it is free to buy where he likes, and supplies, say, the porter produced by Messrs. Guinness & Company. This house is also closed, and all that is received by way of compensation is the compensation for loss of trade done in the house; Messrs. Guinness get nothing. Is that logical? Why should one firm of brewers get compensation in respect of its wholesale profits and not another? What Messrs. Guinness lose is precisely the same advantage as the other firm loses, an outlet for a certain quantity of their wholesale product. Therefore, it is undoubtedly the case that the tied house receives, but only in respect of beer—not in respect of mineral waters and other things—this special recompense. We shall, perhaps, hear from noble Lords who share responsibility for the Act of 1904 what the intentions of Parliament when that Act
  294
  was passed were, but, so far as my opinion goes, it is very hard to believe that such were their intentions, though it is quite another thing to say and I do not say so for a moment—that as the Act was passed, the judgment of Lord Justice Kennedy, as he now is, is open to cavil on that account.
  What we propose is that for purposes of compensation Schedule A of the income-tax—that is to say, what is payable in respect of lands and tenements—should be the scale on which the compensation should be assessed, and I shall await with considerable interest any criticisms upon this particular provision which may attempt to show that Schedule A is an unfair basis to take. It is perfectly true, as the matter now stands, that taking that basis would in individual cases diminish the amount of compensation that would be given, but that is not the point; the point is whether it is in itself unfair to take this as a basis. I will only say this further on this part of the subject, that by Clause 10 we do give a very distinct relief to a class who have, I think, not received quite a fair share of what has been going by way of compensation. I mean the tenants and managers of tied houses; they have not in the past received their due share of the very large compensation given, and by this clause we design a remedy for that.
  One charge brought against us is that, although we are persecuting the trade, we do not effect anything by our persecution, that our persecution in any case would be immoral, but conceivably it might be effective. Noble Lords will say it is not even effective, and for this reason, that while we are engaged in harassing vendors of alcoholic drinks in public-houses there will be a great and proportionate increase in the amount of liquor consumed either off the premises or in clubs, and that therefore all our efforts in. promoting temperance will be in vain and nugatory. The form in which this charge is generally worded is that this Bill will lead to secret drinking; but I sometimes wonder what exactly is meant by secret drinking as the words are used in this connection. Is it secret drinking if a man drinks in his own house? If that is

  295
  so, most of us in this House, I am afraid, would be accused of secret drinking; yet the manner in which the charge is brought would lead us to suppose that, if a poor man takes home a bottle of whiskey or a gallon of beer, he is thereby considered to be addicted to secret drinking.
  Whatever you may do there will always be a certain amount, even a considerable amount, of really secret drinking by dipsomaniacs, and as a matter of fact there is a good deal of drinking in public-houses in what are called snugs, and places of that kind, which is of a more or less secret character. So much is that objected to in some countries that I believe there are some towns in America where public-houses are obliged to have glass fronts from top to bottom, so that the whole of the premises in which anybody drinks may be in full view from the street, and all who drink there may be seen—like fish in an aquarium. We do not make any proposition of that kind in this Bill. With regard to off-licences I should like to say this. It is sometimes assumed that off-licences have led to encouragement of drinking habits among the people, but I ask noble Lords not to accept that assumption; facts do not lead to that conclusion, and there is very little evidence to prove that grocers' licences have led in any degree to further demoralisation of the habits of the people.
  Then I come to a much more difficult question, that of clubs, and I would remind the House—because it is sometimes said that we are leaving clubs altogether alone—that clubs are, I will not say severely, but are very seriously dealt with in various clauses. Clubs are to be subjected, as they have never been subjected before, to annual registration, and one clause is of a very important character, it enables anybody who believes that a club exists mainly for drinking purposes to make representation of his belief to the authority. We have also been told that it is difficult to define what is meant by mainly for drinking purposes, but it is no more difficult to define than hundreds of expressions of a similar kind in various Acts of Parliament, and those who administer
  296
  the law are quite competent to take all the considerations into account. Then clubs are to be open to inspection, and a fresh responsibility is placed upon the committees who have the conduct of management. I do not know whether your Lordships will say these provisions do not go far enough, but they will have a very direct effect, and, though I hope they will not be regarded as being real hardships to respectable clubs, I know that those who are concerned with the management of working men's clubs regard them as going as far as it is possible to go without undue interference with the liberty of the subject, and further, no doubt, than they would have done themselves if they had had the drafting of the Bill.
  Part III. of the Bill deals with miscellaneous matters, and the first has regard to Sunday closing. I was going to say that by common consent—but, I am afraid, nothing in relation to this subject is by common consent—the effects of Sunday closing, where it has been tried, have been uniformly beneficial. At present, in country districts, there are six hours, and in the metropolis seven hours, during which intoxicating liquor can be sold. We propose that the hours should be three and four respectively. But we have endeavoured—and this note, so to speak, is struck all through the Bill—to make it clear that, where alcoholic drink is taken as an adjunct to a meal, and not separately, a more liberal scale of opening ought to be permitted. And that your Lordships will find applies also in this case. The bona-fide traveller is subjected to conditions which were suggested, I will not say on his behalf, though that is, perhaps, not a wrong phrase to use, in the reports of the Commission of 1899. The minority, if I remember aright, suggested seven miles and the majority six, and it is the figure of the majority that appears in the Bill.
  Then we have a provision for the closing of public-houses during Parliamentary elections. We were in hopes that this, almost alone among the provisions of the Bill, had secured the adhesion of Mr. Balfour. He did, I believe, express himself at one moment in its favour, but other counsels prevailed,

  297
  and I believe he voted against it when a division was taken on the subject later. Then there are several provisions of value relating to the presence of children in public-houses, and Clause 22, which, in our opinion, is a clause of the very highest use, in that it empowers the magistrates to impose conditions of various kinds on those who apply for a licence. The flexibility of that provision is, in our mind, of the greatest possible value.
  I suppose it will be said, in the course of this debate, that this measure has never been properly considered, and that it received only hurried Parliamentary attention. So far as these attacks are concerned, I can assure your Lordships, from personal knowledge, that it has been most amply considered. The measure was, for many months, the subject of the closest inquiry, and the most careful piecing together. As regards the question whether it was hurried through Parliament, I suppose we are not likely to agree. I should have thought that six weeks of Parliamentary time was not an inadequate term for the consideration of even such an important measure as this. I cannot help thinking that, if it had been found possible—I suppose it never is found possible in the case of a very contentious Bill—to condense and concentrate discussion on the points really at issue, that time would have amply sufficed; but, as we know, concentration is difficult. Sometimes long speeches are made on very small points; and under the system of closure by compartment, which is utilised by both parties, though both parties alike admit it to be an imperfect machine, it does seem to be almost inevitable that some points escape full notice. But, so far as I am able to judge, having followed the debates in another place, all the main points of real importance did receive a very full and fair measure of discussion, and I shall be surprised if any new light is thrown on any of them even by the most experienced intellects in your Lordships' House.
  It appears, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, from the Motion on the Paper, and we must assume it will be carried, that this Bill will be lost. Your Lordships might have decided to amend
  298
  certain of its provisions, and I do not think you will find it altogether easy to prove to the country why you did not adopt that course. This is not exclusively, or entirely, a party question, and, although the party line divides us pretty clearly, yet I think that line is somewhat irregular here and there. Although we are regularly arrayed against each other in this matter in this House, yet I cannot help thinking that there are in the country not a small number of those who regularly support noble Lords opposite who will not entirely welcome the rejection of this Bill if your Lorsdhips decide to reject it.
  There are certain elements on our side quite distinct from those who ordinarily support us. Those who support us as a rule in the country have shown that they feel deeply on this matter. I myself have received upwards of 2,000 Resolutions in relation to this Bill and some 1,400 petitions. But there are others. The clergy both of the Church of England and of the Church of Rome—and I believe we shall hear from the right rev. bench, who speak with a voice of authority—will, as I believe, speaking generally, deeply regret the loss of a measure of this kind. Quite apart from this, I believe there are a number of serious citizens, people not very closely wedded to either political party, but as a rule, supporters of the party opposite rather than of ours, who will deplore the fact that this effort on behalf of temperance has broken down. They may, perhaps, not like this or that provision in the Bill. They may think this clause harsh; they may think that other clause inadequate. But, when it comes to concluding that nothing is to be done, and when no suggestion for improvement or Amendment to the Bill is offered. I cannot help thinking that they will be rather on our side than on that of noble Lords opposite. There are some words of my noble friend on the cross, bencher, Lord Rosebery, which have often been quoted—
  "If the State does not soon control the liquor traffic, the liquor traffic will soon control the State."
  I cannot help thinking that the rejection of this Bill, if your Lordships mean to reject it, will bring us a stage nearer to that unhappy consumation, so

  299
  disastrous to the commonwealth and so ignominious to the leaders of public opinion in this country. Speaking for ourselves, I can only say that we shall never regret the efforts which we have made to avert that consummation by bringing in this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE,who had given notice on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move the following Resolution, viz.—
  "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 affected by the Bill,"
  said: My Lords, in the observations which I shall have to address to your Lordships, I shall endeavour to imitate the noble Earl who has just sat down in the calmness and self-restraint with which he has dealt with this important subject. He has spoken to-night more in sorrow than in anger. Indeed, there was only one passage in his speech in which I thought I detected a little outburst of mild indignation. It was the opening passage in which he took us to task for having confronted your Lordships' House this evening with what he called a cynically foregone conclusion.
  The noble Earl proceeded to indulge in a few pleasantries—I should, if the word exists, be almost inclined to say, "unpleasantries"—at the expense of the meeting which took place under my roof yesterday. The noble Earl is greatly shocked at that meeting. I should like to ask where and amongst what paragons of political propriety the noble Earl has been living all these years? Has he never heard of a party meeting to discuss the manner in which an important measure should be treated? I am quite sure that I could, without very much difficulty, bring to his notice a considerable number of cases, if time were given for the necessary research, and owing to the kindness of a friend
  300
  who sits by me, I am able to give him this evening one case which seems to be not wholly irrelevant.
  In 1886, when the Home Rule Bill was before Parliament, Mr. Gladstone called a meeting of Liberals, the circular convening the meeting being addressed only to those who were known to be prepared to vote in favour of the establishment of a legislative body in Dublin. Now, my doors were open to all. There was no foregone conclusion; there was a good deal of free and not entirely unanimous discussion. At the meeting to which I refer Mr. Gladstone, among other remarks, argued that Members who did not altogether agree with the Bill might still vote for the Second Reading, and see to its amendment in Committee. No such terms were suggested or imposed upon those who honoured me with their presence yesterday. This Bill moreover has been so thoroughly discussed both in and out of Parliament that my friends who joined me yesterday may surely be excused if, having the whole case before them, they took counsel together as to the manner in which the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill should be met to-night.
  I conceive that there are two questions to which we have to address ourselves this evening. Is new legislation dealing with the liquor traffic necessary, and, if so, is the legislation proposed by His Majesty's Government of an appropriate and admissible kind? The noble Earl asked us whether in our opinion the Act of 1904 was the last word upon this subject. I am very far indeed from contending that the Act of 1904 closed the chapter of temperance legislation. I am quite ready to admit that, in regard to such points as the acceleration of the reduction of licences in places where it can be clearly shown that that acceleration has not been sufficiently rapid, further legislation may be necessary, and it has always seemed to me that there was a great deal to be said in regard to the incidence of the taxation which at present falls upon licensed property. But of this, at any rate, I am sure—that any well-considered measure for the promotion of temperance would be dealt with in a sympathetic spirit and

  301
  with an open mind on this side of the House, as well as upon the other. Not that I am ready to admit that intemperance is increasing in this country. I do not believe that it is. I believe that statistics prove the contrary. But I do admit that this great question of excessive drinking does underlie a number of the most serious social problems with which Parliament has to deal. It is connected with the question of crime, with the question of disease, and with the question of the degeneracy of the population in the most crowded centres of industry. It is connected, I think, even with the question of unemployment which so largely occupies our thoughts at the present time. And, therefore, I, at any rate, should welcome with open arms any measure which I really believed to represent a complete and well-considered effort to diminish the evils of excessive drinking.
  I ask myself whether the Bill on the Table can really be described as such a measure. My Lords, I find in it nothing like what could be described as a frontal attack all along the line upon intemperance. I find in it rather a congeries of proposals, hastily put together, representing not So much a deliberate policy as the tenets—the somewhat motley tenets—of those who are the most insistent advocates of temperance legislation. This Bill is directed almost entirely to dealing with a single feature of the problem: I mean the connection between excess in drinking and excess In the number of licensed premises. Now, these two things certainly do not always stand to one another in the relation of cause and effect. You may have districts where drunkenness is very common and where licensed premises are few in number, and, conversely, you may have districts with a large number of licensed premises and a clean record so far as excessive drinking is concerned. It is only those who may be described as local experts, who know the circumstances of the neighbourhood and of the licensed premises in question, who are able to tell you whether the number of those premises has or has not anything to do with the prevalence of drunkenness. And observe that it is precisely the opinion of those local experts which this Bill is designed to set on one side.
  302
  My Lords, I have seen a great deal of evidence to show that one of the results of a great diminution in the number of licensed premises is the stimulation of what I will term gregarious drinking—a form of drinking which I believe to be very dangerous, under which an enormous number of people collect on the same premises, where they are encouraged by the example of those around them to drink, and where, unless I am misinformed, a man who does not order something to drink is made to leave the place to make room for some one who will order drink. At any rate, I suggest that the theory that the reduction in the number of licensed premises inevitably leads to the diminution of drunkenness is wholly inconsistent with the theory of this Bill, that those who hold licences which are to be allowed to survive under the new system are to recoup themselves and to gain great advantage by the suppression of competing premises.
  This Bill deals, then, mainly with the question of the reduction of licences said to be redundant. On the other hand, it neglects altogether a great part of what may be called the field of temperance reform. There are surely two sets of persons to be considered if you want to put a stop to excessive drinking. There is the person who sells the drink and the person who consumes the drink. This Bill deals almost entirely with the sellers and very little with the consumers. Again, it leaves on one side what I might almost term the real public-house question, the question which was raised the other evening by my noble friend Lord Lamington—whether it is not possible to do something to humanise the public-houses, to encourage the use of lighter and less deleterious drinks, and to promote reasonable recreation of a kind which is not allowed at an English public-house.
  There is another portion of the field of temperance which the Bill no doubt touches, but touches in a very inadequate manner. I mean the question of clubs. If there is one law which can be laid down, it is that in this as in other countries a marked diminution in the number of public-houses leads to an equally marked increase in the number of clubs. This Bill contains some provisions in regard

  303
  to clubs which are no doubt of some value. I do not wish to underrate their importance. They are useful provisions in their way, but they do not in any way countervail the enormous advantages which, under our present system, and still more under the Government Bill, the club enjoys as against the public-house.
  May I remind your Lordships of one or two of them? The club, to begin with, escapes altogether that local option which figures conspicuously throughout this Bill. The club pays a registration fee of 5s.; the public-house pays for a Fence a sum which may range from £4 10s. to £60. The club profits by the reduction of public-houses, but pays nothing towards the compensation by which that reduction is brought about; while the owner of the licensed house has constantly to contribute to the compensation levy. The club may do what it likes with its own premises; the owner of the public-house is under very severe restrictions as to any alteration or improvements he may desire to make. The club is not specially rated on account of the privileges it enjoys; the public-house is specially rated; and finally, whilst the club may introduce games and music, the public-house is forbidden such accessories. Is it not clear that to deal as severely as we do in this Bill with the public-houses while allowing the clubs to escape, as lightly as they will escape, is really to neglect one very important feature in this great question?
  I do not know whether your Lordships have seen a book recently published by Messrs. Rowntree and Sherwell. It is full of valuable information, and there is an extremely interesting passage on the subject of clubs. The authors give a table showing the expenditure of 540 clubs. Nearly half a million is spent by them, but nearly all the money is spent on alcoholic liquors. There is one club mentioned—I presume as a typical, if extreme, case—where the takings at the bar amount to £2,690, whereas the takings for newspapers were 10s., and the takings for bread 3s. 7d. I never expected to encounter in modern life so complete a counterpart of Prince Henry's immortal comment
  304
  on the tave n bill found in the pocket of the sleeping Falstaff—
  "O monstrous! but one halfpennyworth of bread to this intolerable deal of sack."
  The noble Earl told us, however, that the Government intended that clubs used mainly as drinking clubs should be adequately dealt with. I thought that I detected in his observations a little uneasiness as to that definition. It seems to me to be an extraordinarily woolly definition, and one I am afraid which is rather characteristic of the vague language which we are so fond of inserting in Acts of Parliament. What is a club "mainly used" for drinking purposes? As in the case of the club I have mentioned, there may be a very large consumption of liquor; but it is conceivable that members may frequent the premises for the pleasure of each other's society, perhaps for the pleasure of discussion, or other innocuous purposes. I am at any rate unconvinced that this definition will serve the purpose which the noble Earl expects of it.
  Another part of the field which is largely neglected by this Bill is the provision in respect of off-licences. Unless I misunderstand the Bill, these do not come under any rigid scale, such as that which applies to on-licences, and they enjoy various other immunities, The noble Earl dealt with the question of off-licences and made light of the drinking which results from them. He said that the charge against them was. "not proven." I am bound to say that the information I have received is of an opposite description. I am told that there is nothing which more stimulates the most insidious forms of secret drinking than the facility with which spirits can be obtained, a bottle at a time, from the grocers' shops.
  This Bill is then mainly a reduction Bill. Now as to the policy of reduction, I venture to suggest that it is a policy which is wise or foolish according as it is applied with or without discrimination. By discrimination I mean this, that it is good to reduce licences if you can make sure that the licensed premises you are getting rid of are really redundant; that they are places, in which for local reasons, it is not desirable that drinking

  305
  should be allowed to be carried on. But I distinguish altogether between reduction of that kind and a merely arbitrary reduction simply because the number of licences in a particular neighbourhood exceeds the fixed canon which you have laid down by your Schedule. On the initiative of the late Government in 1904, Parliament dealt with this question of the reduction of licences. We passed by a majority of three to one an Act under which it was rendered possible to reduce the superfluous licences, and under which the task of reduction was entrusted to the authority most competent to perform it. I mean the local magistrates aided by the Quarter Sessions. We did this on a system of mutual insurance, which, I believe, has operated very fairly, and we left the holders of the licences which were not suppressed in a position of reasonable security for the future.
  Is it true that the Act of 1904 has failed so completely that it is necessary for us to substitute for it another and wholly different Bill? I do not think so. I believe that the Act of 1904 conferred an inestimable service. on the public in this, that it enabled the magistrates without scruple to get rid of licences whenever they were satisfied that such licences were redundant. I cannot describe the operation of the Act better than by quoting the words used by the Prime Minister in reference to another Bill that came before Parliament in the previous year. Mr. Asquith said—
  "The justices find an excessive number of public-houses in a district and that the licensees are conducting their business in a perfectly legitimate manner. The justices are in a dilemma; either they must hold their hands and not do what the public interest clearly requires by reducing the number of licences, or they must select a victim or a series of victims among this innocent class of persons. That is a most invidious duty. I do not wonder that the consequence is that the justices do very often hold their hands when the public interest requires that they should act."
  The Act of 1904 had this great merit, that it extricated the magistrates from the dilemma which Mr. Asquith so well described. Acting on the discretion thus given them the magistrates have made very large reductions in the number of licences. I believe they have reduced them at
  306
  the rate of something like 1,500 a year and of the amount allowed for compensation no less than 95 per cent. has already been spent.
  It is true that there are reasons why the progress should not in the future be so rapid as in the past. But one obstacle has been interposed, not owing to any shortcoming in the Act, but owing to the administrative action of the Government, who have, unless I am misinformed, withheld their consent to borrowing by those local authorities who wished by this means further to expedite the process, of reduction. At any rate, We know that there are some districts in which the reductions have already brought the number of licences down to the level of the present Bill; I hope therefore, it will be admitted that the Act of 1904 was a valuable measure, and if there is any reason to believe that its operation has been obstructed and that there are recalcitrant benches, it should not be beyond our powers to stimulate their action; but for that purpose I do not think that the Bill on the Table is by any means the machinery we should use.
  The Bill of 1908, indeed, is something wholly different from the Act of 1904. In. the first place, I find in this Bill that for the discretion of the licensing magistrates; we are asked to substitute a cast-iron scale imposed uniformly on the whole country. No sufficient regard, as I read the Bill, is paid to local peculiarities or local convenience. It is a measure which, breathes intolerance from one end to the other. There is no power of setting a superfluity of licensed permissions one district against a deficiency in another district. The uniform rigid scale of the Government has apparently been arrived at without previous inquiry as to the manner in which it will fit the requirements of different parts of the country. The result is that we hear on every side of hard cases which will arise if the Bill becomes law. There are hard cases in the great cities where one ward may find itself with an ample number of licensed premises and another without any licensed premises at all There are harder cases still in the rural districts, and I think the rural districts are entitled to our sympathy. The case of townsmen is very

  307
  different from the case of the agricultural labourers. The townsman has many places to which he can resort for distraction and amusement; the agricultural labourer probably has his public-house and nothing else. When, therefore, in a country district you put an end to the existence of three public-houses out of four you do occasion what I venture to call a grave inconvenience to a number of perfectly innocent people who have been in the habit of frequenting these houses. I am told of a district where under this Bill five public-houses would be left to an area of seventy-eight square miles. [Laughter.] Your Lordships laugh; but to the wretched labourer who, at the end of a hard day's work, wants to get his mug of beer, it is by no means a laughing matter that he should have to trudge seven or eight miles across country on a winter's evening.
  I pass to the provision which deals with the tribunal, and here I must say that I view with ever-increasing apprehension the growing practice of creating new tribunals of this kind. They are tribunals improvised ad hoc, manned by gentlemen of undoubted respectability, usually gentlemen of a certain political complexion, who are remunerated by salaries which are probably not sufficient to attract men of first-rate position, although the work they have to do is of first-rate importance. Why is it that we are to distrust the magistrates? I want to give the magistrates a little testimonial from the same source as the quotation which I read to the House a moment ago. In the same debate Mr. Asquith, dealing with the Licensing Bill presented by Mr. Butcher in 1903, complained that the effect of the Bill was for all practical purposes to annihilate the discretion which the law at present gives to the justices. That is just what we complain of in this Bill, that it weakens and diminishes the responsibility which the present law gives to the justices. And I hope your Lordships will remember that from this newly invented triumvirate there is no appeal.
  Now, my Lords, let me ask how under this new dispensation the victims are likely to fare. The noble Earl gave an interesting disquisition on the nature of a licence-holder's interest. I use the word "interest" advisedly, because I
  308
  shall be corrected if I use the word "property." But is there no such thing as an interest stopping short of a freehold and yet going far beyond a tenancy at will—which can be measured in terms of money and which deserves to be treated as a substantial and durable interest? Colleagues of the noble Earl have spoken of the licence-holder's interest as a precarious interest. That has not been the view of learned Judges, of Lord Halsbury, of Lord Bramwell, of Lord Hannen, and others. The noble Earl admitted that these licences were highly valued for death duties, but he said that this proved nothing, because the Somerset House authorities valued property at whatever value it happened to possess at the moment of valuation, and that what was valuable at one moment might cease to be valuable at another. But does the noble Earl suggest to us that it is right for the State to act at one moment on the assumption that a licence of this kind is a valuable interest in respect of which high duties should be paid to itself, and a few months afterwards to say—Oh, no; this is a precarious licence of which you have no tenure and in respect of which you are not entitled to ask any compensation to speak of?
  Again I fall back upon the authority of the present Prime Minister. In the same debate Mr. Asquith, speaking of the licence-holder's interest said—
  "When it is said, as it is said, and properly said, that it is a judicial discretion, what is meant is not a discretion to be exercised as in litigation according to settled rules of law and methods of procedure, but a discretion exercised in a judicial temper, not capriciously or whimsically, not in deference to any preconceived theory or formula but upon a full consideration of all the relevant facts which affect particular cases."
  Now we have got the preconceived formula, and we know the result. In spite however of the noble Earl's refinements upon this point I do not gather that he would himself repudiate the claim of the licence-holder to what I should call equitable compensation. The difference between us is this—What is and what is not equitable compensation? It is admitted by the noble Earl that the licence-holder enjoyed a certain expectation as to the renewal of his licence. What is the "expectation" worth?

  309
  I have seen rather interesting figures which bear upon this point. In 1900 there were in round figures 102,000 on-licences, of these 131 were refused—hardly any on grounds of redundancy. That works out at odds of 700 to one on renewal. That surely does show that the interest of the licence-holder is a substantial interest. I would add that in this country Parliament has always been careful to deal scrupulously with interests of this kind. I could give your Lordships examples. Do you remember how we dealt with the officers who had paid over regulation prices for their commissions? That was a clear case where something had grown up outside the law, where the parties had an expectation, and where the legislation dealt with that expectation in a most equitable and generous spirit. Another case in point is the manner in which we dealt with the question of the Ulster tenants where an "expectation" prevailed, and was stereo typed and recognised by the law.
  How are the persons having this reasonable expectation likely to fare under the provisions of this Bill? I will take that portion of them who will lose their licence whilst the fourteen years are running, and who will receive compensation for their loss. Until now that compensation has been based upon market value, but under this Bill market value disappear and you have substituted for it the difference in value of the premises with or without a licence as assessed under Schedule A of the income-tax. That proposal to bring in the question of rateable value was condemned in terms by the Peel Commission. They reported against rateable value on the ground that if it be admitted the licence holder's goodwill cannot be considered, although they say—
  "The licence and the goodwill are the things for which compensation would be given, not the building, which the owner would retain."
  Now, we have had a considerable amount of explanation as to the manner in which this goodwill is to be calculated. We have heard from the Prime Minister that under this Bill what is called personal goodwill will escape, whereas local goodwill be taken into account. How are you going to distinguish between personal and local goodwill? What are the
  310
  things which enter into goodwill? Surely among the constituents of goodwill may be mentioned the attractiveness of the premises, the quality of the liquor known to be sold in them, and the clientèle which, frequents the particular house. All these things are the creation of the licensee's own efforts, and why is he to be deprived of them? I am very much afraid that when you get down to the bed-rock of these provisions, you will find that the only personal goodwill which the licence owner will be allowed to retain will be that kind of personal popularity which belongs to the popular football player or cricketer: a goodwill of which even His Majesty's Government would not be able to strip him.
  So much for the fate of those licence-holders who will be deprived of their licences during the fourteen years. But now let us consider what will be the fate of those who survive the fourteen years and enter upon that further period of seven years which the noble Earl described as a respite. During the fourteen years the licence-holder has been continually patting his hand in his pocket to provide compensation for those licence-holders who find themselves suppressed, and the money he pays, remember, may go to compensate licence-holders in some area far removed from his own, so that he will not receive a single penny of advantage from what is spoken of as the betterment due to the diminution in the number of licences. Then after fourteen years comes the period of respite, a respite that seems to me of very questionable advantage. It is a respite in this sense, that the licence-holder will cease to contribute to the compensation levy—but during the respite he is liable to be deprived of his licence altogether under the system of local option introduced in the Bill and his security is gone. He may be deprived of it either by the action of the local bench or by a two-thirds majority of the ratepayers. Finally, he may have imposed upon him conditions which would virtually confiscate a great part of his property.
  Then we come to the third stage, after the twenty-one years. What happens then? The whole of the monopoly

  311
  value of his licence is taken away from him and annexed by the State, although the State has not contributed a farthing towards the cost of the operation. His goodwill, the result of his own hard work and energy, disappears and he is neither better nor worse off than any casual competitor who may appear upon the scene. I spoke just now of the extraordinary vagueness of the language of the Bill. I wish some noble Lord, before this debate closes, would give us some explanation of what is really meant by monopoly value. I should like to read the new definition. It has been altered several times, and I will read it—
  "The monopoly value shall be taken to be the sum by which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the value of the premises, as adopted or estimated for the purpose of income-tax under Schedule A, when licensed, and without taking into consideration any provisions for the purpose of securing to the public the monopoly value, exceeds the value of the premises for that purpose when not licensed."
  What a strange farrago to hurl at the heads of the trade and the public! I hope we shall have an exegesis from some noble Lord of the clause defining monopoly value. But although the words are obscure I am very much afraid that the meaning and intentions of the Government are quite plain. I understand that what the Government have in view is that the public should take the whole of the difference between the income-tax assessment of premises when licensed and unlicensed, and that not one penny is to be given in consideration of goodwill. These are what the noble Earl in the course of his speech described as the "liberal terms" offered to licence-holders under the Bill. There is no real compensation under this Bill. The holders of the suppressed licences will not get adequate compensation, and the holders of the surviving licences will not get adequate compensation. Indeed, it has been publicly stated that under these clauses something like 80 per cent. of the property of these people will be taken from them under this Bill. That calculation holds the field, and I should be glad to have it corrected if it is wrong. There is one point that I omitted in regard to the so-called "compensation" offered
  312
  by His Majesty's Government. I believe it is expected that during the seven years respite the holders of these licences are to recoup themselves by the amount of the business which they will do; in other words, I suppose they are to push their trade as hard as they can, to put as much water in their liquor as the public will stand, and spend nothing on the improvement of the premises. Do not let us forget that these terms, which I venture to stigmatise, putting it gently, as most niggardly terms, may not be received at all by the victims should it happen to be the case that local option is put into operation against them. I am constrained to say that in my opinion these terms spell absolute ruin for the holders of licensed premises. If it is true, as I am informed, that the Bill leaves the sufferers with only something like 20 per cent. of the value of the interest which they now enjoy, I do not think we use too strong language when we say that these proposals are of a confiscatory description.
  But, my Lords, we have to consider not only the members of the trade who will suffer. The noble Earl talked seriously about the evils of the joint stock system. I daresay he is quite right. Perhaps the evils are far-reaching; but that does not alter the fact that if this Bill becomes law, not only the trade, but an immense number of innocent investors in a perfectly legitimate business will be deprived of a great portion of their property. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the cruelty of such legislation or to dwell too much on the serious effect which it cannot fail to have upon public confidence in this country.
  And now, my Lords, how are we to deal with this Bill? I do not think any of those who sit on this side of the House would entertain for a moment the idea of allowing it to pass as it stands. Are we then to amend it or are we to reject it? I freely admit that there are many considerations which at first sight attract me to the first of these courses. The House of Commons has devoted something like six weeks to the consideration of the Bill, and it will be a matter of regret to many of us

  313
  to think that their labours should be in vain. There is another reason, and it is this: that much advantage might be got from the discussion of the Bill in Committee, for it contains many provisions which we should be much better able to criticise and dissect if we could get to close quarters with them in Committee. But the consideration which weighs most with me is that we should, by reading this Bill a second time, meet the earnest wishes of a very large section of our countrymen who, being passionately devoted to the cause of temperance, will undoubtedly view with great regret the rejection of a measure with the details of which they are probably quite unfamiliar, but which has been represented to them to be, and which they believe to be, a temperance measure. Therefore, it is not without much hesitation that I have arrived at the conclusion which it is my duty to lay before the House.
  But I am deeply convinced that it is altogether beyond our power on this side of the House to convert this Bill by amendment in Committee into a Bill which we could possibly accept. Our objections are directed, not to points of detail, but to the fundamental principles of the Bill, and I venture to say it is not our business to tear up the Bill of the Government and to send down to the House of Commons an entirely different Bill of our own composition. The attitude of His Majesty's Government has shown clearly that in their view the proposals which I have tried to criticise to-night are essential to the fabric of the Bill, and it is to my mind quite inconceivable that they should accept the kind of alterations on which those sitting behind me would, I believe, be likely to insist.
  And there is one other matter which weighs very much with me and which has strengthened me in the conclusion at which I have arrived. I believe it would be impossible for your Lordships to modify the essential provisions of this Bill without coming into conflict with the privilege of the House of Commons. Most of the more important clauses, I am advised, touch the question of privilege. Now your Lordships have had an object-
  314
  lesson during the present year as to the manner in which the privilege of the House of Commons can be pleaded by His Majesty's Ministers. We have not forgotten the fate of our Amendments to the Old-Age Pensions Bill. Many of them were proposals genuinely designed for the purpose of improving the Bill, but they were thrown back in our faces because His Majesty's Ministers chose to apply to the case an interpretation of the doctrine of privilege going far beyond anything of which we had up to that time heard.
  You cannot plead privilege in July and switch it off in December. Therefore in fairness to ourselves I recommend you Lordships to take a stand upon our rooted objection to the principles of this Bill rather than entangle ourselves in a mass of subsidiary points amid which the real issues would be obscured. I believe the country looks to us to protect it from legislation which we believe to be iniquitous and ill-considered, and I believe we shall better deserve both the respect of our fellow-countrymen and our own self-respect if straightforwardly and with the courage of our opinions, we reject the Bill on its Second Reading.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'that' for the purpose of inserting the words '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 affected by the Bill.'"—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I do not propose to stand long between noble Lords on the other side who wish to reinforce, if reinforcement were possible, the arguments which have fallen from the noble Marquess, and noble Lords on this side who wish to combat them. But I should like to take this opportunity of stating how this Bill strikes an average individual who does not hold the views taken by noble Lords opposite, and who also has not imbibed,

  315
  to the dregs all the details in the provisions of the measure.
  It was with surprise and regret that I learnt that the noble Marquess and his friends had declined to undertake the task of amending the Bill on the ground that that would be tantamount to an acceptance of its principles. I will not follow the noble Marquess into what he said regarding the question of privilege, but I will deal for a moment with the question of principle. As between the principle of the Act of 1904 and the principle of this Bill; the Act of 1904 provides for a reduction of licences upon certain terms, and for recovery of State control—with provisions for payment of full monopoly value for grants of new annual licences. This Bill proceeds on the same lines 'plus' the time limit and easier terms as to the monopoly value. Thus I find no cardinal differences in principle; the differences between us turn upon the terms and the equity and effectiveness of the methods—matters of details for Committee; and I regret that the noble Marquess opposite should have asked the House to depart from its traditional duty at a time when its suggestions and guidance would have been most valuable. This Bill seems to me to offer a reasonable compromise between what I will call the out-and-outers on the temperance side and the out-and-outers on the trade side. Because what we always sententiously call this problem lends itself easily to digressions. I will stick to what I conceive to be the three main features which emerge from the Bill before us. These I take to be in the first place the speedy extinction of a large proportion of the public-houses throughout the country, the second I take to be the ultimate resumption by the State of the control and to some extent of the profit arising from the possession of a valuable monopoly, end the third I take to be the creation of an intermediate period during which it is hoped that the industry affected will accommodate itself financially to the new conditions under which it will have to carry on its business.
  Now I take the first main point. I think the noble Marquess just now admitted, and I think everybody agreed,
  316
  that there is a considerable superfluity of public-houses, and that probably, though public-houses are generally well kept and tidy, and in fact rather agreeable looking objects in the landscape, the objection to them, if any, is that if there are too many, it must lead to more drinking; by parity of reasoning, if you have rather fewer there would be a reasonable chance of having a little less drinking. The noble Marquess touched on that, and he touched on it in a way that I rather expected. He attached very little importance to resolutions passed by temperance and friendly societies, and he said that those were the sort of things that it was always possible to fake up, and that even if they were sincere they were based, as the noble Marquess said the Bill was, on wrong principles.
  I think the best thing I remember being said about this was said by the late Lord Salisbury, and like everything else that he said it was the best thing of its kind: it was this, that although he had a great many bedrooms at Hatfield, he did not find that that led to his sleeping more. I believe someone pointed out that the analogy was not quite good, but I am not quite sure that the audience quite appreciated the irony of the noble Marquess's observations. Anyhow I will not dwell on the failure of that analogy, but I will give you another which also belongs to vegetation of the chestnut order, to wit, that of the poor woman who said that she could get her husband past four public-houses, but she could not get him past the fifth. That is no doubt a little rougher in fiber than Lord Salisbury's, but it is at least as effective, and probably as true. Without labouring these points any further, I should like to say, speaking for myself, which is all I am speaking for, that I welcome the provisions which are contained in this Bill, which make for a further reduction in public-houses. I am perfectly willing to defer, as we all must defer, to experts, but I confess I like my own opinion quite as much on this particular point. I live up in the north of England where we have very bad weather and like lots of drink to keep it in order, and I trust to my own observations on this quite as much as I do those

  317
  of the local expert of whom the noble Marquess made so much as being a sort of pope, who could instruct us as to whether public-houses made for sobriety or not.
  Then as to the scheme for compensation. I will not talk about that, because that seems to me again a matter that has been conceded by both parties, that the trade have got to compensate themselves. I do not know whether the provisions in the Bill are quite what I would like to see in it with regard to that, but there, again, that is a point for Committee, and by the unfortunate action which you have taken, you have contracted yourselves out of doing anything in that direction or about anything else.
  The same remark applies to clubs. Lord Lansdowne talked about the registration and the regulation and the inspection of clubs as desirable, and that all this was not sufficiently provided for in the Bill. But that is all a question of method and degree, and there, again, those also are matters for Committee. We have heard also something about local option, and upon that point I would say, quot homines, tot sententiœ. But as regards local option in this Bill, local option is only an episode in it, and the provisions in that regard are in no way vital to the Second Reading of the Bill. You can take the whole of those clauses out, and still leave a complete measure for readjusting the relations between the brewing industry and the State. Local option is not vital, or in any sense vital, to the Second Reading of the Bill which you have just moved is not to be given. The same remark applies, of course, to such points as children being admitted to bars, and various other clauses. Those are all Committee points.
  I should like to say one word with regard to Sunday closing. I like the regulations about Sunday closing, and if I may be allowed I should like to tell you the modus operandi which goes on in my village, which would be defeated, I think to the advantage of the neighbourhood generally, and certainly to my own, if the Sunday closing clauses became law. I live in a village which is looked upon as agreeably rural, but
  318
  we are near a small manufacturing town, a very self-contained thriving place, I believe it has got one of the best technical schools in the West Riding of Yorkshire, which is saying a good deal, but at all events there it is, a small urban town as you sometimes find in the middle of a sea of grass. They have a very efficient and simple and ingenious way of managing the Sunday closing. This place is just within the three-mile limit of my village, and what happens is that at half-past two on every Sunday afternoon, which is closing-time at the urban place, a 'bus is in readiness, and very often two or three 'buses, or as many 'buses as are likely to be required, to bring over at once to my village these people who have vacated the public-house at half-past two. They bring them over, and they spend the whole afternoon in my village, and just get back in time to the place they came from by six o'clock, when they can begin drinking over again. If this became law we, no doubt, up in our part of the world, would get rid of a good many people, very good people in their way, but who certainly add a good deal to the business at the Court House at Bolton-by-Bowland every fortnight, and who get into trouble through the services of these 'buses, which bring them on Sunday to Gisburne.
  Now I will come to the second main feature—I said I would try to stick to the main features—which is the resumption by the State of the control of the monopoly value. Here, as I said at the beginning, I do not imbibe quite to the dregs all the methods and all the provisions of the Bill as laid down by His Majesty's Government, and if this Bill had been given a Second Reading I should have liked to have said a word in favour of some preference being given to the licensees and owners who at the expiration of the time-limit should survive the tests and the trials and the levies and the undreamt of inconveniences to which they would have been subjected, no doubt sincerely in the interests of the community. I really think that this Old Guard, as it were, should be given some sort of pull over the new and untried speculator who decided to come in against them

  319
  into the licensing business, possibly one incentive of his action being the chance of buying at a wreckage price the premises which he stepped into, having got rid of this stanch gentleman who, as I said just now, belonged to the Old Guard. It would have been perfectly possible to have drawn clauses to protect those individuals, and, although I do not pretend to be a Parliamentary draughtsman, if we had got into Committee I should have had the hardihood to try and draw it.
  I said just now that I would say something about the monopoly value as affected by this Bill, and as affected by the Act of 1904, and I should like to point out that under Clause 26 of this Bill the licensee is placed in a very much better position than he was under the clause in the Act of 1904. He becomes the recipient of better conditions, I think perfectly fair ones. I should like to remind your Lordships that the noble Marquess was very enamoured with the individuals who under the 1904 Act were to decide all these questions, but curiously enough though you had such confidence in the people who were to decide all these questions you gave them no sort of discretion as to this monopoly value, and however good a case was shown the justices were obliged to claim to the very last farthing that monopoly value. Under the Bill of the present Government the Commissioners of Inland Revenue can remit part, on good cause shown, of an annual licence. I have no doubt, as the noble Lord said, that Clause 6 is difficult to understand. I do not know that I am right about the words, but that is the meaning which I understand is contained in the words "when in such cases" the payments shall not exceed the monopoly value, "whereas on re-grant for a term of years they are to be based on monopoly value." But as I have said just now, in both cases the words do not seem to me to be very clear, and again if we had ever got into Committee I should have asked the Government myself to try and clear that up a little.
  Then we come to my third main point or feature. I should like to say a word here about those of whom we have heard a good deal, those who have
  320
  invested their savings in the brewing industry, seduced, I suppose from their allegiance to what I think Lord Stowell called the elegant simplicity of the 3 per cents. I suppose the capital invested in the brewery industry enterprises of this country amounts to something like £200,000,000,000, and a large proportion of those millions is held by the general investing public. I rather dissent from the views which have been taken by the Liberal newspapers, in representing the people who have invested their savings in this sort of stock as a rather sinister and peculiar people. Really to read some of these papers you would think that people who hold brewery shares were quite different from the holders of the same sort of stock, we will say in a railway or a dock company, and I rather take exception to the line which is also taken in some of our papers on this side, which is embodied in such a phrase as you often see quoted in Press headings: "The Trade versus the Public." To hear some folks talk you would think that a retired colonel or a clergyman or a widow who happened to have invested anything between £500 and £10,000 in a brewery company had themselves become all but not merely publicans and brewers but also sinners. I do not know that there is any good ground for that. A person who invests in a joint stock undertaking is an investor and no more a trader than an investor in consuls is a money-lender. Now I think the noble Marquess laid stress on this; that where any particular industry is made the object of legislation Parliament cannot be too tender or too considerate in the way it deals with that industry, so as to enable it to adapt itself with as little pain and dislocation as possible to the new conditions which Parliament directs. I agree. But granting all that from the other side of the question, I also rather dissent from the line taken by your friends that the brewers are a sort of "Babes in the Wood," a sort of children of light who have been walking about the world all these years with their eyes closed and their ears sealed to the various vicissitudes which beset us in a troublesome world. Here, again, I have the greatest liking for brewers. They represent, I think we will all agree,

  321
  a most attractive form of competence, vouched for by their possession of fine houses and beautiful horses, and rare Sir Joshua Reynoldses and so on. I remember a horse-dealer that I knew saying the people he liked best were the brewers, that he had a most charming and friendly recollection of a bishop, but he said: "Give me the brewers." He preferred them even to Members of your Lordships' House." But here, again, I say that this idea that the brewers are such guileless people, and that they have got into these difficulties with tied-houses through no sort of fault of their own, does seem to be rather ridiculous.
  I will tell you again what happened to me, if it does not bore you. Some years ago, about the middle of the great speculation in public-houses, I owned in this very village which I have told you about three or four public-houses. I felt that it was too many for one individual to hold. I am in the enjoyment, as no doubt all your Lordships are, of the services of a most admirable family lawyer, who lives at a place called Clitheroe Castle. He is the last man in the world who would claim any of the prerogatives of a prophet or care for them, but I remember very well that he said to me at that time: "This thing cannot go on; sooner or later you will have one party or other in the State who will knock all this public-house business and all the value of this public-house property to pieces, and, if you take my advice, I advise you to sell them." I took his advice. I had rather forgotten what happened, but I think these figures which I have just received by telegram from my agent are rather remarkable. One of my houses which is called the "White Bull" was assessed at £26, and another one called the "New Inn" was assessed at £38 at the date of the sale, September, 1907. Those two houses made £10,000; there were some farm buildings with both of them, and they were worth something under £1,000. I had another inn let, with 23 acres of land, assessed at £42 10s.; that is let now, on a long lease, again, to the same brewer, for £226 a year. What I say there is that if my lawyer was able to foresee the complications which might arise—he had noticed, I suppose, the Darwin case and the Sharpe v.
  322
  Wakefield case, and the letter of the Secretary of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, I think, after the Sharpe v. Wakefield case, although that is disputed, and it is said that the Secretary only cited his own view—but anyhow my solicitor had noticed these things, and had come to the conclusion that this could not go on; and I should have thought that well-managed breweries would also have been able to foresee it and to protect their own shareholders by making due provision when they bought houses at the kind of price at which I told you they bought these houses of mine.
  I think that I have said all I have got to say except this. Perhaps you may think from what I have said just now about the investing public, and my tenderness for the investing public, and my desire, if this Bill had gone to Second Reading, to see the position of the investing public, and in some way the position of licensees, made considerably better—you may think from this that I. am entirely with you, but I am not. It is because I believe that a little more tenderness ought to have been exhibited towards the investing public and the licensees, that I say that a good deal of that might have been altered and improved if you had not contracted yourselves out of making suggestions which public opinion would have backed you in. If you had not done that, I think the Government would have done what they could to meet you by improving the time-limit and so on. A good many people think that the time-limit is not enough; I belong to that persuasion. I should have liked to see it twenty-one years or even twenty-eight years. If it could have been made twenty-eight years I believe it would have been better. I do not know whether it would have eased the wheels of this coach; I suppose not, because it is a curious thing that the time-limit seems to raise more angry passions, almost, than anything else, even in the breasts of those for whom it is supposed to have been specially devised. But, anyhow, I believe myself that the Government Bill is a Bill which makes in the right direction for dealing with the various difficulties which surround the

  323
  drinking problem in this country, and I believe that with a time limit of twenty-five or twenty-eight years it would have given ample time and ample facilities to everybody to make their arrangements and adjust themselves to the new conditions. Therefore, as I have said just now, although I should have liked to have seen many changes in the Bill, I am an out-and-out supporter of the Second Reading of this Bill, and I regret very much the line which I feel certain in all sincerity and seriousness the noble Marquess and those who sit with him have seen fit to take. I dislike altogether any appeal by either side in this House as to what would be popular in the country, or as to whether you are consulting your own interests or otherwise. I give you full credit for your intentions, and I give you full credit for the supposed wisdom of the arguments and the sincerity of the convictions which have led you to take the line you have taken. No doubt it will be a popular line, for nobody seems to like Licensing Bills. I do not think the noble Marquess or his friends would have gone to the country on their 1904 Bill. Therefore, a Bill that is thrown out neck and crop, like this is going to be thrown out to-night, will no doubt receive a great deal of popular acclamation of a certain sort. I am reminded of one thing, perhaps not touching such a big issue, which has come back to my memory. I have not looked it up, but I think I am accurate in saying that when Sir Robert Peel made his final farewell address to his party, when he admitted that he was beaten in the House of Commons on the Corn Laws, he said it was true that he was beaten, but he added that it was possible that his name would be remembered for good in many a poor household. I should like your Lordships to consider, giving you again credit for your sincerity, whether the converse may not be true in this case, and whether, by throwing out this Bill without any attempt to touch it up or to improve it, it may not be the other way on, and that your Lordships may not be remembered for good in many a poor household where the vicissitudes of non-employment and of illness, and of many children to keep, are not made easier by the neighbourhood of a public-house.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, after the charming and amusing and at the same time most effective speech to which we have just listened I am afraid that what I have to say may perhaps seem sad and dull, but I do want to-night, not so much as Bishop of London but as an old temperance worker for thirty years, to recall to your Lordships' minds a few facts which really no one denies. The first is the awful drink bill of this country. I believe that no one for a moment denies these figures—they have been published and I have seen no denial of them—that what is spent on alcoholic liquor in this country per annum is £166,425,000, and that when you work out those figures having regard to the population and to the families in this country, it amounts to no less than 7s. 3d. per week on an average for every family in the country, and that is leaving us benighted teetotallers out of account altogether. Therefore, if the compiler of these figures is right when he says that the expenditure on drink is 7s. 3d. per family per week, can you wonder that that expenditure is accompanied by urgent complaints that the children go without food, and that there is no provision for unemployment or for old age? That fact about the drink bill of our country is not denied. When I was over in Canada last year, and had the chance of speaking to numbers of Canadian men, I remember that Sir Wilfrid Laurier did me the honour to sit by my side, as I thought, to back me up, and not only he himself but all the Canadians were horrified at these figures. Canada in proportion to its population drinks only one-fourth of what the Mother Country does.
  Then again, at the Pan-Anglican Congress this year, the American bishops and the Canadian bishops said that on the other side of the Atlantic they never see a woman enter a public-house at all. Therefore, I feel this, that we are really in great danger of shocking those noble sons whom we have sent out into the world, and that our drink bill, which we are ourselves so accustomed to, is considered a disgrace to us by the very sons whom we have sent forth into the world. What is the result of this?

  325
  Your Lordships may have seen a little quiet fun poked at me in the papers for what has been called my "midnight march." That midnight march was not undertaken in any connection with the Licensing Bill at all. It was part of an effort which I made as Bishop of London to carry out a mission in central London. But I do not deny that there were humorous sides to that midnight march. When those 200 or 300 men were invited by the Church Army to sing "Lead, Kindly Light" they all insisted on singing "For he's a jolly good fellow," and still more merriment was excited by the efforts to argue away that midnight march; the public-house people—excellent men as I am certain they are, and when we speak of them we must always do justice to them as men who, no doubt, are trying in a difficult position to do their best, certainly as far as we know in London—but it caused certain merriment that they should be asked to state how many drunken men they had on their premises that night, and when the police were asked how many men they had not taken up on their beat that night. The midnight march resulted, without any humour connected with it, in one of the saddest sights I ever saw in my life. Two hundred men—one who was a witness with me said 300; he says that I have under-rated it by 100—but at least 200 men under forty, between half-past eleven and half-past twelve on Saturday night, all under the influence of drink and with their young faces seamed with drink. I am certain that if your Lordships had seen that sight it would have gone to your hearts as much as it went to mine, especially when I had the knowledge that if I had had the same organisation, the same band, the same companions with whom I went through that part of Westminster, I could have seen the same sight in every slum of London at half-past eleven or twelve on a Saturday night. In that you have the first result, and in our discussion to-night you must not leave out of sight that awful result of what the drink bill of England means.
  Now let me mention another point. Information was brought to me to-day from one of the prison chaplains in one
  326
  of our prisons in England, and he says that in the prison he has to do with 90 to 93 per cent. of those who are there are there directly or indirectly through drink. I take another point. I had the chief representative of the Church Army down to see me to-day. He says that in their opinion they might close all their labour homes but for drink.
  The noble Marquess has spoken of the improvement that has taken place in temperance. Thank God there has been an improvement; thank God our efforts for twenty-five years have not wholly been in vain, but at the same time it is acknowledged on all hands that the increase of drinking among women is appalling, and if we think what the increase of drinking among women means, and its effect upon the coming generation, is it not possible to minimise in some way that awful danger? In certain public-houses I have been told that there are private entrances for women, where they can go in at one door and go out another way, so that women can now go into public-houses more easily than they could before. When I contrast that with what my brethren on the other side of the Atlantic have said, the Mother Country compares very badly with them.
  Then with regard to the effect upon children. Some of you may have read a very interesting book, although perhaps somewhat sensationally written, called "The Black Stain," by Mr. George R. Sims. I should have considered that book sensational if I had not lived in the slums and seen myself the sights that he has described, the number of children whose livers have become hardened by gin given them by their parents in public-houses. I would ask why is it that three times the number of children are killed on Saturday nights by their mothers overlaying them? There can be only one answer to that and the answer is because their mothers have been drunk.
  Therefore, I put before your Lordships the grossness of the evil, and I ask those of your Lordships who care for the future generation to think what the effect of this is upon the children. It has already been quoted to-day, but it will bear quoting again; the noble

  327
  Earl when he introduced the Motion to-night quoted that it was acknowledged by the whole of the Majority Commission that a gigantic evil remained to be remedied, and that hardly any sacrifice would be too great which would result in a diminution of this great national degradation. Therefore, we have a point in our argument as to which everyone agrees that this is a national degradation.
  Then comes the question, will legislation do any good? Let me be perfectly frank to-night, my Lords. I do not look to legislation to do the chief good; but while I do not look to legislation to do the chief good, I do say to you, to use a scriptural metaphor, that while we must bring spiritual means and moral means to raise Lazarus, you can by legislation take away the stone which keeps him down. I have looked very carefully to see what I think would be the effect of diminishing the number of public-houses upon the decrease of drunkenness. I have had a great many deputations during the past few months from brewers, and I quite agree with the last speaker that they are most charming men personally. I could not think at first why it was they wanted so much to see me and to seek my acquaintance recently, but I found that it was very often in order to try and impress upon me that I was totally wrong on the Licensing Bill. I had some very interesting conversations with those brewers, and I remember I asked a member of one deputation this very question: "Will the decrease of public-houses add to the profit of the other public-houses?" "No," he said, "the custom, as far as we can ascertain, entirely evaporates." If that is so, then I say the reduction of 30,000 public-houses is a great temperance reform. If, on the other hard, other brewers are right who say that it will add to their profits, then I do not think that the Government can look at it as an unjust thing to ask those who are to have their trade increased to pay something towards the compensation of the others. Therefore, although I am perfectly willing to admit that there are two sides to the question as to how much the closing of public-houses will decrease drunkenness, I think we are not far wrong if we take the evidence of one who ought to know, namely, Mr. James, the President
  328
  of the Plymouth, Devonport and Stone-house Wine, Spirit and Beer Trade Protection Society, who, writing in 1885, said as follows—
  "Any person of ordinary intelligence who has been in the trade for a period of twelve months must and does know that the large number of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor is the principal cause of a considerable portion of the convictions for drunkenness."
  And in the same paper, "Temperance Legislation and Licensing Reform," Mr. James declared that—
  "To remedy the evils connected with the consumption of alcoholic liquor a large reduction in the number of licences is absolutely necessary."
  And I might ask why if that is not so should the Majority Report have advocated the immediate closing of large numbers of public-houses? When the noble Marquess then states in his Motion that there is very little material advantage to temperance in the Bill I must remind him under that first heading alone what the closing of 30,000 public-houses would mean to us as temperance reformers. But there are many other provisions on the side of temperance in this Bill. Some have been mentioned; some have not. If you had lived for nine years in Bethnal Green, as I have done, you would know the sights you see in and about public houses on a Sunday. It is a thing that is very disheartening when you see, in spite of all your efforts by lectures, sermons, and mission services every public-house crammed with struggling masses of humanity hour after hour on Sundays. I was very much disappointed at first when I found in the Bill that my diocese was left out with regard to Sunday closing, but I was glad to find afterwards that London, if your Lordships do not throw the Bill out, is to enjoy the reduction to three hours of Sunday opening. Then again, I think the closing of publichouses on polling days is an excellent thing, and also that the closing of them before eight o'clock in the morning is an excellent thing. What are we told by those who have seen it—I do not pretend to have seen it myself—but I am told that at six o'clock every morning in public-houses you will see rows and rows of mugs of spirits waiting for men

  329
  to go in and drink to start their day's work on. As I say, I have not seen it myself at six o'clock in the morning in London, but I know it is so in the north, and that is one of the great temptations that would be swept away by this Bill. Then again the bona fide traveller has to walk six miles before he can obtain drink. We are glad of that. We are glad that the discretion of the magistrates is brought in again, and although, as I shall say in a moment, I do not think the Bill has been strong enough on clubs, I do hold that it has been unjustly criticised in that regard, because the annual registration of clubs is a great thing, and the other restrictions on clubs seem to me not to be desplsed at all. Then we are glad above all to see the power that is given to the magisstrates to exclude children from public-houses. That is a thing that every child lover ought to be glad to see in a Bill.
  No doubt there are certain defects In the Bill; I have always said so, but those were just the defects that we were looking to your Lordships' House to help us to get rid of. Personally, I should have advocated, I confess, a stronger treatment of clubs. There is one simple thing that might have been Introduced, and that is the publication of club-accounts in order that we might see whether they were in fact mere drinking-clubs, clubs of the character, to use the noble Marquess's language, where a halfpenny worth of bread and a great amount of sack was consumed. I should have liked to have seen, by a disclosure of the accounts, which were the real clubs, and which were mere drinking-clubs. Then, again, personally I should have been glad to have dealt with the off-licences in a stronger way. I cannot agree, I am sorry to say, with the noble Earl when he said that they did little to encourage secret drinking. The evidence that I have goes to show that these off-licences are a mischievous tiling which must be dealt with in some way by Parliament. So again I should have very much liked to have seen in the Bill some restriction as to the hours of closing on Saturday nights. Why should public-houses be open till twelve o'clock? I was hoping that your Lord-
  330
  ships would try and amend this Bill, and there is no reason why we should not have sent it down to the House of Commons again a stronger and a better Bill.
  But it is said the Bill is wholly unjust. Now I am perfectly ready to admit that I have always been myself very softhearted about the length of the time-limit. I had a conversation with a brewer who was a member of one of the deputations that came to see me as to the length of the time-limit, and I asked him, "What would you like. How will twenty-eight years suit you?" He said, "Twenty-eight years I would not mind." He was the head of a large brewery, and I thought that as he seemed to take twenty-eight so quietly it would not be far wrong to say that twenty-one would be about just. But personally if your Lordships had fixed any longer time-limit as fair I should never for a moment as a temperance reformer have objected. It seems to me not beyond the wit of man to fix the value of what is admittedly not a freehold and yet which by everybody's admission is a reasonable expectation, and that it is a thing that we might have done and done most usefully for the country. But, of course, what it conies to is this, that if this Bill is rejected on the Second Reading licensed property becomes practically a freehold.
  Then again I would deal for a moment with what the previous speaker, the noble Lord who preceded me, said with regard to the knowledge of the trade. Mr. Thomas Nash's statement years ago has been often quoted—
  "There cannot be the smallest doubt that in the strict sense no such thing as a vested interest exists, and that subject to appeal the magistrates can refuse to renew the largest, most useful, and best-conducted hotel in England. I daresay that this will stagger many owners, but it is high time that the trade fully realised their position, and did not remain an instant in a state of false security."
  Much more recently, and much more forcibly—I am quoting from the Blue book of the Trade of 1903—mutual insurance is advocated as follows—
  "The idea was a great one and, like most great ideas, was simple. Capital was invested in a defective security; the property which depends for its value on a licence. The defect, judged by past experience, was not a very serious one; but there it was; licences, by legal and judicial

  331
  methods might be destroyed. The exigencies of a brewer's business compelled the investment in licensed property, and the force of competition practically drove the whole of the capital into such business. With all their eggs in one basket, and that radically defective, what more necessary than a sound scheme for remedying the defects."
  It seems to me while we are most anxious—I am certain I am—to do full justice to the trade, and full justice to every man, we are deluding ourselves if we think that the trade were so simple as not to know the facts of the case all the way round.
  I have just two more points and I have done. It is said that the Licensing Bill has really been the cause of the ruin of many honourable firms, but do let me recall to your Lordships' attention the perfectly cold and critical article that appeared in The Times Financial Supplement of 6th March, 1908. It is contained in this statement called "The Truth about the Brewery Market." It says—
  "The Licensing Bill whatever it may threaten has not killed the brewery market; the market was dead before, and dead as the result of the speculation by brewers in tied houses, which culminated ten years ago, and has been collapsing year by year ever since."
  It seems to me that we have no right to lay on the Government the unjust accusation that they have killed Borne of the firms which were themselves killed before the Licensing Bill came in at all, and, therefore, I feel that a most unjust opprobrium has been cast on the Government for effects attributed to the Bill which effects are due to other causes.
  The other point relates to the argument that the 1904 Act was working very well. Let me acknowledge, if I may in all honesty, that it has worked better than I expected when I spoke about it in this place in 1904. But the fact remains that it is working more slowly every day, and that as the cost gets greater for the public-houses it will work slower and slower, and if it was good to shut up any public-house at all, surely to expedite the closing of them is good also, but at the rate your 1904 Act is working I honestly believe that we shall not shut up 30,000 houses in 100 years.
  332
  Therefore it is that I come round to what I am going to ask your Lordships' to do, with all fairness to all concerned, and that is—although I am afraid it is perfectly hopeless—to reconsider the decision to which you seem to have come. I do not ask you to pass this Bill as it stands, I would myself try and help to amend it in many ways, but I ask you not to reject the Bill altogether, because I say if you do never will you find a Government that will take up this question again in our lifetime. Reject this Bill and a licence becomes a freehold; reject this Bill and the trade becomes impregnable; reject this Bill and the national degradation, which this measure was designed to cure, will go on unmitigated so far as legislative enactment is concerned for many years to come; but pass it, amend it, and put it on the Statute-book, and you will take a step towards the well being and the happiness of the nation.
  LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I must say that I felt some regret when I understood that this Bill was not to be read a second time, but after having listened to the speeches that have been made this evening in favour of that Second Reading my regret is very considerably diminished. First of all, the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading did not indicate that he would be prepared to accept Amedments of any vital character, and also the noble Lord, the Marquess who leads this side of the House, is so emphatic and clear in his statement as to the importance he placed upon doing everything that was possible to increase temperance in this country, that I think my hostility to not having a Second Reading of this Bill is very considerably reduced. At the same time I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ribblesdale, who has said that the decision will be a popular one. From all I have been able to gather in these recent days of the opinions of men of moderate views there seems to be a great concensus of opinion gradually gaining ground in the country that something further needs to be done to check, if possible, the drink evil, and I think, as Lord Lansdowne very properly remarked, there are a number of people who do not understand the details

  333
  of the Bill, and do not see the in justice which under the circumstances may be done in certain quarters, and they will only blame this House for having summarily disposed of the Second Reading if, as prefigured, this Bill is then rejected. At the same time it must be recognised in the past that by the Act of 1904 we showed very clearly that we were as anxious as any other part of the community to secure legislation that would have possibly reduced the drink evil, and if we do not see our way to accept this measure it is because we do believe that you may not do evil in order that good may come, and it is unfair to accept any proposals which will undoubtedly cause ruin, or at all events, great loss of property to a number of people. The right rev. Bishop of London read out a quotation I think from the Licensing Report in which it said that no sacrifice would be too great to remove this national degradation. But I ask, where is the sacrifice that is made in this case? The sacrifice is not made on the part of the Government; it is certainly not made on the part of the nation. The sacrifice is to come entirely out of the pockets of those who have been engaged in a trade that has been recognised as a perfectly legitimate one up to the present time. The noble Earl, Lord Crewe, tried to draw an analogy between this Bill and legislation such as has been undertaken for the protection of children, but in all such legislation parents are not arbitrarily deprived of their children; all that legislation does is to take children away from bad or improper treatment, but this is a proposal to take away from a man that which he has not been shown to abuse Again he drew the illustration of the Act dealing with betting in the streets, as showing that we did not sympathise with the bookmakers. But that was not a case where the bookmakers had invested their capital on the faith of holding what is a Government or a State licence, and in the expectation of having that licence renewed from year to year. Therefore, I maintain that there is rot any true or real analogy to be drawn from those instances that were put before us by the noble Lord.
  There was one portion of the Bill that I certainly had a dislike to, and that
  334
  is to any tribunal being appointed ad hoc. It is the fashion of the party opposite to introduce such instances of bureaucratic government, and in this particular case, as the noble Marquess pointed oat, the new body would supersede those who had local knowledge and experience.
  It has been denied that there has been any increase in the number of clubs where the number of public-houses has been reduced. Perhaps the increase has not been so large as might have been expected, but I certainly do not think it can be safely assumed that when you have a Bill of this character which is arbitrarily going to reduce the number of houses and perhaps without proper cognizance of the requirements of the district, that then there will not be a demand or there will not be an occasion for drinking clubs to be created. No doubt the licensing authorities under the provisions of the Act of 1904 would determine the houses or draw up a scheme of the houses that should be suppressed, and, therefore, it might be supposed that they would take into calculation where those houses were least wanted, so that in that case there would be less occasion for clubs to be established. But when you come to an arbitrary reduction, as contemplated under this Bill, I think it can hardly be expected that there would not be any cases where houses would be removed where a demand existed in the neighbourhood for some facilities of drinking and had to be provided for, and consequently clubs would be established. The noble Lord, Lord Ribblesdale, said that he had no sympathy with tied houses. I think I rather agree with him, although I am not in the fortunate position that he was, he having had a clever agent who foresaw the possible legislation that was forthcoming, and thereby got rid at a very good price of those houses that were belonging to the noble Lord. But I do quite hold that those brewers who have spent large sums of money in tying up houses for the sake of disposing of their wares, have embarked in a speculation with which we can hardly feel sympathy if they suffer loss in consequence of any legislative action. But it is not only the brewers but also those who have invested money

  335
  who are quite ignorant of this condition of affairs, and who believed that the licensing system was going to continue much on the same footing as heretofore. The right rev. Bishop of London quoted one brewer as saying that if you removed one house it would not thereby follow that the remaining house would increase its profits, but that the profits seemed entirely to evaporate. I think possibly some explanation may be found in the fact that when you remove facilities for convenient and companionable drinking then, instead of drinking beer, the person would go to the nearest off-licence, and buy a bottle of spirits and indulge himself in that way instead of going some distance in order to frequent the remaining public-house. I think it is quite possible, therefore, that the brewer's profits may be reduced, if they do not disappear altogether, but if it could be traced, I think you would find that the sale of spirits had increased instead.
  I am not so much concerned with the general provisions of the Bill, but more particularly in respect of how far it might affect a Bill of my own, which I introduced very recently and which was referred to this evening by the noble Marquess. The effect of the passing of this Bill, as it now stands, upon any prospect of improving public-houses and procuring a greater amenity in their surroundings, I think would be to absolutely destroy it. That Bill, when I introduced it, I think met generally with a favourable reception as regards its intention, but the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, deprecated the passing of the Bill on the ground that it would give full freedom to publicans to alter their houses without any check whatever by the licensing authority. But there was no fault found, I think, either by him or by the noble Lord, Lord Fitzmaurice, as to the intention or scope of the Bill, and Lord Fitzmaurice even went so far as to say that it might be possible to insert an Amendment into this present Bill under discussion to secure the effect claimed for the Bill that I introduced. But, as I say, this Bill would absolutely discourage any idea of publicans improving the premises or the surroundings of a public-house.
  336
  Naturally any licensee during this period of suspense of fourteen years or more would not venture to incur a heavy outlay in improving his premises; on the contrary, he would devote all that time to a far more sordid scheme, namely, one of getting all the money he possibly could out of his house, and, as the noble Marquess pointed out this evening, at as cheap a rate as possible to himself. Therefore, any prospect that I might have had of inserting the Amendment as suggested by Lord Fitzmaurice is really entirely discounted, and the whole tenor of the Bill would be entirely opposed to my proposals being able to take any effect. One of the noble Lords this evening, Lord Crewe I think it was, doubted whether publicans really objected to hard drinking, whether they were not on the whole rather pleased to see that their customers consumed as much as possible. I daresay they might do so under present circumstances, I am not in a position to speak as to that, but had my proposal been carried out, they would then have been able to look to another source of profit by increasing their clientèle, and by encouraging others to come into their premises for innocent recreation, and for very simple and harmless refreshment.
  I do not propose to detain your Lordships further. As I say, my original idea was that it would have been better to have passed the Second Reading of this Bill, but I can see that there is not any chance from anything that has fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Crewe) opposite this evening, that any vital Amendment would be allowed to be introduced, and, therefore, I have come round to the view so very ably and clearly expressed by the noble Marquess on the front bench below me.
  LORD ST. DAVID'S: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down began his speech by saying that he was one of those who had been rather inclined to wish that this Bill was going to be given a Second Reading, and he wound up his speech by saying that that desire of his had been either lessened or taken away, because the noble Earl who introduced the Bill had not given any indication to the House of

  337
  what Amendments he might have been prepared to accept provided that Second Reading was granted. But surely, my Lords, it could hardly be expected that the Lord Privy Seal would make a statement of that kind when we all know he began his speech this evening by commenting on that meeting which was held in another place, a meeting at which the fate of this Bill was sealed in advance, without one word in favour of the Bill having been listened to, or without the noble Earl in charge of the Bill being able to give one single reason or to make a single concession by which the Bill might have been accepted by the other side.
  We are asked to reject this Bill to-night first of all because it does not materially advance the cause of temperance. I do not want to dwell on that part of the question this evening, but I should like just to call the attention of your Lordships' House to some of the points in which this Bill certainly does advance the cause of temperance. I venture to say that many of those points are points on which, if we had come to Committee stage, this House as a whole would have supported the Bill, and on many of the points I think they would have supported it almost unanimously. For instance, the extension of the bona fide traveller limit from three miles to six. That was gone into by the Royal Commission, and every single member, I believe, of the Royal Commission agreed on the point, except that some thought that instead of its being six miles it ought to be seven. Surely that is a provision which, if passed, would promote the cause of temperance.
  Then the clause with regard to young persons under the age of fourteen not being allowed in a public-house bar—is that not a thing that would have been accepted in Committee? Then again, that public-houses are all to be closed in a constituency during an election. Anyone who has had to do with contested elections in this country knows, at any rate, that that would promote the cause of temperance. Then there was a proposal in the Bill by which the Welsh Sunday Closing Act should be extended to Monmouthshire. I have had nothing to do with Sunday closing in England, but I have had considerable
  338
  experience in Wales. When the Sunday Closing Act for Wales was first passed, it was a debatable matter, but now in Wales you never hear one single word from any single man against Sunday closing, and if you took a poll on the question in Wales to-day I do not believe you would get five per cent. of the population to vote for Sunday opening. In Monmouthshire you have an English-speaking population and a Welsh-speaking population, and although Monmouthshire is not England according to conditions laid down by Parliament, yet you have the conditions in Monmouthshire which are exactly the same as across the border. The Sunday closing provision is one which I say, at any rate, would tend to promote the cause of temperance. Then you would have matters like justices of the peace being allowed their costs in defending their own licensing decisions. I am sure if that were put to noble Lords in this House, not as legislators but as magistrates, as I suppose we all are, we should all agree that that was a most admirable provision. There are other clauses also that this House might have been asked to consider in Committee. Then as regards clubs, by this Bill the registration of every club is to come up as a new matter once every twelve months. Tied house clubs too were to be forbidden. Noble Lords may have their own views as to the advantages of tied public-houses, but perhaps not one noble Lord would say that a brewer or a publican should be allowed to have a club and run that club for the sale of his own liquor. Then you have the clauses for police inspection of clubs and with regard to the sale of drink off club premises, which is forbidden.
  I have just run through a few of the headings of this Bill which are undoubtedly temperance provisions and nothing else, and they are provisions to which I think the noble Lords might have given consideration. But the Second Reading is not to be given. Well, my Lords, we have had only one speech which I think was very strongly against the Bill as a whole. That was the speech of the noble Marquess who moved its rejection. He said among other things that the

  339
  Bill was a very inconsistent Bill, and he gave instances of it. He said: "What do the supporters of this Bill do? They say, first of all that getting rid of licences is going to promote temperance." I take it that that is common ground to a certain extent, at any rate, to both parties. He says: "The promoters of this Bill say that if you lessen the number of licences, you are going to lessen the amount of excessive drinking" and he went on to say: "The same people who use that argument say to the brewers that by doing away with a certain number of licences they are going to get, on the other hand, some compensation because they will get additional profit from the surviving houses." You must admit that there is nothing inconsistent in that. Both propositions may be absolutely and entirely true. Let us take the case of three public-houses near together in a town. Supposing this Bill were passed and one of those houses were done away with. Supposing, owing to the doing away of that public-house, 20, 30, or 50 per cent. of its customers stopped going to public-houses at all, that would be promoting temperance; but supposing the rest of the customers went into the two surviving houses, in those houses there would be additional business, but that additional business would be done without any additional expenditure. There would not be the upkeep and the salaries of the house that had been done away with, and it would be quite possible for the owners of those houses to make more profit with the customers they had before and half the customers of the third house that had been done away with. It might be quite possible indeed to have less drinking and more profit, so that the position, therefore, is not an inconsistent one for a temperance reformer to take up. The noble Marquess then went on to say that clubs were too lightly treated by the Bill as compared with the way licenced premises proper were handled. I should like to remind you that in the House of Commons the Government were in this position—that the supporters of the noble Marquess in that House raised a great outcry at the way clubs were being interfered with. They
  340
  said they were being most drastically treated, and it was an interference which no working man ought to put up with. That argument was used ad nauseam. The position of the Government, therefore, was rather difficult. I do not remember the exact figure the noble Marquess quoted, but I think he mentioned a club at which the drink bill came to £2,600, the bill for newspapers to 10s. 6d., and I think the bread bill was 3s. 9d.—those were roughly the figures—and he said that under this Bill it was contended we wore going to do away with clubs which are drinking clubs or mainly drinking clubs; he asked who was going to determine which is a drinking club and which is not a drinking club, and he contended that, therefore, it would not be doing away with the drinking clubs. But I would point out that that will depend on the magistrates, and will it not depend also on the number of members that the club has? Supposing a club has 2,600 members and the drink bill is £1 a head a year, it would be perfectly obvious that that club was not a drinking club. But supposing a club had twenty-six members and the drink bill was £2,600 a year—that would be £100 a year a head—it would be pretty certain that that club was a drinking club; and I venture to suggest that that is a thing that any bench of magistrates could decide for themselves as the case might arise.
  Then the noble Marquess went on to deal with various other objections to the Bill. He said that off-licences ought to have been interfered with; that the scale of reduction under the Bill was of too cast-iron a nature, that it ought to have had more elasticity, and he wanted a better definition of "monopoly value" than the Bill gives. But surely that is not a reason for rejecting the Bill altogether? Those are all matters that could have been rejected, amended, or adopted in Committee, and they cannot reasonably be given a; grounds for throwing out a Bill of this magnitude on the Second Reading.
  The next reason the noble Marquess gave for objecting to the Bill was a still more serious one. He did not like the licensing tribunal and its constitution, and said that under this Bill what we

  341
  were likely to get was a political tribunal. That raised a cheer; I do not know why. I do not know all the members of that tribunal—we have the names before us—but I do know the chairman, and his views are the same as the views of the noble Marquess opposite. The second member I am told is a Conservative; the third member I do not know; but, considering that two out of the three, at any rate, nominated by the Liberal Government, hold the same political views as the noble Marquess opposite, I consider that that sneer against the Government might have been spared us.
  Then the noble Marquess went on to the objection that this Bill was a Bill of confiscation. He said that for many years past the Exchequer have been valuing licences for the purpose of death duties, that a very high value has been put upon them, and that it is a monstrous thing that property should be valued for one purpose one day and for another purpose on a different scale another day. He said the idea of fluctuating values—that was his expression—was a wrong one. But all values fluctuate, and I venture to think there is some confusion of mind on this subject. After all, property for death duties is taxed on value; but on what value? On its market value, which is an absolutely and entirely distinct thing from its intrinsic value. If the property to be valued is in the shape of shares, you can get the value of that property by applying to the Stock Exchange, or, if it is a picture or a licence, what the Government has to find out is what similar property is selling for at the time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has nothing to do with its intrinsic value, of which he cannot form an opinion. What he has to do with is its market value. Take a case, which I venture to say is absolutely on all fours with the valuation of licences for the purposes of death-duties. A man dies and leaves property in a holding in a particular gold mine. The shares are £1 shares quoted at £10 apiece in the market, although perhaps intrinsically they are not worth £1. Three months later they may be down to 10s. a share, but if on the day these death duties are paid
  342
  the shares stand at £10, the property must be taxed at the price of those shares—£10 a share. It is market value and not intrinsic value that you must take for that purpose—there is nothing else that you can get at; and it is the same thing with the Licensing Bill. The noble Marquess went on to say that one of the great reasons why he had been induced to recommend the rejection of this Bill on Second Reading instead of the considering of it in Committee was this. He said that it was a question of the privilege of the Commons, and that we had had an experience in this House only last summer of the difficulty of amending big Bills while the Government—"the Government" was the expression he used—were pressing Parliamentary privilege to such extremes. I do not think that the noble Marquess, if I remember aright, was ever in the House of Commons; if he had been, it would have occurred to his mind that it is not the Government who decide what is or what is not privileged in Parliament, it is the Speaker. The Speaker determines what is and what is not privileged; the Speaker lays it down in the House of Commons, and it is really the Speaker whom you have to deal with here and not the Government at all.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but surely, when the Speaker decides what is privileged and what is not privileged, it is for the Government to decide whether it will press privilege or whether it will waive privilege.
  LORD ST. DAVID'S: My Lords, no doubt it is true that the Government may waive the privilege of the House of Commons, but it is the Speaker, and not the Government, who determines what the privilege is.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I did not complain of the Speaker; I complained of His Majesty's Government.
  LORD ST. DAVID'S: Then, my Lords, the noble Marquess went on to talk of confiscation. In another place "robbery" was the word that was used, but the noble Marquess' idea is that the real objection to this Bill is that it is

  343
  confiscation. I was sorry that the noble Marquess did not go just a little further and tell us just why, in his mind, a licence stood in the form of property. I gather from his public work that he does not put it as high as freehold property, because he was a party to the Act of 1904, under which a licence-holder when he gets compensation is to be compensated out of his own pocket. It is perfectly obvious, if a man has freehold land, that you could not take away his land and compensate him out of a special tax put upon land. But when the Government admitted, as they did in 1904, that a licence can be taken away from the owner and compensated for by a special levy put upon licensed property, that, at any rate shows that the party opposite do not regard licences as on all fours with freehold property. But I think that in opposing this Bill they might at least have told us where they class this property, and how many years time-limit they would have thought was enough. It seems to me that it Is the one thing that might have been done to settle this question if the noble Marquess opposite, instead of taking the line he did, had stated how many years time he thought would have given sufficient compensation for licensed property. I repeat it seems to me that that is the line on which this question might have been finally dealt with.
  After all, what is the position that the opponents of this Bill are taking up? Are they taking up the position that because a man has built up a business under Act of Parliament, and because the Parliament of the time takes a different view of the legislation under which that business has been built up, then that man must be compensated in equity? That is what we should like to know, because, if so, this would be applicable in many other cases. Let me take this illustration: Suppose the views of the noble Lords opposite prevail, and that some years hence we have a protective tariff in this country; a man in a few years time with the help of that tariff builds up a great business where, by his actual capital and skill, he is making £10,000 a year, but where, from the benefit he gets from the protective
  344
  tariff, he is, as a matter of fact, making £40,000 a year; then suppose that the protective legislation under which he works is rescinded, is that man to be compensated then because his profits have gone down from £40,000 a year to £10,000 a year? You may say, "Certainly not; that is not on all fours with this case." No; but suppose that man had been a clever man, as the brewers were, and that instead of sticking to his property himself he had sold it to a limited company; suppose he had sold his property in shares to widows and orphans all over the country—they are the favourite people—and then somebody proposed that that protective law should be abolished, what should we be told then? Here is a man making £40,000 a year in a business under the sacred protection of an Act of Parliament—are you going to tell us then, that, because the Act of Parliament is altered, the public are going to compensate that man for the business he has built up? I submit that that case is on all fours with the proposal to compensate publicans.
  There is another illustration that I should like to give as to the different ideas that are held about compensation. Take this case: A man twenty years ago bought two little houses in a London suburb where there was no public-house; he bought No. 1 and he bought No. 3. Somebody else bought No. 2. The owner of No. 2. went to the licensing magistrates and asked for a licence and he got a licence. You know perfectly well what happened the day that man got a licence. His property went up enormously in value, automatically, from the granting of that licence. But what happened to the unfortunate man who bought No. 1 and No. 3? You know what happened there. Even in the poorest districts they do not by choice like to live next door to a public-house. The granting of a licence to No. 2 therefore immediately automatically lessened the value of No. 1 and No. 3. It immediately lessened their selling value and it immediately lessened their letting value. What happens? For twenty years the owner of No. 2 has had the great pecuniary benefit of that licence,

  345
  whereas the owner of No. 1 and No. 3 has suffered; and now it is proposed to compensate No. 2 because you take away from him an excessive advantage which he has enjoyed for twenty years, an advantage which has injured the owner of No. 1 and No. 3. You are to give him compensation. And we are proposing in this Bill to give him compensation. Now I want to put this to the noble Lords opposite. They are going to throw out this Bill because, as they say, it is a confiscation Bill. But I want them just to consider this and to put this case to themselves. Take a landlord in Great Britain—there is not such a one, but take for example a landlord who has had a landed property or a building property or a mining property, I do not care which it is, for twenty years, and he has let it not on lease, but year by year, to a tenant at a rental which is only one-fifth of its value; he has let it change from one tenant to another year by year and each tenant in succession has held it and paid one-fifth of the rental value for it; at the end of twenty years the landlord thinks he has done enough for his tenants and that he would like to charge the full rent, the five-fifths which he might have charged any year; if he charged it at once would he be a robber? Would it be confiscation? Can you say that it would? But suppose he went to his then tenant and said: "You and the tenants for twenty years before you have enjoyed this property for £100 a year when it was worth £500 a year; I am going to alter my arrangements; I am going to take the property into my own hands; I do not want to sell it, but I will tell you what I will do—I will let you have the property for fourteen years longer at the same rent that you have been paying for the last twenty years; I will let you have the property for fourteen years longer at one-fifth of its rental value"—I ask you whether there is any one of your Lordships in private life who would say that man had not been generous beyond any man living? That is the position that is taken by the Government, on behalf of the taxpayers of the country. I would ask you to remember this; the Government of the day in these times is not very rich, yet in the short time that I have been in this House we
  346
  certainly have not been advocating economy to any marked degree on either side. Last summer we had the Old-Age Pensions Bill, the expenditure under which noble Lords opposite, I am bound to admit, tried to cut down in many respects, but that Old-Age Pension Scheme is going to lead to much more expenditure next year and the year after. That, at any rate, is common ground, and for that, no doubt, this side of the House is responsible. But what did we have the night before last? We had the noble Field-Marshal on the cross benches proposing an expenditure on the Army. The noble Lords cheered that and they voted for it by a great majority. Nobody, I think, disputed the figures, I do not think any body discussed the figures; but, as far as I could hear them, the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal estimated that if that proposal was carried into law it would cost the country something like £20,000,000 a, year additional in public expenditure. And then we had another proposal yesterday for spending a large sum additional on the Navy, a proposal, which, I presume, is necessary and will, no doubt, be carried out in due time. You have all these things, you have admittedly a great expenditure going on for old-age pensions, you have expenditure going on for the Navy, and you have that enormous expenditure estimated at £20,000,000 a year on the Army advocated by noble Lords opposite. I put this to you, that this: monopoly value of licenses as distinguished from other values is a thing which the nation has a right to resume at the end of any twelve months; and I put it to you, my Lords, that we are treating the existing license-holders fairly when we suggest a time limit of fourteen years. I think this proposal of fourteen years is fair and generous, and I say, if we treat the licence-holders fairly, is it not wise for us to consider whether we should not support the Government rather than condemn it in its proposal to take back for the good of the State this enormous value of licenses, this value which ought not to belong to one class as it does to-day, but ought to belong to the community. I say that in trying to regain it the Government are doing good service to the State.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I propose to take only a small part in the debate in your Lordships' House to-night. The Bill which is now under your Lordships' consideration and which has recently been presented to your Lordships' House by the Government is one which it is claimed has for its object a great humanising influence and a great philanthropic aim, but I venture to think that those who advocate these claims will find that they have not been fully appreciated in the country before whose good judgment they have presented them. My Lords, we who sit on this side of the House must at the outset of these arguments reject the claim of those extremists who set themselves up as the sole champions of virtue. We who oppose this Bill also claim that we are second to none in advocating the cause of temperance. We deprecate most highly the abnormal and the excessive use of alcohol. With every respect to the noble Lords who sit on the opposite side of the House, I would ask them, is there not a political intemperance as well as the intemperance of beer and alcohol? I venture to think that this Bill furnishes a very good example of that political intemperance to which I have alluded. This Bill attempts to remove a state of things which it has been alleged exists, and it claims by removing it to lift the working classes in this country out of a state of insobriety and moral abandonment. From our point of view, the Bill would, I think, commit a very great and grievous injustice upon the vast majority of His Majesty's subjects in this country. We have to look at two things. We have to agree as to whether the promoters of this measure have made out their case as to the vast amount of drunkenness which they allege exists in the country. I venture to say, and without much fear of contradiction, that the drunkenness which exists to-day is very much smaller than existed twenty years ago. I believe that other causes, even excluding the Licensing Act of 1904, have been at work to check the spread of drunkenness. What are these causes? They are the ameliorated conditions under which the working classes of this country live,
  348
  the growth of education, and the better understood hygiene of daily life. I believe that we who sit on this side of the House are all of us fully convinced that it is only by such measures as increase the education of this country, as increase the comfort of the working classes, and make their lives more tolerable—it is only by such schemes and not by a wholesale scheme of injustice such as this measure works that We are going to make the nation more sober than it is at present. In medical science I believe it is generally customary to seek the cause of the disease before you prescribe the remedy. I believe also that there is a growing belief in medical science that the surgeon's knife will not play as important a part in curing as it did some years ago; new systems have been discovered, serum, inoculation, and so on; but from the measure which is before your Lordship's House to-night I am rather inclined to believe that His Majesty's Government, and those in the country who support them, are still firm believers in the antiquated process of bleeding for every possible ailment.
  I do not know whether I should be right in saying so, but I am inclined to believe that there are many in this country who have been minded to give their support to the Licensing Bill, and who have given their support to it, in the firm hope that it will never pass. This measure inflicts a great injustice upon the law-abiding citizens of this country. I do not want to touch so much on the question of property, although I shall allude in one moment to that question, because the more the question of property is kept out of the discussion, I think the sooner we shall be able to arrive at the justice or the injustice of this measure. The greatest blot in the Bill to my mind is that it interferes with the individual liberty and comfort of those who dwell, and more especially of those who dwell, in rural districts. It also infers that the public-house is a cause of drunkenness, instead of which, as I intended to make clear at the beginning of my few remarks, the public-house is not a cause of drunkenness, but may be the means of alleviating sorrow and misery which could be

  349
  alleviated in a more wholesome and satisfactory manner. But there is more than that. It is a working-class pleasure. Supposing we take what is proposed to happen under the Bill: you might only find, as I believe was stated to-night, public-houses within a radius of some seven odd miles. I think it is hardly fair that you should, if I may say so, depopulate the country districts in that way; and make life in the country perhaps more lonely than it is apt to be even at the present moment. The public-house means a great deal to the working man; it means a place where he can go and see his friends; perhaps it is the only club for many miles round, the only place where he can go and discuss the local gossip and the prices of the adjoining markets; Where he can discuss politics, and even where perhaps he can draw conclusions from the results of bye-elections.
  There is another great blot on this Bill—this Bill of reaction. Legislation must be always contemporary and in sympathy with the prevailing public opinion; it must not be ahead of it, and it must not be behind it, and had His Majesty's Government asked your Lordships to consider this measure twenty years ago it would have been very much harder to have opposed it on the ground that drunkenness did not exist to the same degree as it was stated, than it is to oppose it to-day.
  Now I will take one other point, a point on which I think all must agree. Supposing we admit that licences have been issued without sufficient discrimination in the past, supposing we admit that there are too many public-houses at present, two wrong acts never make one right, and consequently, as has been said by a Member in another place, if the State has granted licences, perhaps too easily, it must be very careful in taking them back to see that the minimum amount of unfairness is inflicted on those who have invested their money and perhaps their all in a licensed house.
  I have nearly finished, but there are just two points on the legal side to which I should like to allude. We have heard a good deal about the freehold of a licence, but as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will himself tell us, there is
  350
  property which is property in every sense of the word, although it is not real property, and although it is not freehold property. For instance, leasehold property is property. I believe that you cannot even call capital freehold property in any sense of the word, or your gold watches, but they are none the less your property. So let us leave this bugbear of freehold property for the moment and realise that it is property that is being attacked, and see that that security which all of us have reason to expect, living under a civilised and highly organised Government, be not removed from us and then the more happy this nation shall be.
  I believe noble Lords on this side of the House will agree with me when I say that we would have welcomed most cordially a measure inflicting heavy penalties upon those who sell anything other than the purest beer and the purest spirits. Had His Majesty's Government introduced a measure to this House with the avowed intention of securing temperance by prohibiting the sale of anything but the best beer and the best spirits—for I believe it is the sale of bad beer and bad spirits that has given public-houses such a bad name, and with some justice throughout the length and breadth of this country—the existing Acts not being sufficient or at all events not having had the desired effect—I believe the noble Marquess on this side of the House and those with him would to a man have gone into the same lobby with the Members of His Majesty's Government. But the Government have not done that; they have thought fit to introduce a measure which is unfair and at the same time inefficient, and we oppose it not upon temperance grounds but because it fails to bring about the temperance reform which its promoters allege it will bring about. Therefore I feel quite sure, as your Lordships seem to have already foreseen, that this Bill will be sent back from whence it came, and I believe that we shall earn the gratitude of the whole country, and that although possibly we may earn also the indignation of those extremists of whom I have spoken, yet the credit of your Lordships' House will be immeasurably raised in the opinion of the electors of this country.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, all of us, I am sure, desire to consider favourably any measure which has for its object the promotion of temperance. It is alleged in many quarters by persons whose opinion I speak of with respect that this measure is likely to bring about a kind of temperance millennium. I am afraid that this is an uninstructed view which has been expressed without sufficient consideration of the provisions of the Bill. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London drew a painful, and, I fear, too true picture of the evils arising from excessive indulgence in drink among all classes in the great diocese over which he presides. The right rev. Prelate told us of ruined homes, of men, women, and children destroyed body and soul by excessive indulgence in drink, and of vice and crime having their roots in that great evil. I do not think the right rev. Prelate, in comparing Canada with England, made due allowance for the difference in climate, and in the condition and habits of the population. I fear, however, the picture which the right rev. Prelate drew is to a certain extent true; but then he also admitted that he did not look himself to legislation as the main remedy for those evils.
  What we have to consider now is the Amendment proposed by my noble friend which is tantamount to the rejection of this Bill. I do not entirely agree with some of the views expressed by my noble friend (Lord Lansdowne), and, therefore, I crave the indulgence of your Lordships, merely saying that I shall endeavour to state my opinions with every respect for the opinions of those from whom I differ. The real question is not whether this Bill should pass into law in its present shape, but whether we can give it a Second Reading with a view to its consideration in Committee, or whether it is so radically bad and so incapable of Amendment here, having regard to the views of the Government and the limited powers of your Lordships' House, that it would be practically useless to consider it in Committee at all.
  Well, my Lords, I do not think that many of your Lordships would say that of a good many of the provisions of this
  352
  Bill. We have heard from the right rev. Prelate and from Lord St. Davids, whom, I think, we may all welcome as a valuable addition to your Lordships House, a good deal as to the clauses in the Bill, which have nothing whatever to do with the reduction of licences. Those clauses form no inconsiderable proportion of this measure. I think they are something like thirty in number. They deal with the subjects of Sunday closing, the exclusion of children from the bars of licensed premises, the power of attaching conditions to renewals of on-licences, and many other reforms of the licensing law which appear to me to be in themselves valuable and useful and to which I do not think there would be any serious opposition in this House. They contain also important provisions, of which I cordially approve, with regard to clubs.
  Whatever may be the fate of this measure, if the reduction of licences merely proceeds under the Act of 1904, the time will come before long when the further regulation of clubs selling alcohol will be absolutely necessary in the public interest. It is utterly useless, and worse than useless, in the interests of temperance, dealing with on-licences if the next day almost those very premises, or premises immediately adjoining, can be turned into a club, practically a drinking club, where drink can be sold free from the control and supervision to which the public-house is subject. I do not say that these provisions of the Bill are absolutely perfect; some of them are capable of very definite amendment. For example, the clause of which I cordially approve, proposing the closing of licensed houses on the day of election, has been unintentionally extended to public-houses all over the country, though the election may only occur in a single constituency. Then there is a most remarkable clause relating to the providing of meals on Sunday during the hours when premises are closed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, which would lead to the utmost difficulty in the due observance of the law. These are little mistakes which have occurred, and which the Government admit to be due to the closure of free debate in another place. Generally speaking, I must

  353
  say that I regard these portions of the measure as valuable improvements in the existing law, and I cannot conceive that any number of Members of your Lordships' House would consider that any of them was a sufficient ground for rejecting the Bill on Second Reading. On the contrary, I personally regard them as an important argument in favour of a Second Reading being given to the Bill.
  The right rev. Prelate said that if this Bill were rejected on Second Reading a generation, perhaps, might elapse before any Government took up the question of licensing reform again. I would suggest to the right rev. Prelate and to the Government that, supposing this Bill is rejected on Second Reading—and they know perfectly well why it will be rejected—what is to hinder the Government, what is to hinder the right rev. Prelate himself, from bringing in these clauses as a new Bill next week and passing it through your Lordships' House? I have no right to speak for any but myself, though I may probably speak for others when I say that I believe any such, action would be welcomed by many on this side of the House. The right rev. Prelate laid great stress on the clause providing for the exclusion of children from public-houses. I think that clause would have been more properly placed in the Children Bill, and I understand that notice has been given to introduce it into that Bill on Third Reading.
  I now turn to the real question at issue in this Bill, and that is, of course, the question of the method by which licences are to be reduced. The principle of the reduction of licences is, I think, admitted by both great parties. I know there are some who doubt whether the reduction of licences leads to the promotion of temperance, and there may be certain cases in which it would have no such effect; but I believe, generally speaking, it is admitted by both parties that if by reducing the number of licences where it is excessive in proportion to the needs of the population you diminish the facilities for obtaining drink, you will make a great move in promoting temperance. That, of course, was the object and principle of the Act
  354
  of 1904, and that I take to be the object and principle of this Bill. My noble friend who moved the Amendment was one of the authors of the Act of 1904. I approved of it and supported it in another place, and I think it would be quite wrong to describe that Act as a failure; but, although, in my belief, it has done great good, consistently with justice, in reducing the number of licences, I do not think its operation in that respect has been as extensive as its authors anticipated. I heard my noble friend to-night state that some 1,500 licences a year had been reduced since its passing. That may be so. I have not the figures, but, if I remember rightly, some 2,000 or 2,500 was stated by responsible Ministers in this House and in another place at the time the Bill of 1904 was under consideration as the probable number which would be reduced under its operation in the course of a year.
  LORD BELPER: If the noble Viscount is referring to the statement that I made in moving the Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House, I may say that I made no estimate of the number that would probably be reduced by the operation of the Bill. I stated distinctly what the total amount was that would be available for compensation, but I specially stated that I made no estimate with regard to the number to be reduced.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I do not think that is quite a contradiction of what I said, because I gathered from the speech of my noble friend near me this evening that 95 per cent. of the sum provided for compensation had been utilised in this way. Therefore nearly the whole of the sum which my noble friend below the gangway anticipated has been used for this purpose. However, the point is not material. All I would say is this, that I think the reduction of licences has not been as great as was anticipated, and that in that respect the Act has not been so successful as I should like to see it.
  I should like to consider for a moment why no larger reduction in the number was made. In the first place, the Act gives very considerable power to the

  355
  licensing committee of Quarter Sessions over the action of licensing justices in any petty sessional division if, in their zeal, they propose the reduction of too many licences; but the Act does not, on the other hand, give Quarter Sessions or the licensing committee any power to move licensing justices to necessary action if the justices for any reason do not act at all. There are too many petty sessional divisions in which licensing justices have not shown that readiness which any unprejudiced person would consider they might have shown to carry out the provisions of the Act of 1904, and so the progress of reduction under that Act has not been such as was hoped for.
  The Government propose to remedy this in two ways. In the first place, they propose a maximum scale of licences according to area and population in country parishes and wards of towns. My noble friend has shown the difficulty of carrying out such a scale, and the Government have recognised the difficulty, because they have inserted so many possible modifications of the scale that it cannot have any uniform operation. I think myself the scale is too narrow, it should give a larger number of houses to population. But that is purely a matter for Committee, and I cannot imagine His Majesty's Government would throw any obstacle in the way of a reasonable settlement of this, so I will not refer to it further.
  But I do think that the proposal to abolish altogether the licensing Committee of Quarter Sessions and to substitute a central tribunal in London of three paid Commissioners is a very unfortunate proposal. The Liberal party in old days was a great defender of local government and anxious for its extension, and it is a bad omen that during the last two or three years there has been more than one proposal of this kind to take away discretion from local authorities who are known and trusted by the people, and give a power over them to a central board in London. I have every respect for the three gentlemen named, and I am quite sure they would act fairly and impartially in this matter, but they cannot possibly have the local knowledge which is, above all things, essential for
  356
  an estimate of the number of licences that ought to be abolished.
  There is the further difficulty alluded to by my noble friend that, if you have a central tribunal, you must have what the noble Earl opposite described as a national fund for compensation; and. so public-houses in one part of the country, where no public-houses require to be abolished, have to pay for the abolition of public-houses in another part of the country with which they have not the slightest connection. The Commissioners would have unlimited power to levy for compensation, and so those unfortunate people in the one part of the country might be taxed to any extent for the benefit of people in another part. The noble Earl, in defending the proposal, spoke of places in which there had been no reduction of licences, and I agree that some kind of initiative might be required in exceptional cases, but I do not think it should come front a central body in London. I am confident that Quarter Sessions aided by the enactment by Parliament of a reasonable maximum scale of the number of' licences would be by far the best tribunal to settle matters of this kind.
  But I come now to the parts of the Bill which have been the subject of the greatest criticism, and those are the provisions in regard to the amount of compensation and the time-limit. I have had very considerable experience in my own county of the administration of the Act of 1904, and I am not quite satisfied with the working of the present system of compensation. I believe its basis to be right. If you want to do justice to a person whose property or rights you take away for the public good, you can take no other basis but that of market" value at the time. But market value has been so interpreted by a learned Judge that in some cases, at any rate, more compensation has been given for the abolition of licences than Parliament ever anticipated when the Act of 1904 was passed. It must be remembered that the licensing justices have selected for abolition those houses which were the smallest and the least useful to the public, the trade of which was so limited that the difference in their value, licensed and unlicensed, was

  357
  comparatively small. Some of such houses were maintained by their owners not because of the profits they produced, but merely in order to keep competitors out of the district. Suppose one of several houses of this kind, owned by a brewery company in the same district has been selected for abolition. It does not seem to me fair that in such cases the compensation for the abolition of the licence should be on the same scale as in the case of a firm or person who owned but a single house in a particular district and whose whole trade would be gone if the licence were taken away. These are cases where I think that the Kennedy judgment, however accurate it may be in point of law—and I do not for a moment question its legal accuracy—yet has led to insufficient discrimination on the part of compensation authorities between different cases where compensation has to be given. Therefore, I should like to see some Amendment of the Act of 1904 in that respect. But now I come to the proposal of His Majesty's Government. How do the Government propose to reckon the compensation to be given in the case of the abolition of a licence? I am glad to see they propose to compensate the tenant and the manager on better terms than the Act of 1904 provides. But in the case of the owner of licensed premises they propose that the compensation shall be such a sum as will purchase, with interest reckoned at 4 per cent., an immediate annuity for the number of the unexpired years of the reduction period, with three years added, and equal in amount to the annual value of the licence as adopted for the purpose of income-tax under Schedule A.
  I would ask your Lordships to have some regard to the equities of this matter. There are a good many people in this country who look upon everybody who manufactures or sells beer or spirits or wine as a person who does an absolutely evil thing, who ought to be extirpated as soon as possible, if that could be done, but who, if he cannot be extirpated, is no more deserving of compensation if his business is taken away from him than a thief would be deserving of compensation if he were prevented from stealing. That, at any rate, is not the view of His Majesty's
  358
  Government. In this Bill they recognise the lawfulness of this trade. They propose compensation of a kind to those whose premises are deprived of a licence. They recognise the possibility of a continued existence of some 60,000 on licences fourteen years hence, after the statutory reduction has been effected, and of any number of off-licences, to which, of course, they apply no kind of local option or any other restriction.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Monopoly value.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Oh, yes, except charging them with monopoly value which they say at present does not exist in their case. Therefore, they do consider that persons engaged in this trade where a licence is taken away deserve compensation. But why do they deserve less compensation than if they were enaged in any other business? What is Schedule A? Schedule A, according to the Act of 1842, is simply the assessment of the rack rent, or the estimated rack rent of the premises to which it refers. It has nothing whatever to do, legally, with the profits of the trade carried on there. The profits of the trade carried on there must be assessed under Schedule D. How can it be contended that an assessment under Schedule A can be fair compensation to the persons who are engaged in trade in the premises from which the licence is taken away, and who therefore, are deprived of that trade? That is a question which was invited by the speech of the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies. I want him to show, I challenge any one of his colleagues to show, how it is possible under Schedule A to compensate a man sufficiently for the trade profits of which he is deprived.
  I know that His Majesty's Government intend, in this Bill, to have a reassessment of licensed premises to Schedule A. I fancy they are quite right. I believe myself that, owing to the very small rents often paid by the tenants of tied-houses the assessment of public-houses to Schedule A is much lower in the country than it ought to be. But they cannot, I maintain, legally assess the profits of any person, whether a licence holder or the owner of licensed premises, under Schedule A. They admit

  359
  themselves that they cannot thus assess the profits of the tenant, because they provide compensation for his profits separately. Why will they not give compensation to the owner of the licensed premises for his profits also? That, to my mind, is perhaps the greatest injustice in this Bill.
  What would happen if a company existed, just like a brewery company, having many establishments in different parts of the country, in which they carried on a grocery or a drapery trade? Supposing some public authority, or His Majesty's Government, had to take those premises in the public interest? Do they suppose that such a company would be satisfied with compensation for the loss of their business on the basis of their assessment under Schedule A? The thing is absurd. Of course, it may be said, in reply, that that is a totally different thing—the business carried on in licensed premises depends upon the continuance of the licence. Quite true. That might be a reason for reducing the number of years valuation on which you would base compensation for the profits. It is no reason whatever for refusing to the owner of the premises all compensation on the profits which he makes out of them. There is another difference between the position of a company owning a grocery or drapery establishment and a company owning licensed premises, and that is that in the former case the compensation would have to be paid by the authority taking the premises and putting an end to the business. In this case the compensation is paid by the compensation levy on the trade itself. That is perfectly fair. Why? Because before the passing of the Act of 1904 it was the undoubted law that the justices might put an end to a licence, after considering judicially the circumstances of the particular case, if they held that that licence was redundant. Therefore, the Act of 1904 enacted that an insurance fund should be provided by the trade to insure against any such risk out of which compensation should be paid.
  This brings me to the question of the time-limit. I cannot understand the principle on which this time-limit is based. Here are people who have under-
  360
  taken, at the bidding of Parliament, to compensate themselves by an insurance fund for a certain risk. They are only anxious to go on paying to that insurance fund. Why do you tell them that they are to pay for fourteen years only, and that, at the end of fourteen years, their payments are to come to an end? Why cannot you allow them to go on paying for a reasonable time—such a time might possibly be calculated without much difficulty—sufficient to enable their payments to provide a real and sufficient compensation for the extinction of all licences which you, in your judgment, consider redundant? His Majesty's Government will not do that. Their proposal is this—for fourteen years only the owners of licensed premises are to continue to pay to this fund, but in each year that passes their compensation is to become less if their house is abolished, so that the more they pay to the compensation fund during the fourteen years the less they will receive if their house is abolished as redundant, and when the term has expired the licence may be abolished without any compensation at all by the action—which is, I am afraid, not always very reasonable—of licensing justices, or by the action—which may be still more unreasonable—of a parish majority of two-thirds under the system of local option, while they are absolutely deprived of any benefit from the payments they have made to the insurance fund for fourteen years.
  I must say that, to my mind, almost the worst thing about this Bill is the introduction of this system of local option. Why cannot you leave it alone? I do not think that local option, in the South of England at any rate, is likely to be put in force at all. In the case of existing licences, you do not mean it to come into force until the end of fourteen years; therefore what is the use of legislating for it now? But you propose to try it in the case of new licences. Perhaps the effect of that may be that you may find yourselves considerably disappointed in the receipt of monopoly value. This idea of monopoly value has nothing whatever to do with temperance. It is a mere process of exacting more money out of the licensed trade. It is, as Lord St. David's told us, just one of those hen-roosts which the Chancellor

  361
  of the Exchequer desires to rob. What sort of monopoly value do you expect a man to pay for a licence that may be taken away by local option a year after? What sort of expenditure is he expected to make on the premises to which such a licence applies, in providing for the public comfort and accommodation, which my noble friend Lord Lamington desired should be furnished in his Bill and which in my belief would be the greatest antidote to drunkenness in this country; what sort of encouragement has he to make that provision if you leave his licence open to local option? What right have you to subject existing licences to local option? They are licences which the noble Earl says are annual, having only a mere expectation of renewal and always regarded as terminable. But how terminable? Only terminable by law on account of the unfitness of the premises or of the misconduct of the licence-holder, or because the premises are redundant in a particular district. That principle of redundancy never applied at all to the ante-1869 beer-houses until the Act of 1904; and yet the noble Earl speaks of licences being terminable, as if there ever was a time at which, without any reason, they might have been terminated by the will of any bench of magistrates. Is it consistent with common justice that either by the | action of the magistrates or by local option, the owners of licensed premises should be deprived at the end of fourteen years of their legal rights in this respect, not merely without compensation, but after themselves paying compensation to rivals where houses have been abolished as redundant, though by the working of your own scheme it will have been shown that the continuance of their own houses is required for the public convenience?
  Neither do I understand the proposal with regard to monopoly value. What is it? It is something that is supposed to have accrued since Parliament and the licensing authorities adopted the policy of diminishing the number of existing licences and of declining to grant new ones. That, at any rate, is a matter of somewhat recent years. If it did accrue the proper way to meet it, to my mind, would have been by the increase of the licence duties: but I
  362
  am not sure that it did accrue, because, on the other hand, it must be remembered that there has been a considerable diminution in the consumption of drink since former days and also that considerable additional taxation has been imposed upon intoxicating liquor. But since the Act of 1904 is there any monopoly value at all which you have a right to extract from existing licence-holders? I contend that they are paying for any monopoly they have obtained by the extinction of licences under that Act in the annual compensation levy, and that to impose a further payment for it even at the end of twenty-one years is an injustice which you have no right to commit. You must, if you want to give any just compensation to the owners of licences—you must fix your term of compensation at something like twenty-eight years. If you were to fix the term on such a basis as that, reverting at the end of it to the law as it stood before 1904, you would no doubt make a proposal which would not be inconsistent with justice both to the holders of licences and the owners of licensed property. But that is by no means the proposal in this Bill. This whole scheme, to my mind, is quite inconsistent with justice to those interested in this kind of property. I do not believe it would ever be accepted by the people of this country as fair or reasonable.
  I come to the final point. What is the course to be taken in regard to this Bill? It comes to this House recommended by the votes of a very great majority of the representatives of the people. At the same time, we feel that on the ground of privilege we cannot touch some of its most important provisions. My desire has been, if possible, to go into Committee on this Bill and to amend it in such a drastic way as to meet the objections which I have placed before your lordships. I should have liked very much to have given the House of Commons the opportunity of considering such Amendments, and, in spite of what passed last summer, of waiving their privilege if they thought fit to do so for that purpose.
  But what is the position in which we find ourselves? Was there a sentence in the speech of the noble Earl opposite

  363
  implying that the Government would aid in any such project? The Government have had some little expression of opinion in. this House to-night on the part of their own supporters. Lord Ribblesdale is an out-and-out supporter of the Second Reading. He thinks your Lordships ought to revise the Bill. He does not approve of the compensation proposal; he does not approve of local option; he does not approve of the time-limit, and thinks it ought to be extended. He thinks that in calculating any payment for monopoly value a clear preference ought to be given to the old licence-holder. He thinks that tender and considerate treatment should be accorded to an industry whose conditions you are about to change. But I did not observe that those sentiments were cheered by the noble Earl responsible for this Bill, though even the right rev. Prelate took a far more liberal view than the Government have ever hinted at with regard to a time-limit.
  I am afraid that from everything they have said, we find ourselves obliged to believe that the Government have nailed their colours to the mast on the questions of time-limit, the compensation basis, local option, and the institution of this tribunal of three Commissioners in London. I do not believe they are able, even if they wished it, to make concessions which would satisfy my mind on these points. If they can do so, I appeal to the noble Earl, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of many who would like to aid in passing a reasonable Act of licensing reform—if such an Act could be passed consistently with justice to those concerned—to tell us in the course of the debate, not merely that they would consider our Amendments here—we know very well how they were dealt with last summer, even Amendments proposed by Ministers themselves—but Would do their best to induce their supporters in the other House to look favourably on these Amendments and waive any question of privilege there. If any such assurance could be given, then I confess for one that I should not like to record my vote against the Second Reading. But if we have no such assurance, then we have no other
  364
  course open to us but to exercise the constitutional privilege we possess and reject on the Motion for Second Reading a Bill which as it now stands is unjust, and which is undoubtedly unpopular in that part of the United Kingdom which it primarily concerns.
  THE EARL OF CARLISLE: My Lords, I am exceedingly unwilling to take up your time, but, as I am not an habitual supporter of His Majesty's Government, I feel that in giving my vote for the Second Reading of this Bill I am bound to state my reasons for so doing. The Amendment moved by the noble Marquess the head of the Opposition, states that this measure will not materially advance the cause of temperance. It is because I sincerely believe that it will do this that I support the measure. The statement that has been repeated again and again that this is not a temperance measure appears to me, if I may say so with all respect, to be an extraordinary paradox. If the education agreement that has been arrived at were not only approved by the bench of Bishops and the Leaders of the Nonconformist Party, but had also received the assent of my noble friend Lord Halifax, and the heads of the Roman Catholic Church and of the Dean of Canterbury, I think it would be a paradox in that case if the secularist party were to say that this arrangement did not give sufficient security for religious education. That is really the paradox that is put before us now. Every society that is working for temperance in the country supports this Bill, and I venture to say that the support of those who work for temperance is more valuable than that of those who only profess a platonic feeling of admiration for it. There has been often repeated already to-night those parts of the Bill which make for temperance. The reduction of licences was always, before this Bill was introduced, thought a valuable thing for temperance. Not only the Royal Commission, not only both parties in Lord Peel's Commission, but also the late Government looked upon the reduction of licences as a valuable temperance measure. As Lord St. Aldwyn has pointed out, the reduction of licences under the Act of 1904 has not gone on as was hoped and as was promised.

  365
  Almost as valuable as the reduction of licences is the restoration of the magisterial authority which this Bill will give. Then there are twenty-five minor temperance measures of which Lord St. Aldwyn spoke. I should like to put this question to the noble Marquess at the head of the Opposition, whether, if this measure was brought in as Lord St. Aldwyn suggested, it would receive his support—whether if that part of this Bill were re-introduced, apart from any of the financial measures, it would receive the support of the Head of the Opposition?
  Then I think, when it is stated that this is a hypocritical measure, because there is nothing in the Bill to do away with grocers' licences or to deal with clubs, Members of the Opposition seem to forget how much they did themselves in 1902. The grocers' licences now are under the jurisdiction of magistrates, and they are rapidly decreasing, and would have declined still more had it not been for an unfortunate Amendment which was introduced in your Lordships' House. As to clubs, my belief is that the clauses with respect to clubs are capable of improvement, but it is quite a mistake to say, as has been said, that where one licence is done away with, there a drinking club arises
  The increase of clubs in this country since the year 1902 is partly caused by the Act of that year, requiring the registration of all sorts of clubs, including golf and rowing clubs, and these certainly do not affect the question of private drinking. The curious thing is that in Birmingham and Manchester, where there has been a very great reduction of public-houses in the last two years both in regard to on and off-licences, the number of clubs has not increased, but has actually diminished; and an increase in clubs has occurred in places where there has been no diminution of public-houses. I think it would have been a very useful thing to bring in Amendments strengthening the clauses relating to clubs, but owing to the course it is proposed to take of throwing out this Bill on the Second Reading, that has become no longer possible. We are told that we ought to leave the Act of 1904 to do its work without further interference.
  366
  The noble Viscount has told us that he considers the Act of 1904 is capable of further Amendment, so that I do not think I need labour that point. What I should like to say is that the objection I have to the Act of 1904—and this objection was much more ably expressed than I can express it by Lord Peel at the time of the introduction of the Bill—is that, practically speaking, it introduced something analogous to the capitulations in the East. This is how Lord Cromer describes the capitulations. The capitulations impair those rights of internal sovereignty which are enjoyed by the rulers and legislatures of most States, and in his last Report from Egypt he said that one of the principal nuisances of those capitulations was that it was now impossible to interfere with the drink houses. By the Act of 1904 you introduced domestic capitulations which prevented you from interfering with this class of property in the way that the rulers and legislatures of most States are accustomed to do.
  There is one thing I should like to say, and it is that, although we criticise the Act of 1904, there are two things for which we feel grateful, one is establishing the principle of a regular diminution of licences all over the country, and the other is establishing the idea of the monopoly value. Both the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount who preceded me attacked this principle of the monopoly value, but it appears to me that they did not recollect that this principle has been taken from the Act of 1904, and having been inserted there it is absolutely impossible not to extend it now to all licences, because, unless that is done you will have two different kinds of licences, and you will create the same kind of nuisance that you found in the old beer-houses, namely, one kind of licence which cannot be touched, and regular licence which can be touched by the magistrates. The Act of 1904 did away with that anomaly and made beerhouses subject to the magistrates, but in doing so it created a repetition of the same evil by creating a class of new licences which, having paid the monopoly, could be treated by the licensing authority without any difficulty, and the old licences receiving compensation which you could

  367
  not touch unless the state of the compensation levy permitted you to do so.
  I will not attempt to follow the noble Lord on the financial question. It appears to me that it is really a piece of useless argument to go into that matter at present, because it is impossible to remedy it, as there is to be no Committee stage. We have no evidence whatever that compromises could not have been arrived at upon that subject, but unfortunately the majority of this House has decided that no compromise should be attempted. I regret that very much. It has been stated that property is endangered by this Bill, but my belief is that property is much more likely to be endangered by the course which your Lordships are taking. The Leader of the Opposition in another place told your Lordships that you were as safe as cattle-drivers. I am not quite certain whether that is the case or not, but at all events, the noble Marquess has made use of this cattle drivers argument. He instanced tenant right in Ireland as analogous to the rights of licence-holders, and indeed, the language of many noble Lords in this discussion has reminded me of the old debates in the House of Commons when the Land Bill was coming on. We have all the same phrases about "unwritten contracts," "tacit understandings," "in justice if not in law," and the like. In those debates it was admitted even by those who opposed the Land Bill that the Irish landlords had stretched the ideas of property to an extent that was injudicious. On the other hand they had the written law behind them. They were opposed by those ideas of unwritten contracts and tacit understandings. It seems to me that noble Lords on the Opposition side are now combining the mistakes of both parties. They are stretching the ideas of property to the cracking point, and they are founding that claim not on the letter of the law, but merely on imaginary claims and expectations. I sincerely hope that the result of that action will not be to encourage Socialism more than could be done by l00 Graysons.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: I think it is just as well that someone on this bench should speak to-night just to
  368
  show that the Bishops are not all on one side on this question. I am very glad to be allowed this opportunity of showing that I am one of those who cannot take the Government view of this matter. First of all my feeling is that legislation for the future should always be put on such lines that the train does not come to an end with a great jerks; things should be put on such lines that they will move smoothly on. Under this Bill the State train is to be suddenly pulled up and drastic action is to be taken. The Bill is putting the burden of doing, as I think, an unjust thing, upon the people of 1923 and 1930, not upon ourselves; we only say it, they have got to do it. But besides that, as a very keen worker in the cause of temperance myself, and as one whose family and whose whole household, without a single exception, are water drinkers, as one who has devoted as much time as most bishops to working for the temperance cause, I confess to the most bitter disappointment in this Bill, and I cannot regard it as a temperance measure. If those sitting on the Government bench will bring in a temperance Bill I will vote for it and speak for it, but I do not regard the Bill before the House as being in any sense a temperance measure. The details have been spoken about several times. We have heard what the Bishop of London has said. When I was Bishop of Stepney I had some experience of the East End of London. I remember on one occasion seeing a collection of dishevelled looking women, all of them quite sober, and they were looking at a certain place. I asked them what was the matter, and the reply I got was: "If you parsons would pull down that place you would do the best thing for us women that men have ever done for women." The place they pointed at was a drinking club. In one of the towns in my diocese I was told that the great curse of the place was the clubs, and I felt it so strongly that I pressed upon the Government of that time the absolute necessity of dealing very promptly with clubs in any temperance measure, and they did to a certain extent deal with them. Only the other day I had a meeting of rural deans, and one of them said to me: "I have five public-houses in my village, and

  369
  probably there are three too many; but all the harm done by those five public-houses is nothing like the harm done by the one village drinking club." To deal with clubs in the miserly way in which this Bill proposes to deal with them seems to me to be an outrage upon my sense of what the proper interests of temperance absolutely demand at the hands of your Lordships. I hold in my hand a little pamphlet which has been sent to me this month, and it professes to give an answer to every objection to this Bill. I have looked with very great interest to see what it contains in reference to clubs, and I notice that it says: "the club question is partially dealt with in Part 4 of the Bill, and it may be deemed desirable to omit this portion of the Bill with the idea of treating the subject more fully in a separate Bill upon the Report of the Royal Commission." That is all the comfort I get with regard to the miserably inadequate provisions dealing with clubs.
  The noble Earl said that probably we bishops knew more about matters of temperance and intemperance than other Members of your Lordships' House. When I speak to my town clergy on this subject they tell me without the slightest question that the one place we really ought to strike at if we wish to stop the terrible evil of drinking among women—and when I say women, I mean persons of that sex in all classes of life—the one thing which is imperatively necessary is that we should do something of a most drastic character with regard to grocers' licences. I turn again to the pamphlet which professes to give an answer to every possible objection, and I do not find grocers' licences mentioned at all. What am I to say as a strong temperance reformer and advocate of temperance, and as a practicer of total abstinence myself, to a Bill which calls itself a temperance measure and which can have this sort of accusations hurled against it? I do not care how drastic you make a Bill which really makes for temperance. You may say that we should amend the Bill. But we cannot. There is more between us and another place than has been stated. The question of privilege has been sufficiently touched upon, but there is one point which has not been mentioned, and it is that noble Lords in office here and persons in another place with Ministerial respon-
  370
  sibility have put such a gulf between us and the other House that it is hopeless to make any really important Amendments in a Government Bill in this House. Therefore I feel that it would be a waste of time to go on with this measure, and I shall be prepared to say in all parts of the country where my voice is heard that the fault of the rejection of this Bill will not lie with the noble Lords geographically opposite, but with those who have raised these questions of dispute between this House and the House of Commons which make it absolutely hopeless for us to amend the Bill in any conceivable way. Just think what it would have been if you had brought in a Bill framed on the sort of lines which the noble Viscount opposite expounded to us. If such a Bill had been presented to this House there would have been no division, it would have run through the House. In every part of the country which my voice can reach, I shall maintain that the rejection of this Bill will not be the fault of noble Lords geographically opposite; it will be the fault of those sitting on the Government Bench.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY: I am not going to make a speech myself, though I regret that this House is not going to undertake the task of considering the details of this Bill, but I desire to move the adjournment of the debate on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
  Debate adjourned till to-morrow.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed. [No. 231].
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock till To-morrow, half-past Three o'clock.