Sitting of 26 November 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY
  Copy presented, of Report by the War Office on the steps taken during 1907 to provide Technical Instruction to Soldiers to fit them for Civil Life [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906.
  Copy presented, of Rules male by the Board of Trade under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 4172 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (MILITARY OPERATIONS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address, 25th November; Mr. Bellairs]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Urban District Council of Hindley, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Public Records (Colonial Office) (New Zealand Company). Copy of Schedule containing a list and particulars of Classes of Documents which have been removed from the Office of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State having the Department of the Colonies, and deposited in the Public Record Office, but are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Sanitation at Ramsey.
  MR. BOULTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if the Board received a report some two years ago on the sanitary conditions of Ramsey and the bad drinking water in the town; if such report was made by a member of the Royal Sanitary Institute, and if it was practically of the same character as the report recently issued by the medical officer of health of the Hunts County Council, wherein it was stated that there was no drinking water in the town fit for use, and that the sanitary arrangements were insanitary and dangerous; if complaints have been sent to the Local Government Board by residents of Ramsey; and, if so, why the Local Government Board has disregarded these
  640
  complaints and report, and not taken action to compel the council to carry out the law.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Local Government Board received a copy of a report which was obtained by the Rural Housing and Sanitation Association in 1906 from an associate of the Royal Sanitary Institute as to the condition of certain houses in Ramsey, and which contained some observations as to the need of sewerage and water supply in the district. A copy of this report was also sent to the district council. Some complaint of nuisance was made by a resident in the town and the Board communicated with the district council with regard to the matter, but they have not received any such complaint of default on the part of the district council with respect to sewerage and water supply as would enable them to take compulsory action under the Public Health Act. I am, however, giving attention to the sanitary condition of the place.

  Inquest on Blackburn Weaver.
  MR. W. THORNE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has now obtained the depositions taken at the inquest in the case of William Walsh, a weaver, of Blackburn, who died in the mission shelter on 20th October; and, if so, whether he has inquired into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have obtained a copy of the depositions and I am making inquiries with regard to the case.

  Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will ascertain from the audited accounts of the Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum, and state the total cost of that institution each year during the last twenty-five years, divided into establishment expenditure, such as permanent buildings, cost of repairs and maintenance, cost of upkeep, and law costs, if any; the amount received in each of those years from the Treasury, from each of the contributory counties, and from other sources; and the amount of debt now

  641
  on the asylum and the rate at which it is arranged to be paid off.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have given directions for the preparation of the Return asked for by the hon. Member. It is not desirable to encumber the records of Parliament with such a lengthy Return, but the information will be forwarded to the hon. Member when received.

  King's Road, Chelsea, Sub-Post Office.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the local desire that the sub-district Post Office at 23, King's Road, Chelsea, should remain open for business to at least 10 p.m.; whether he is aware that the town hall, which is practically in the centre of the borough and opposite this post office, is some 1,400 yards from the nearest office open after 8 p.m., and that some portions of Chelsea are more than 2,000 yards from any office open after this hour; and whether he will take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have received a representation on this subject from the Chelsea Borough Council, and the question is now engaging my attention.

  Aldridge Colliery Accident.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an accident that occurred at the No. 1 pit of the Aldridge Colliery Company, whereby Noah Wood lost his life and William James was so injured that he was removed in a critical condition to the Walsall hospital; to what was the accident due; will he make the necessary inquiries concerning this case; and whether he can state the number of accidents at this pit during the past five years, and also the number of deaths resulting therefrom.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have made inquiry with regard to this accident, and am informed by the inspector that it was caused by a fall of side which came away unexpectedly
  642
  from between two slips during the repair of a road. The place had been examined a short time previously by the fireman, who thought it so hard that it would require to be blasted down. From 1st January, 1901, to the present date nineteen accidents have occurred above and below ground at this pit, of which six (including one surface accident) were fatal, resulting in six deaths. The number employed below ground is about 550, and the death rate over the five years is 1·8 per 1,000, which is very near the general death rate for the district.

  Taxi-Cabs at London Railway Termini.
  MR. RENTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether mechanically propelled vehicles possess the same privileges at London railway stations as those drawn by horses.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Yes, Sir. Neither Section 2 of the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act, 1907, which abolished the privileged cab system, nor any Orders made by me under that section, make any distinction between horse-drawn and motor cabs.

  Unemployment in the United States.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the statistics on page 7 of Diplomatic and Consular Reports [Cd. 4035], United States, Trade of New York, June, 1908, apply to the whole of the United States or to the State of New York alone, and are there any official figures of unemployment for the United States generally; and will he state whether the Returns of unemployment in the Labour Gazette include only those members of trades unions who have benefit funds from which to draw and who are idle through lack of work, and do those Returns exclude those trade unionists who have no unemployed benefit funds or are idle from other causes than lack of work, and also do not take into account unskilled workmen or men in casual employment.
  (Answered by Sir H. Kearley.) The statistics on page 7 of the Consular Report mentioned by the hon. Member relate to the City of New York only.

  643
  There are no official statistics of unemployment for the United States as a whole. The Returns of unemployed members of trade unions in the Labour Gazette are necessarily based on the information furnished by the trade unions paying unemployed benefit and relate only to such unions. They include those returned as idle from lack of work whether in receipt of benefit or not, and, in addition, those whose employment is temporarily suspended owing to bad weather, fires, failures, breakdowns, and similar causes, but not those who are directly affected by labour disputes or who are idle through sickness or accident. The Returns relate mainly to skilled workers.

  Kenmare Estate Evicted Tenants.
  MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Estates Commissioners' representatives paid several visits to Killarney recently to inquire into the claims of evicted tenants on the Kenmare estate; will he say if he has made a report on the several cases inquired into; whether the Commissioners have yet taken any steps to relieve, by way of grants, the tenants who have been reinstated on derelict farms; and whether they have taken, or propose to take, any steps to secure the reinstatement of evicted tenants whose farms have been grabbed on this estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received their inspector's report on these cases, and will consider the making of grants to such tenants as have been reinstated and have signed purchase agreements. The applications of those evicted tenants whose farms are now occupied by other tenants, and who are deemed suitable, will be considered in the allotment of untenanted land to be acquired by the Commissioners.

  Irish University Charters.
  MR. GWYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what reason can be assigned for the delay in issuing the charters under the Irish University Act; and whether he realises that such delay may probably
  644
  retard the period at which the University can come into being.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The charters have now been signed, and they will be issued as soon as the necessary Letters Patent are prepared. I have directed that all possible despatch shall be used.

  Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the average salary of trained assistant teachers in Dublin, and the average salary of trained assistant teachers in London and Edinburgh; do the assistant teachers in Irish national schools perform work inferior to that of English and Scottish assistant teachers; whether, though assistant teachers in Irish schools pass the same examinations and possess the same qualifications as principal teachers, they never, under any circumstances, receive promotion, no matter what their qualifications, ability, or length of service; whether he is aware that in Dublin married assistant teachers must pay from one-third to one-half their salaries for house rent alone, and in the case of unmarried assistants the high rent for rooms, etc., pressess equally hard; and whether he will inquire into the actual work performed by the assistants and their responsibility for this work, and take steps to see that they are rewarded in proportion, and that all receive at least a living wage.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the average salaries from State sources of trained assistant teachers in national schools in Dublin (excluding fees for extra branches and evening school work) is £86 13s. 3d. for men, and £74 10s. 4d. for women. For information with regard to the salaries of assistant teachers in London and Edinburgh I must refer the hon. Member to the Ministers representing the Departments concerned. I have no reason to think that the work of assistant teachers in Ireland is not fully equal to that done in England and Scotland. Assistant teachers in Dublin rank as a rule in the

  645
  third grade. I have no means of obtaining information as to the house rents which they pay; and I cannot undertake to make the inquiry suggested in the concluding paragraph of the Question.

  Mountjoy Prison—Death of Richard O'Brien.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a prisoner, named Richard O'Brien, who was committed to Mountjoy prison on 23rd ultimo, died within a few hours of his admission without any medical attendance, notwithstanding that there are two resident medical officers attached to the said prison; and if he can explain why both the medical officers were absent from duty upon the occasion referred to, and what steps, if any, have been taken to prevent a recurrence of such neglect; and whether the governor or deputy-governor took any steps to provide the deceased with any stimulants or other medical aid before death.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Richard O'Brien was admitted to Mountjoy prison at 1.30 p.m. on the day mentioned and was then apparently in normal health. He was found in a moribund state at 4.35 p.m., and died in a quarter of an hour from heart disease. One resident medical officer was on leave, his substitute went on duty at four o'clock, and the other medical officer did not return till 5.28 p.m. The coroner's jury expressed the opinion that no doctor could have saved the prisoner's life, but that the prison should never be without a doctor. Orders to that effect were, and are, in force; the neglect to comply with them has been dealt with, and steps have been taken to ensure their strict observance for the future. No stimulants were administered. The hospital warder obtained brandy for the purpose from the hospital, but found the prisoner dead on his return.

  Food and Drug Adulteration in Ireland.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many samples were taken under he Food and Drugs Act in Ireland for the years 1905–6–7, distinguishing between solid and liquid; how
  646
  many prosecutions were instituted; and with what result; how many public analysts are employed, what salaries are they paid, and can he say if the county councils contribute to the expense of this department; and whether the work of analysis is entirely performed by the public analyst whose signature is appended to the certificates given in evidence in prosecutions under the Food and Drugs Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have no information as to the first part of the Question. There is a public analyst for each county and borough. These analysts are appointed and paid by the respective councils. Some of them are paid by salaries varying from £5 to £300 per annum, others by fees, and in a few cases payment is made partly by fees and partly by salary. The Board are not aware of the arrangements made by the analysts for the discharge of their duties.

  Kilrush Incendiary Fires.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received particulars of two incendiary fires in the neighbourhood of Kilrush on Saturday morning last; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with these occurrences.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police authorities inform me that on the night of the 20th November twenty-three tons of hay and some oats, the property of Patrick Fitzpatrick, were burnt. In the same neighbourhood, and at about the same time, some hay, the property of Margaret Molony, was also burnt. A claim for compensation has been lodged in the former case, and it cannot t this stage be said whether either of the fires was or was not the work of an incendiary. The police are investigating the cases. No arrests have been made.

  Holycross Disturbances.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, as a result of an alleged demonstration in connection with the

  647
  breaking-up of a grazing ranch at Holy-cross, County Tipperary, eight men, all respectable farmers, were arrested in their beds at two o'clock in the morning by a force of 200 armed constabulary; whether he is aware that this action on the part of the authorities has aroused indignation and exasperated the feelings of the people in the locality; can he explain why proceedings of an exceptional kind were taken against these men and why the privacy of their homes was invaded in the dead of night; was there any attempt on their part to evade the ordinary processes of the law; and, if not, will he see that in future the ordinary practices of civil administration are not departed from in cases of this kind.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The eight men referred to were arrested on a charge of riot and unlawful assembly. Prompt measures were necessary to prevent further disorder, and the arrests were made on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. The proceedings were strictly in accordance with the ordinary law and have my entire approval. I have no intention of giving any directions to the police to act differently in future should a similar riot occur in the locality or elsewhere.

  Pension Regulations.
  MR. ROGERS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that all relief given to a husband for or on account of his wife shall by the Poor Law Act, 1834, be considered to be relief given to the husband; and whether, in the event of a pensions committee granting a pension to a married woman on the ground that she cannot therefore be disqualified under the section creating the pauper disqualification by any receipt of relief on the part of her husband, he is now in a position to state whether he will be prepared to confirm the action of such a committee on appeal.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am advised that poor relief afforded to or for an applicant for a pension would disqualify the applicant. If, therefore, relief is given to a husband for or on account of his wife, the wife would be disqualified.

  Supplies for Irish Government Offices.
  MR. HUNT: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that only ink made in Ireland is used in Irish Government Departments, he will explain why this practice obtains in Irish Departments and why a similar rule is not followed in the supply of articles for other Government Departments.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The practice in regard to the supply of ink to public offices in Ireland, which is correctly stated by the hon. Member, has been in force for many years. I understand, however, that the prices paid are substantially those ruling in the open market. It would not be desirable to extend this rule to the supply of articles generally to Government Departments, whether in Great Britain or Ireland.

  Scottish Income-Tax Commissioners' Clerks.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the clerks to the Commissioners of Income-Tax in Scotland are in any way paid upon results, or receive a percentage on the amount of income sought out or passing through their hands; and, if so, will he say what are the arrangements with these clerks.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The Answers to the first and second parts of the Question are in the negative; the third does not arise.

  Chatham Dockyard.
  MR. FELL: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is proposed to dredge the channel to the dockyard at Chatham to such a depth as will allow of ships of the "Dreadnought" class to be docked and repaired there.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The reply to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

  Proposed Floating Dock in the Medway.
  MR. FELL: To ask the First Lord o the Admiralty if it is proposed to build and maintain a floating dock in the Medway capable of containing the largest men-of-war; and, if so, where will such

  649
  deck be placed, and when is it estimated it will be completed.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) No decision has been arrived at in regard to a floating dock.

  Hayti Disturbances.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any British cruiser has yet been ordered to proceed to Hayti with a view to affording assistance to British subjects there during the present disturbances; and, if not, whether such orders will be given at once.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member this afternoon on the same subject by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  New Destroyers.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the reason of the new destroyers being so much inferior in size, speed, and armament to the latest "Tribal" class of destroyer.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Board of Admiralty do not admit that the new destroyers are inferior in size or armament to those of the "Tribe" class; as regards speed they are designed to meet fully all the requirements for which they are intended.

  Naval Campaign Plans.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty who is the officer responsible for the preparation of the plan or plans of a naval campaign; and what, if any, official position does he hold.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Under the direction of the Board, and in particular of the First Sea Lord, the preparation of such plans is part of the functions of the Director of Naval Intelligence.

  Professor Marshall's Memorandum.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Professor Marshall's Memorandum on the Fiscal Policy of International Trade was revised and partly rewritten between 2nd June last, when it was agreed that the document should be laid upon the Table, and its publication.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I must refer the hon. Member to the prefatory note prefixed to the Memorandum. Mr. Marshall there states that he has revised the Memorandum slightly, added some explanations, and rewritten the discussion of the relations between England and her Dependencies contained in Sections 80–82, but that in other respects the Paper remains substantially as it was originally written.

  Old-Age Pensions Act Administration.
  MR. ROGERS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the right of an applicant for an old-age pension to an opportunity of being heard by the local pension committee in cases of doubt cannot be fully exercised owing to the age and infirmity of many applicants and their inability to travel to any meeting place, and that thereby difficulty is being experienced in rural districts in carrying out the intentions; of Parliament in this respect; and whether, in order to assist local pension committees to obtain an opportunity for the applicant of being heard by a sub-committee or some person or persons acting on behalf of the committee, he will withdraw or modify the regulation which forbids any payment of travelling expenses of a committee or sub-committee out of the Exchequer grant.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have not received any complaints with reference to this matter and, unless real hardship could be shown to arise, I should not be prepared to take the course suggested, which would mean, I fear, a serious increase in the proportion for the grant for old-age pensions which would be diverted from the payment of pensions to meeting administrative expenses.

  Irish Land Purchase Sinking Fund.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the sinking fund paid on purchases under the Irish Land Purchase Acts of 1885, 1891, and 1896, up to the year ended March, 1908; at what rate of interest is this money invested; whether, at the end of each decadal period of revision regard is had to the interest received during the previous ten years before deciding on the rate of reduction to be given to the tenant purchasers under each of those Acts; and what is the Tate of reduction given in the last decadal revision under each of those Acts.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The sinking fund paid to 31st March, 1908, on purchases under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, amounted to £1,791,075. This represents the balance of annuity instalments at 4 per cent. on the amount of the advance outstanding after deducting interest at 3⅛ per cent. The advances under this Act were made from the Local Loans Fund, and the rate of interest is not subject to variation. Advances under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Acts, 1891 and 1896, were made in Two and Three-quarter per Cent. Guaranteed Land Stock, and are repayable by an annuity of 4 per cent., of which £2 15s. per cent. is required for interest on the stock, and the balance of £1 5s. per cent. is accumulated for the purpose of replacing the stock. The rate of accumulation is based upon the actual price at which the stock can be purchased; and under the Treasury rules the rate varies from time to time, so as to give the tenant-purchasers the full benefit of the market price of the stock being below par. The average rate of accumulation at the present time is approximately £2 19s. 5d. per cent., and is applied on the occasion of each decadal revision. Up to 31st March, 1908, the accumulated sinking fund amounted to £1,112,003, in addition to which Land Stock to the amount of £1,019,031 had been cancelled. As regards the rate of reduction given in the last decadal revision, this is a matter for the Land Commission; and I would suggest that the hon. Member should
  652
  address himself on the point to the Chief Secretary.

  Wine Duties.
  MR. REES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether revision of the wines duties is under consideration in view of the unequal pressure of the present duties upon light wines.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am prepared to consider any representations my hon. friend may be good enough to make to me on the subject of these duties. But I fear I can give him to information as to future Budget proposals.

  Irish Union Returns.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that clerks of unions in Ireland are from time to time called upon to furnish long Returns to this House, involving expense on the guardians, to whom they look for payment; whether he is aware that the New Ross board of guardians has recently objected to further payments to their officials for this purpose; and whether, as the Royal Commissions and Parliamentary Committees for whom these Returns are ordered are appointed for Imperial purposes, the Treasury will in future recoup the officials concerned and not put it a charge on local rates.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) My attention has not been previously directed to the subject. But I cannot admit that Parliament is precluded from calling for information to be furnished by local authorities when such information is required in the public interest, and especially when it relates to inquiries in which the boards of guardians are specially concerned, without undertaking to make additional payments to cover any cost that may be incurred.

  Irish Pension Officers' Instructions.
  MR. P. MEEHAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware if instructions have been issued to pension officers in Ireland to disallow claims for old-age pensions in cases where the applicant has been in a union hospital

  653
  for any period since 1st January, 1908; whether he is aware that, under existing conditions in Ireland, the poor, in cases of illness, must of necessity obtain medical relief in the union dispensary or hospital; and whether, seeing that if this instruction is enforced it will penalise a large number of industrious persons who are entitled to an old-age pension who may be compelled to enter a union hospital, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Pension officers have no power to disallow claims, but they are of course bound to report against any claim in the case of which disqualification appears to arise. Whether relief of the kind referred to in the Question would disqualify depends upon the facts of the particular case, which the pension officer must report to the committee and upon which the committee will decide, subject to appeal to the Local Government Board.

  Scottish Church Registers.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether instructions have been issued to pension officers to search free of cost the registers of the Established Church of Scotland, whether preserved locally or in the Register House in Edinburgh; and whether he will issue similar instructions to such officers to search the records belonging to dissenting churches, so that preferential treatment will not be give to any person on account of their creed.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Arrangements have been made under which specially appointed Inland Revenue officers are allowed to search, free of charge, the registers kept at the Register Office, Edinburgh, for evidence of age of applicants for old-age pensions on the request of pension officers. I have no power to require access to registers kept locally.

  Cork Barracks.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, although artisans and labourers employed at the Cork barracks have not technically been dismissed by
  654
  the military authorities, they have been discharged by the triennial contractors, owing to the military authorities having allotted to the field company of the Royal Engineers a large proportion of the incidental work hitherto executed by civilian workmen; whether the field company would be sufficiently employed on field works at Moore Park and Kilworth camp, without taking the places of Cork working men at reduced wages; and whether the War Office, having pledged themselves to aid in coping with unemployment, they will withdraw these soldiers from competition with civilian workers at rates of pay inconsistent with the Fair Wages Resolution of this House.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The triennial contractor has given the military authorities no information on the subject of discharging men, nor has he made any complaint about the employment of men of the Royal Engineers. It appears on inquiry that an extra number of hands have been recently employed by the contractor to complete arrears of work, and that the probable difference of employment caused by employing the Royal Engineers on their recognised work will in the long run be small. The company in question could not be employed at Moor Park or Kilworth, as there is no accommodation for them at those places.

  Territorial Artillery Units.
  EARL WINTERTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many Territorial artillery units are still short of their complement of guns, and what is the total number of guns required and the total number issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) 154 units are still short of their full complement of guns, twenty-eight having received their full supply. 728 guns are required and 330 have been issued. In addition, seventy-eight 12-pounder breech-loading field guns have been issued for training pending the completion of the 15-pounder equipment. The batteries will be fully equipped with guns by the end of this financial year.

  Irish Land Purchase Bonuses.
  MR. ASHLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether bonuses

  655
  at the rate of 12 per cent. will be paid under the Irish Land Act, 1903, to vendors whose agreements have been lodged with the Commissioners between 1st and 24th of November in this year.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would ask the hon. Member to await the circulation of the Irish Land Bill.

  Elstree Parish Council Allotments.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that on 14th November, 1907, the Local Government Board wrote the parish council of Elstree that they had been advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that the expenses referred to in Section 2 (2) of the Allotments Act, 1887, while including the interest payable upon the purchase money, do not include the annual instalments of principal or payments to a sinking fund in cases where the land has been acquired by means of a loan; and whether, in view of the statement of the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, as stated by the President of the Local Government Board in reply to a Question on 21st June, 1908, and of the fact that on page 2 of Leaflet No. 215, issued by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, it is stated under the head of rent that the rents to be charged allotment holders will be fixed at sums sufficient to cover the expenses incurred in providing the allotment, such as the purchase money or rent paid by the local authority for the land, etc., he will state on what authority the Board make the last statement.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are aware of the communication from the Local Government Board to which my right hon. friend refers. It was based on an opinion given by the Law Officers in 1888, from which the present Law Officers dissented in 1907 on a further case submitted to them.

  Anæsthetics at the Metropolitan Hospital.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for
  656
  the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to an inquest held on a boy named Alfred Lebathe, aged twelve years, who died at the Metropolitan Hospital during the administration of an anæsthetic and before an operation was commenced; and whether he has had any answer to his communication with the British Medical Council as to the advisability of in future requiring that the administration of anæsthetics should form a part of the curriculum of a medical student.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the repeated statements of the coroner for the City of London that only a small proportion of deaths occurring under anæsthesia in private practice come to the notice of the registrar or coroner; whether the annual Return of the Registrar-General shows that an average of three deaths while under the influence of an anæsthetic occur in the hospitals of England and Wales each week; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing either a Commission or making a grant to the Royal Society and asking that Society to appoint a committee to inquire into all the facts of deaths under anæsthesia, and to advise generally as to the conditions to be observed and regulations to be carried out when an anæsthetic is administered.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I will answer these two Questions together. My attention has been drawn to several statements on this subject, including that of the coroner for the City of London, to the figures in the Registrar General's Report, and to many cases of inquests on persons who have died under aæesthetics. The Lord President of the Council, through whom I communicated with the General Medical Council, informs me that he understands a reply may be expected in a very few days from that body, which is now in session. As I have stated before, the question of holding a formal inquiry must be postponed, at any rate, till I know what action the medical authorities are prepared to take.

  Telegraphists at Race Meetings.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office send a special staff of telegraphists to race meetings; and, if so, how many were sent to the Epsom racecourse on Derby Day, 1908, and to the Doncaster racecourse on the St. Leger Day, 1908; whether he can say in what building the telegraph office is situated on a racecourse, whether the Post Office hires the room or whether the racecourse authorities make a payment for the facilities offered; and whether the telegrams to the Press giving the betting and state of odds receive the usual Press rebate.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Post Office sends a special staff to all important race meetings; sixty-four men were sent to Epsom on Derby Day and sixty-two to Doncaster for the St. Leger. The racecourse authorities provide the office free; it is usually either in or adjoining the grand stand. Messages sent to the Press under the usual regulations go at the Press rates prescribed by Parliament; the Postmaster-General has no authority to discriminate against certain items of news such as those giving the state of the odds.

  Racing Telegrams.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state how many telegrams were received at and despatched from the temporary telegraph office on the racecourse at New market, on 14th and 28th October, 1908; whether he can say whether these telegrams were sent to and despatched by bookmakers and related to bets; and whether the Post Office incurred any financial loss by establishing offices on this racecourse on these days.
  Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) On l4th October, Czarevitch Day, the numbers were: 872 ordinary telegrams received at the grand stand; 3,772 ordinary telegrams despatched from the grand stand; 636 Press telegrams despatched from the grand stand. On the 28th, Cambridgeshire Day: 773 ordinary telegrams received at the grand stand; 3,372 ordinary telegrams de-
  658
  spatched from the grand stand; 561 Press telegrams despatched from the grand stand. I can give no information as to the contents of these telegrams. No financial loss was incurred.

  Beri-Beri Report.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received the Report of the Special Committee of the Royal College of Physicians on the subject of beri-beri on merchant ships; and, if so, when will it be published.
  (Answered by Sir H. Kearley.) A Report by the Committee of the Royal College of Physicians on beri-beri has been received, but it contains no very definite conclusions on the subject and the Board of Trade do not propose to publish it. The Committee suggested that a Commission which is at present at work at Quala Lumpur on the subject of beri-beri might throw some light on the matter, and the Board of Trade are awaiting the Report of that Commission.

  Licences for Motor Vehicles.
  MR. WATT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the number of licences for motors and vehicles drawn by motors and licences for hackney motors and vehicles drawn by motors, excluding under each head motor bicycles and tricycles, respectively, issued by the Board of Inland Revenue during the year 1907 and during the period 1st January to 30th September, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The total number of licences for motors or vehicles drawn by motors for the yea-ended 31st December, 1907, was 40,902, and for hackney motors was 14,666. These figures exclude motor bicycles and tricycles. The corresponding figures for the nine months ended 30th September, 1908, are not yet available.

  Antrim Royal Garrison Artillery.
  COLONEL M'CALMONT: To ask the Secretary of State for War why Carrickfergus, the head-quarters of the Antrim Royal Garrison Artillery, has not been placed, on the basis of a

  659
  depot, the same as the twenty infantry battalions specially selected to drill their recruits for six months; whether there are at present seventy-two recruits there, besides twenty-eight of a permanent staff, with only two officers, one, the adjutant, frequently away on other duties, the second officer having a little over two years service; and whether it is the intention to call up an instructor of artillery to instruct these recruits in their duties.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Carrickfergus is the head-quarters of the Antrim Royal Garrison Reserve Artillery, and the recruits drill at the head-quarters. It is not a depot, as it merely takes the recruits for this artillery unit. There are at present seventy-four recruits drilling there, besides the permanent staff. In compliance with the request of the commanding officer for assistance one subaltern has been allowed, the recruits being under seventy-five in number; and this is in accordance with the proportion formerly allowed under the Militia Regulations.

  Royal Engineer Staff Removal Expenses.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now recommend the payment of removal expenses to members of the staff for Royal Engineer services or to make an allowance in respect of such expenses, as is done in. the case of members of the Army Accounts branch in the War Department and to public servants in the Admiralty, Office of Works, and Inland Revenue Departments.
  Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question of removal expenses has not yet been finally decided.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the officers of the staff for Royal Engineer services form a branch of the Royal Engineers, or whether they are a separate and independent organisation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The staff for Royal Engineer services is not part of the corps of Royal Engineers,
  660
  but is a separate branch for the execution of works and, therefore, part of the Department of the Director of Works and Fortifications, under the Master General of the Ordnance.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Indian Reforms.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will arrange that this House shall receive a statement regarding the intentions of His Majesty's Government towards Indian reform simultaneously with the House of Lords; and whether he will afford this House an opportunity of discussing the same this session.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,: The Secretary of State for India hopes to be able to make a statement on Indian policy on or about December 14. He will at the same time lay Papers before Parliament, comprising proposals of the Government of India, and his own reply. A very short Bill will be necessary, and we shall present it next session. That seems to be the best occasion for discussion here, when Members will have had time to consider the Papers, and their reception in India.
    DR RUTHERFORD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be fairer to this House to give it an opportunity for discussing the statement of December 14th on the same day as it is made?
    MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir; I think not. The Secretary of State will make his statement separately.
    MR. SWIFT MACNECLL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see so far as possible that matters of great public interest shall be communicated first to this House rather than to the House of Lords?
    MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir. I feel that quite as strongly as any Member of the House of Commons, but when the responsible Minister is in the House of Lords it is only natural that the first statement should be made in that place.

    Ceylon Indian Recruiting Agency.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Ceylon Government subsidises the Ceylon Indian recruiting agency, which, therefore, is placed in a better position to compete with South Indian labour agencies and South Indian planters; and, if so, whether he will inquire into the matter in view to assist the South Indian planters, or take such steps as circumstances may require.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,: The Secretary of State has not received any representations from India on this subject, but as at present advised he is not prepared to urge that aid should be given out of Indian revenues to South Indian labour agencies on the ground that the Ceylon Government gives a subsidy to the Ceylon labour agency.
    MR. REES: Is it convenient that free trade and protection should be such near neighbours with such common interests?
    MR. BUCHANANsaid he hoped India would not follow a bad example.

    Education in India.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether, in view of the manifestations of the results of the education at present given, the Government of India contemplates any drastic change in the existing system.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The general educational policy of the Government of India is declared in their Resolution of 11th March, 1904, and the Secretary of State is not aware that they intend to introduce any drastic change in that policy.

    Conconada Police Punitive Force.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether he is aware that a punitive police force has been quartered on the town of Conconada in consequence of certain riots which occurred therein; whether, seeing that under Clause 5, Section 15, of the Police Act of 1861, provision is made for the exemption of any class of the inhabitants from liability to bear any portion of the
    662
    cost of such force, he will say whether the European merchants in the town lie under any suspicion of being party to the riots; and if not, why the local government has not exercised the power of exemption conferred on it by the above-mentioned provision of the law.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The Government of Madras have power to exempt any class of the community from liability to share the cost of the additional police quartered at Coconada. The Secretary of State has no information as to how they have exercised that power; he considers that the matter should be left to their discretion.
    MR. REES: Does the hon. Gentleman think it equitable that when a riot is made by natives of India from whom no money levy can be made, the Europeans who are the victims should have to pay the expense of the punitive force?
    MR. BUCHANAN: I presume the Madras Government are satisfied with the method of distributing expense.
    MR. REES: I do not think the Europeans are.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: We will send you out again.

    Rhodesian Big Game Preserves.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in the Lomagundi district of Southern Rhodesia, it has been decided by the officials of the British Chartered South Africa Company to exterminate all the big game; whether in pursuance of this policy hunters are allowed to destroy the game to an unlimited extent for the purpose of selling the meat, horns, and tusks; whether one of the few remaining herds of elephants has been completely wiped out; whether the preservation of species is an Imperial concern; whether the officials of the Chartered Company have the power, without reference to the Colonial Office, to order or permit the total destruction of the game over vast areas of British territory; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,: The Administrator of Southern Rhodesia in April last authorised the destruction of elephants in the district of Lomagundi except within the Urungwe game sanctuary. He has power to do this under an Ordinance of 1906, when he is satisfied that such destruction is in the interest of public safety. Complaints of the damage and danger caused by these elephants have been made for some time past. The Secretary of State is not in a position to interfere with the exercise of the discretion which the law has vested in the local administration.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD; I presume the Colonial Office put some limit on the destruction of these animals?
    COLONEL SEELY: We have to protect that species as we have also to protect human lives.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: IS the Under-Secretary aware that these elephants are more respectable animals than the persons by whom they are destroyed?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Disturbances in Hayti.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to secure protection for the lives and property of British subjects during the present disturbances in Hayti.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,: His Majesty's Consul-General in Hayti has reported that a revolution had broken out at Aux Cayes on the southern coast of the Republic, but he has not intimated that there is any danger to British subjects or interests, nor has he asked for the presence of a man-of-war. No steps have, therefore, been taken for the moment to send one. His Majesty's ship "Scylla" is due to visit Port-au-Prince in the ordinary course on December 9th, and unless something unforeseen occurs, it does not seem necessary to anticipate that date.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any information as to whether any of the Powers are sending or have sent ships for the protection of their subjects?
    SIB EDWARD GREY: I have rot Board of ships a being sent by other Powers.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision as a precautionary measure?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me information which will at least show that it is desirable to take any exceptional steps in the present circumstances.

    Continental Education Laws.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the provisions of Clause 2 of the Education Bill, he can procure a Report from His Majesty's Minister at Berne and the British consul at Lausanne as to the general result in practice of the education law of the Canton de Vaud passed in May 1906; whether, with reference to Clause 3 of the Bill, he can obtain a Report from His Majesty's Minister at Munich as to the operation of the law in force in Bavaria in respect of associations; and can he obtain a Report from His Majesty's Minister at the Hague with reference to the operation of the provisions of the Education Acts of Holland, which correspond to the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Instructions will be sent to His Majesty's representatives at the places named to furnish, if possible, the information desired by the hon. Member.
    MR. BOLAND: Will it be possible to have this information before the Committee Stage of the Education Bill is concluded?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: All I can say is that I will get the information as soon as I can, but I cannot promise it will be in time for that.

    Persia.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there was any serious danger to lives or property of foreign subjects in Persia before the Parliament was dispersed and the Constitution destroyed by Colonel Liakhoff and his Cossacks.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: There was the danger of general disorder and bloodshed, but it was not thought that foreigners were in special danger.
    MR. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement that the Constitution was destroyed by Colonel Liakhoff, and are these Cossacks Persian subjects?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Cossacks were Persian subjects, and acted under the orders of the Shah; but I do not make myself responsible for any statements other than those which I make.

    Russian Officers in the Shah's Service.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how many Russian officers on the active list are now in the service of the Shah of Persia; and whether any and, if any, how many British officers on the active list are in the service of the Shah,
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have to refer the hon. Member to the reply made to the hon. Member for North Hackney on November 2nd. According to recent information, the officers now number five. The reply to the last Question is in the negative.

    Persia—The New Constitution.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the refusal of the Shah of Persia to act on the advice of the British and Russian agents in reference to the granting of a Constitution, the Russian officers now in the service of the Shah will be withdrawn.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The last phase is that the Shah is going to give a Constitution, and the contingency mentioned does not, therefore, arise in answer to
    666
    this Question and that of the hon. Member for Ripon. The Russian Government must deal with Russian officers as they think proper. I should certainly not admit that our dealings with British officers were to be influenced by pressure applied through a foreign Parliament; I imagine that other Governments have the same feeling; and the questions put on this subject by the hon. Member for Ripon seem to me calculated to defeat their own object, if that is their object, in so far as they have any effect at all.
    MR. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to the character of the Constitution?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: No, Sir; nor do I think it is for us to decide its character.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May I ask the date of the last phase?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I think two or three days ago; at any rate, very recently.
    MR. LYNCH: Is it to be a new Constitution or a revival of the old Constitution?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: That is covered by the Answer which I have given. I am not prepared to be responsible for the internal affairs of Persia.

    The Shah's Promise.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Shah of Persia promised the Governments of Great Britain and Russia that a Constitution would be granted the Persian people; and whether such promise was given since the coup d'etat of June 1908.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have to refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the Question asked by the hon. Member for North Hackney on 2nd November.

    Papers on Persia.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of recent events, he can now consent to lay Papers on the affairs of Persia upon the Table of the House.
    MR. O'GRADY: May I also ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made to the Shah respecting the grant of a Constitution, such as is desired by the Nationalists, and an amnesty to those who resisted the coup d'etat of June, 1908, prior to the recent decision of the Shah not to grant a Constitution; and, if so, will Papers concerning such representations be laid upon the Table of the House.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: As I have already stated, representations have been made from time to time. I could, of course, publish Papers about Persia, but they would contain very unfavourable comments upon the action of the Shah and his ministers, and also upon the conduct of the Mejliss. I am sure they would not give pleasure to any party of the Persians, and I do not think the publication would be helpful to Persia, or that any public interest would be served by it.

    Representations to the Shah of Persia.
    MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before bringing pressure to bear, in concert with His Majesty's Government, upon the Shah of Persia in favour of the revival of the Persian Constitution, the Government of Russia is taking steps to recall Colonel Liakhoff, who was instrumental in the suppression of that Constitution; and how it is proposed to persuade the Shah of the identity of aims pursued by the two Powers while this Russian officer continues in the exercise of the important functions which he fills in Persia at the present time.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have already answered this Question in a reply given to the hon. Member for East Mayo.
    MR. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not think that is a Question which I am called upon to answer. His Majesty's Government are responsible for the policy they pursue.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: As far as Persia is concerned, are the English and Russian Governments one and the same?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The two Governments have joined in representations to the Shah to carry out his own pledges given to his own people with regard to the Constitution. I have been somewhat doubtful with regard to that step, because it is a departure from the strict letter of policy of non-intervention. But, on the other hand, if the present disorder in Persia is continued, there is still greater risk of intervention; and the course which we have adopted has, therefore, been chosen as the lesser of two evils.

    Conduct of Police Inquiries.
    MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether inquiries with reference to the case of Mrs. Penn Gaskell and Miss Smith, made subsequently to 4th November last, have shown that the information supplied by the police was erroneous in several material particulars; and whether, in view of the desirability in the public interest that cases of this nature should be submitted to independent investigation, he will take steps as soon as may be to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission upon the duties of the Metropolitan Police that an officer duly qualified by a knowledge of the law and experience in legal proceedings, acting under the direct superintendence of the Chief Commissioner, should be appointed for the purpose of dealing with complaints against the police by private persons and conducting inquiries into them.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. GLADSTONE,: The information supplied by the police, and given in reply to my hon. friend's Question on the 4th. of November, was erroneous in one particular. The woman who was in the waiting room when these ladies were brought to the Police Court was charged with being a prostitute. The gaoler had made a mistake as to the particular woman who had been in the room during the fifteen or twenty minutes that these ladies were there. The mistake was not unnatural, seeing that when inquiry was made of him, ten days had elapsed since the day in question, and no less than seventy four charges had been dealt with on that day. On the other hand, as I have already pointed out privately to my

    669
    hon. friend, some undoubted misstatements have been made, both to me, and in letters to the Press, by those interested on behalf of these ladies. The recommendations of the Police Commission are now under my consideration, and in particular the question how effect can best be given to the important suggestion mentioned in my hon. friend's Question.
    MR. G. GREENWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain if the door of the cell was not locked some part of the time the ladies were detained?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed it was closed, but not locked.

    Incendiary Furze Fires in Guernsey.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the sentence of fourteen days' hard labour passed upon nine lads at the Guernsey Court for setting fire to the furze on l'Ancresse Common on Guy Fawkes Day; whether he can state the age of these lads; and whether, having regard to all the circumstances, he will make representations to secure some reduction in the sentence.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The ages of the offenders varied between seventeen to twenty-three; they were ordered to pay a fine of £2 each, or in default to go to prison for fourteen days; eight of them have paid their fines. The total amount of damage done on l'Ancresse Common on the night in question was very considerable, amounting, according to one estimate, to £100. Incendiary fires of this kind have increased in number recently in the island, and a large extent of grass on which the poorer inhabitants feed their sheep has been destroyed. I see no reason for advising any reduction in the penalties imposed.

    Lead in Hollow Ware.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his intention, before entirely prohibiting the practice of lining hollow ware with any percentage of lead included in the tinning process, at the same time to prohibit the importation of hollow ware the lining of which contains any percentage of lead.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I understand the hon. Member to refer to the proposal in the draft regulations recently issued by me to prohibit the use of lead in the tinning of metal hollow ware. Careful inquiries were made before the draft was issued as to competition from foreign manufacturers, and though exact information was not obtainable, the result was to show that little or no ware of this kind tinned with lead is imported into this country. I would refer the hon. Member to page 14 of the Report on this subject which has been presented to Parliament, 1907–Cd. 3793.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: Cannot this trade claim the same assistance from the Home Secretary as the phosphorous match trade is getting in the Bill now under consideration?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed that there is practically no deleterious lead in this imported hollow ware. In the case of phosphorous matches there is grave danger to those employed in the manufacture.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: What foreign countries gave information freely on the question?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps the hon. Member will consult the Report to which I have referred.

    Linlithgow Miners' Disturbance.
    SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the naturalisation papers of two Polish miners known as George M'Intosh and Charles Robertson, who were fined at the Linlithgow Sheriff Court for behaving in a disorderly manner at the house of a third Polish miner known as James Wilson were taken out.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The names mentioned in the Question do not appear in the Register of Naturalised Aliens.

    Deportation of Aliens.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the recent order for the deportation of an alien who was leaving

    671
    his children behind in this country to be supported out of the rates; and whether he proposes to take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to render possible the deportation of the alien with his wife and children to the country from which he came.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I presume the hon. Member refers to the case of an alien named Schafer, as to which reports have recently appeared in the newspapers. If so, I think he is not in full possession of the facts. The alien's wife is dead, and I do not propose to take any steps with a view to expelling from the United Kingdom with this alien his two children who are British subjects, and who were the victims of the neglect and ill-treatment which led to his sentence of nine months imprisonment. Before, however, making an expulsion order against this man, I arranged with the director of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who had prosecuted the man, that he would undertake the responsibility of making provision for the children; and I caused the Marylebone Board of Guardians, who had charge of the children during their father's imprisonment, to be informed of this. It is incorrect, therefore, to say that they are left to be supported out of the rates.

    Chelmsford Election Disturbances
    MR. CORRIE GRANTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention had been called to the proceedings at Ingatestone last night, when the doors of the hall in which a meeting was about to be held were broken open, the two agents in charge of the meeting assaulted, thrown down, trampled upon, dragged out with ropes, and one of them, Mr. James Martin, seriously injured; that three policemen of the Essex constabulary were present the whole time, but did not interfere, and did not arrest any of the rioters; whether the Home Secretary would at once inquire of the chief constable of Essex what police assistance he requires from London or elsewhere in maintaining order in his district.
    EARL WINTERTONasked the Home Secretary whether he did not say in reply to a Question in reference to riotous conduct in the Mid-
    672
    Devon election that it was impossible for the Home Secretary to interfere with the jurisdiction of the local constabulary.
    MR. CROOKS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question of the noble Lord, will he state whether the police decided that these rioters at Ingatestone were young men of the loafing class or "gentlemen of high spirit and culture"?
    MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to the noble Lord, I am not at present aware that there is any parallel between the case of Newton Abbot and the case of Ingatestone. As regards the Question of my hon. friend, t am only cognisant of the facts as stated in the newspapers, but of course I will at once make inquiries.
    MR. FORSTERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that all who sat on the Opposition benches in that House deeply deplored the occurrences referred to, and the fact that a few persons had been guilty of so flagrant a breach of decency and good order? They all regretted the examples which had been sot in other elections in other parts of England.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid he quite accepted what had fallen from his hon. friend opposite. So far as he was concerned, he deplored and condemned all these violent exhibitions of party feeling.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDinquired if the Home Secretary's attention had been called to the fact that these gentlemen had been, carted about from one part of the constituency to another, and could he say at whose expense the carting was being done?
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what the English papers would have said if this had happened in Ireland?
    MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he had just received a telephone message from the son of the injured man, Mr. Martin, announcing that the very grave apprehensions formed last night as to Mr. Martin's state had been removed, and that he had improved.

    Copinshay (Orkney)—Lighthouse required.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the fact that a lighthouse and fog-signal at Copinshay, Orkney, has long been urged by the Northern Lights Commissioners, and that the light is urgently demanded, not only by reason of the extent of shipping but by the heavy tides prevailing, he will now give the consent of the Board of Trade to its construction.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY,: Proposals for a lighthouse and fog-signal at Copinshay were made by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses in their estimates for 1907–8 and 1908–9, but the Board of Trade, after consultation with the Advisory Committee on New Lighthouse Works, considered that these works were less urgent than others proposed by the Commissioners. The proposal appears again in the estimates for the next financial year, and will be carefully considered.

    Railway Working Agreements.
    MR WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has had a copy of the agreement between the Great Northern and Great Central Railway Companies; if so, will he lay the same upon the Table of the House; and, if he has not had a copy of such agreement, will he endeavour to obtain the same and lay it upon the Table of the House.
    I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has had a copy of the agreement between the North British and the Caledonian Railway Companies; and, if so, will he lay the same upon the Table of the House; and, if he has not had a copy of such agreement, will he endeavour to obtain the same and lay it upon the Table of the House.
    I beg further to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has had a copy of the agreement between the London and North Western and Midland Railway Companies; if so, will he lay the same upon the Table of the House; and, if he has not had a copy of such agreement, will he endeavour to obtain the same and lay it upon the Table of the House.
    SIR H. KEARLEY: I understand that no formal agreement has been entered into by the Great Northern and Great Central Companies alone, but as I informed the hon. Member on the 17th inst., an agreement between these two companies and the Great Eastern Railway Company is to be submitted to Parliament in the form of a Bill. As regards the agreements between the other railway companies referred to I should explain that the companies concerned are not under any obligation to deposit copies of such agreements at the Board of Trade. I may take this opportunity of adding that the whole subject of railway agreements of the class to which these Questions relate and of their relation to the general interests of the public is receiving the most careful examination at the Board of Trade and that my right hon. friend proposes to make a statement with regard thereto early in next session.
    MR. WARDLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although a Bill is to be brought in next session, the Great Northern and Great Central are working in agreement at the present moment?
    SIR H. KEARLEY: The whole thing is receiving the most careful attention at the hands of my right hon. friend, and I cannot say more at the moment than that he will make a statement as to the whole of these agreements at the beginning of next session.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Meanwhile will the Board of Trade refuse to sanction any agreement?
    SIR H. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade have no power to forbid agreements which do not come under the provisions of the Railway Clauses Act, 1863.
    MR. REESinquired whether, when this matter was under consideration, the interests of stockholders also would be taken into account.
    SIR H. KEARLEYsaid that was not a question which arose out of his reply, but no doubt all the interests concerned would be considered.
    MR. WARDLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a Select Committee sat

    675
    on this subject in 1872 and distinctly stated that these agreements were illegal?
    SIR H. KEARLEY: I have no doubt that is so.

    Railway and Canal Commission.
    MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what has been the cost of the Railway and Canal Commission during the last ten years; how many cases have been brought before the Commission; how many of those cases have been decided in favour of the applicants, how many in favour of the defendants, and how many are still unsettled; on how many days in each of the ten years the Commission sat; and the average cost of each case decided by the Commission.
    SIR H. KEARLEY: The expenditure of the Railway and Canal Commission during the ten years ended March 31st last amounted to nearly £63,000, and I am sending the hon. Member the figures for each of the years in question. The Court sat on forty-three days in 1907. The number of its sittings in each of the ten previous years together with particulars of the applications dealt with, etc., will be found on page 36 of the Judicial Statistics for England and Wales for 1906 which is in the Library.

    Unemployment Statistics.
    EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the precise difficulties which his Department has met with in attempting to obtain accurate comparable statistics of trade union unemployment in this country and in Germany.
    SIR H. KEARLEY: I would refer the noble Lord to Appendix IX. (pp. 521–4) of the Report on "Cost of Living in German Towns" [Cd. 4032] issued by the Board of Trade last April in which the difficulties are set out in detail.
    EARL WINTERTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. colleague some time ago said he was endeavouring to obtain a more accurate comparison of the amount of unemployment and would make a further statement? I want to know what special difficulties he has met with.
    SIR H. KEARLEY: They are set out in detail in the paper I have referred to.
    EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can, from information in the possession of his Department, state if the difference in the method of obtaining statistics relating to trade union unemployment in this country and in Germany is so great as to render the statistics given in the Board of Trade Labour Gazette of unemployment in September 1908 in the two countries valueless for the purposes of comparison.
    SIR H. KEARLEY: The difficulties referred to in my Answer to the previous Question (which are not solely or mainly due to differences in the method of obtaining the statistics) are in the judgment of the Board of Trade so great as to render any useful comparison between the two sets of figures impossible.
    EARL WINTERTON: Then are we to understand that in 1908 the percentage of unemployment in Germany was 2·4, while in England it was 6 or 7. Are we to accept that as the effect of his Answer?
    SIR H. KEARLEY'Sreply was inaudible.

    Imports of Roofing Slates.
    MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of roofing slates were imported into the United Kingdom during the year ending 31st December, 1907, from the United States and Newfoundland respectively.
    SIR H. KEARLEY: The imports of roofing slates into the United Kingdom in 1907 which were consigned from the United States amounted to 4,085 tons. No roofing slates were consigned to the United Kingdom in that year from Newfoundland.

    Women Teachers.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can inform the House how many women teachers are teachers who hold certificates, and how many teachers who do not hold certificates, and the present number of women teachers holding certificates in England who are out of

    677
    employment; and whether schools could be found for them if the classes were brought down to reasonable proportions of say forty.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. TREVELYAN,: On the last day of the school year 1906–07, there were 58,845 women certificated teachers employed in public elementary schools, and 57,276 women teachers who were not certificated. I have no statistics as to the number who are out of employment.

    Irish Teachers.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education why it is that Irish teachers, having been trained for the prescribed two years course in a Dublin training college, and passed the revised examination, and received their Irish diploma, are recognised by the Board of Education in England simply as uncertificated teachers, and only receive the salary of untrained teachers, with no hope of future promotion, although no adverse report would have been received from the Irish Commissioners, while the training and examination for Irish teachers is the more difficult of the two, having a similar examination, but with additional subjects; and if the Code makes no distinction between trained and untrained teachers, how is it that a trained teacher receives £90 a year on leaving college, while the untrained teacher starts with £75 a year; and, if they are classed alike, why does this difference of £15 per year exist.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. Teachers who have passed the revised examination after a course of training in an Irish training college, and have received a diploma from the Irish Commissioners of National Education are qualified for recognition as certificated teachers. The present Code makes no distinction between trained and untrained teachers, and no occasion has, therefore, arisen for the Board of Education to decide in which category these teachers should be placed, but I must not be taken as admitting the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement that the course of training and examination in Irish training colleges is more exacting than in English
    678
    colleges. A teacher's salary is determined by the local education authority by whom he is employed, and is not subject to control by the Board of Education.
    MR. NANNETTIasked if certificated Irish teachers were not paid lower salaries than their English colleagues?
    MR. TREVELYAN: I am not aware of that, but will inquire into any facts laid before me.

    Systematic Moral Instruction.
    MR. G. GOOCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, if the Education Bill becomes law, the local education authorities which now give systematic moral instruction during the time ordinarily set apart for religious instruction will be able to continue to give such teaching at the same hour as at present.
    MR. TREVELYAN: There is nothing in Clause 1 (2) (b) to prevent the giving of systematic moral instruction during the time referred to.

    Denominational Definitions.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what is meant by any specified religious denomination in clause 1 (2) (a) of the new Education Bill; and whether he will give a list of such denominations.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The words in the clause are intended to mean precisely what they say. A list of the various denominations in this country is to be found in many books of reference.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: In consequence of the hon. Member's answer, I shall call attention to this matter at the Committee stage, if closure permits.

    Plant of Contracting-out Schools.
    SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if the furniture, plant, and equipment placed in existing non-provided schools since 1902 will be surrendered to the local education authority in the event of such schools contracting out of the new Act.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The law as to the ownership of school furniture in contracted-out schools is not in any way altered by the Bill.

    Boy Clerkships.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that numerous intending candidates for boy clerkships who have been studying for examination under the present regulations and who are over sixteen years of age would be precluded by the new regulations from going in for examination, he can arrange that one more examination shall be held to which candidates up to seventeen years of age will be admitted.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,: It was announced in July that the competition for boy clerkships held last September would be the last held under the old regulations. Boys who have passed the new age limit of sixteen are eligible to compete for the second division and all the subjects prescribed for the examination for boy clerkships find a place in the scheme of examination for the second division. I am informed that it is undesirable to delay the introduction of the new scheme and impracticable to combine the proposed higher limit of entry with the reduce period of service.

    Government Blotting Paper Contracts.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Messrs. Huber Brothers, writing on 13th March, 1906, offered to supply the Government with any sort of blotting paper at a price just below the cost of production, and much under the price the Government were then paying; whether the Government refused and gave as an answer a reference to a former answer on 20th March, 1905, to the effect that blotting papers were obtained from mills in the United Kingdom, and that, therefore, Huber Brothers were not eligible to tender; and whether the Government will apply the same principle of British work for British workers to all Government requirements, so as to provide work and wages for the unemployed.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: I understand the facts of this case to be as follows:— On 13th March, 1906, Messrs. Huber Brothers wrote repeating former offers to supply the Stationery Office with their make of blotting paper. They declared their readiness to do so at a price which, they stated, represented a slight loss on the cost of production, and which would be less than the Department was paying for blotting paper stated by Messrs. Huber to be not so absorbent, not so strong, and not so lasting as theirs. The paper of Messrs. Huber had been previously thoroughly tested, and it was found that, as compared with the blotting papers which the Department was purchasing, it was no more absorbent, that it was inferior as regards the quality of material, and that it cost two and a half times as much. It was, moreover, of foreign manufacture, and as all ordinary papers for the use of Government Departments are purchased direct from mills in the United Kingdom, (see Cd. 2083 of 1904 p. 23), they were so informed and told that their firm was thus not eligible to tender for such supplies. I am unable to give the pledge asked for in the last paragraph.
    MR. HUNTasked it Messrs. Huber Brothers did not offer to supply blotting paper of any specification but were refused permission to quote simply because the blotting paper was not made in England.
    MR. HODGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a new blotting paper made in Shropshire and named Boadicea?
    MR. HOBHOUSEreplied that he could not go into details without notice.

    Meat Supplies and Prices.
    MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, owing to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States of America, which will doubtless decrease the meat supply of this country, so largely dependent upon America, he will withdraw the Order preventing Norway and Sweden from exporting live cattle for slaughter into this country.
    THE TREASURES OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. STRACHEY,: The action taken by the Board under the Diseases of Animals Acts must be governed by considerations of the risk of the introduction of disease into this country, and the Board are not prepared in the present circumstances to adopt my hon. friend's suggestion. I may add that the live imports from the United States represent altogether less than 5 per cent. of our total meat supply (home and foreign).
    MR. B. S. STRAUS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if something is not done, owing to the control that the Americans have over the meat supply of this country, it will mean a very serious increase in the price of meat to the poor people of London at Christmas time?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I am aware that the Daily Mail on Monday said there would be an increase, but I am also aware that the Westminster Gazette says meat is likely to be even cheaper than usual this Christmas.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Is the Westminster Gazette a Government organ?
    MR. B. S. STRAUS: It is not a question of what the newspapers say. If foot-and-mouth disease has broken out, will it not mean a very serious increase in the price?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I am quite aware of that, and my hon. friend should not, therefore, rely upon newspapers for the foundation of his Questions on this matter.
    MR. WALTER LONGasked whether it was not a fact that the public, and especially the poorer classes, were much better served by the supply of dead meat, which was not subject to restrictions of this kind, and attending the importation of which there was no risk of disease.
    SIR EDWARD STEACHEYsaid he would not commit himself to the opinion that the public was better served, but the greater quantity of imported meat was dead meat, and not live meat.

    Small Holdings in Hampshire.
    MR. R. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he has information showing that the Hampshire County Council intend shortly to acquire 234 acres for small holdings, whereas the area applied for is 7,584 acres; and whether the Board, as the constituted judges in the matter, propose to make any representations to the council as to the advisability of their making greater use of their statutory powers.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board are informed that the county council are negotiating for other lands in addition to the 234 acres mentioned. We are in constant communication with the county council and representations were made by the Commissioner last August, urging the county council to use their compulsory powers wherever there was no immediate prospect of obtaining land by agreement.
    MR. R. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that in Hampshire, 499 applications have been made for 7,584 acres, out of which 168 applications have been refused as unsuitable and 226 applications for 2,354 acres provisionally approved; and will he say whether the decision as to suitability rests in the discretion of the county council; and, if not, whether the Commissioners or the Board propose to keep a central register of applications and to notify the unsuccessful applicants (who in this single case have asked for over 5,000 acres) that they have a power of appeal.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The figures given are approximately correct. The decision as to whether applicants are suitable or not rests in the first instance with the county council, but any applicant who is dissatisfied can write to the Board, who inquire into every such complaint. The Board do not think it necessary to keep a central register of applications.
    MR. R. HARCOURT: May I ask my hon. friend if his attention has been called to a recent discussion in the Hants

    683
    County Council, when the Earl of North-brook said that the council had "built slowly, carefully, deliberately and with circumspection" and whether the Board do not think that the carefulness and circumspection are being a little overdone?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: It all depends on the degree of slowness.

    Small Holdings Commissioners.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state the number of Land Commissioners employed under the Small Holdings Act; what is their salary; how often do they report; what are the hours they are expected to give to their department; and how many days per week are they so engaged.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Two Commissioners are employed at a salary of £1,200 per annum. They report daily and are subject to the Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service.

    Board of Agriculture.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state the number of persons who comprise this Board and their names, how often do they meet, the dates upon which they have met during this year, and the place of meeting; whether he can state the average number of hours per meeting the Board is occupied with the deliberations of its Department; and how many of the members of the Board are Members of this House.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board consists of eleven members, namely: a President, the President of the Council, the principal Secretaries of State, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Secretary for Scotland. Six are Members of this House. There is no record of the Board, as such, having ever met.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: What salaries do these gentlemen get?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The salaries attaching to their respective offices.

    Administration of the Small Holdings Act.
    MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that certain county councils are providing the names of applicants for small holdings to landowners; and whether, in view of the unsatisfactory position of small holders in Ireland and Wales holding under private landowners without security of tenure, he will point out to the councils that the requirements of the applicants should be supplied by the councils direct, so as to secure them the benefits provided by the Act.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board have already informed certain county councils that the names of applicants should not be furnished to private landowners without their consent, and we have reason to suppose that in those cases the practice has been discontinued. If an applicant desires to hold direct from the county council it is the duty of the county council to meet his wishes in this respect provided he would be a suitable tenant of a small holding.

    Mayo Cattle-drives.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Saturday night, the 7th November last, an extensive cattle-drive took place at Towerhill and at a place called Waterford, in County Mayo; whether he can state if all the stock has been recovered by the police stationed at Hollymount and Ballyglass; how many arrests have been made; and what sentences have been passed on the perpetrators of the outrages.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,: This appears to be the case referred to in the Question asked by the hon. and gallant Member on the 17th inst. I have nothing to add to my reply to that Question.

    Riverstown Disturbances—Death of John Stenson.
    Mr. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the inquest held on John Stenson no evidence but that tendered by the police would be received by the coroner, and that the coroner assigned as his reason for refusing to receive evidence tendered by civilians that a magisterial investigation into the death of John Stenson would subsequently be held; what authority had the coroner for making that statement, and for refusing to hear the evidence of civilians; is he aware that persons who were in company with Stenson when he was shot are prepared to give evidence; that the refusal of the Irish Government to hold a public sworn inquiry gives colour to the belief prevalent in the locality to the effect that the police had received instructions to fire on the people; and will he see that the inquiry asked for will be held without further delay.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that the county council of Sligo, as well as all the other representative public bodies of the county, have passed resolutions, unanimously adopted in each case, calling for a public sworn inquiry into the circumstance surrounding the death of John Stenson, which took place at Riverstown, County Sligo, on the 29th October last; whether he is aware that a similar resolution, in connection with this case, was adopted by seven magistrates assembled at the Riverstown Petty Sessions Court, on the 5th inst.; and whether, seeing that the opinion prevailing amonst all classes in the neighbourhood of Riverstown is that an inquiry should be held, he will consider the advisability of holding such inquiry on an early date.
    MR. BIRRELL: The allegations contained in the first Question as to what took place at the coroner's inquest are new to me, and I have had no opportunity of investigating them. For my own information I will send some one in whose judgment I have confidence to make inquiries with regard to these statements, and to let me know the result. As to holding the inquiry
    686
    referred to in the Questions, I have nothing to add to my Answers given both to the hon. Member himself and to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh on the 5th inst.

    State Purchase of Irish Railways.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Gerald Balfour, when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, obtained by request from Mr. Thomas Robertson, the then chairman of the Irish Board of Works, two estimates relating to State purchase of the railways of Ireland; whether one was for total purchase and the other for the cost of guaranteeing dividends to the shareholders, under an arrangement securing to the Government complete control and working of the systems; whether he has any objection to produce those documents-for the information of the House; and will he submit them to the Royal Commission on Irish Railways now sitting for their consideration and report.
    MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for South Roscommon on the 10th June, 1907.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with Mr. Gerald Balfour and ask him if he had such a report at the Irish Office, and what has come of it?
    MR. BIRRELL: I will make further inquiry.

    United Irish League.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain from the constabulary authorities the number of branches of the United Irish League in the counties of Leitrim, Longford, Galway, Roscommon, Clare, and Westmeath, respectively, and the proportion of those that have been active, during the past twelve months, in passing, intimidatory and boycotting resolutions which were subsequently published in the local newspapers.
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not propose to make the inquiries suggested by the hon. Member.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse the information in this case? He has already supplied it with reference to another county.
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not think it is any part of the business of the police to make exhaustive inquiries all over Ireland as to the nature of associations of this kind.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it not the fact that these United Irish League branches are the centres from which nearly all the disturbances arise, and is not that therefore a reason for procuring the information?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Threatening Notice to a Galway Magistrate.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any official information showing that one magistrate at least of County Galway has received a notice threatening him with the same death that befell his father if he attended Loughrea Petty Sessions; and, if so, will he explain the statement that there was no such case during the past two years.
    MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact that a letter was received in July 1907 by a Galway magistrate warning him not to attend Loughrea Petty Sessions. The letter did not contain an actual threat of the kind mentioned in the Question, but it was no doubt intended to intimidate. The letter was unfortunately overlooked when the police records were being searched for the purpose of replying to the Question asked by the hon. Member on the 12th instant.

    Riverstown United Irish League.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings on the adjourned hearing at Ballymote Petty Sessions, on the 12th instant, of summonses charging twenty-one members and officers of the United Irish League with intimidation designed to compel Protestant farmers of the Riverstown district to become members of the League,
    688
    and to subscribe to its funds; and whether, in view of the decision arrived at by a majority of the justices again to adjourn the cases until February next without hearing any evidence for the prosecution, it is the intention of the Crown to make immediate application to the King's Bench Division of the High Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the justices to hear and determine the cases.
    MR. BIRRELL: This matter is at present under the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown, and it would not be in accordance with the public interest to make any statement upon the subject.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Law Officers of the Crown to take to make up their minds on a point on which any ordinary person could make up his mind in ten minutes?
    MR. BIRRELL: The Government have to put up with the Law Officers they have at present.

    Cost of Teaching Irish in Irish Schools.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the total expenditure, actual and pending, from Imperial funds incurred by the payment of fees for the teaching of Irish as an extra subject in national schools during the past school year; what was the additional administrative expenditure incurred during the same period by reason of the liability for payment of such fees; whether the Government, in prescribing existing scale of fees, took the precaution of imposing any limitation on the maximum amount of expenditure that may be incurred from Imperial funds for this service; and, if not, will he ask the Commissioners of National Education to furnish an estimate of the expenditure that may ultimately be reached on the basis of the fees now paid.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education estimate that the total expenditure on the teaching of Irish as an extra subject during the past school year, along with the fees for bilingual schools, will amount to slightly less than £15,000. The additional administrative

    689
    expenditure was trifling, but the staff of organisers and inspectors employed in consequence of the increase of instruction in Irish cost about £2,500. The fees are paid according to a fixed scale, and the regulations governing the allocation of the grants are very stringent.

    Price of Land in County Clare.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the average number of years purchase paid for land in County Clare under the Act of 1903.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the purchase money of holdings in County Clare in respect of which purchase agreements have been lodged under the Irish Land Act, 1903, represents an average of 20·7 years purchase of the rental.

    Boxwell Evicted Tenants.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Boxwell evicted tenants have been out of their homes for over twenty years, and that on the 23rd of July last, the Estates Commissioners furnished the owner with the estimate of the price which they are prepared to offer for the estate; will he say whether the owner has accepted the offer of the Estates Commissioners; and, if not, will they consider the advisability of taking up the estate compulsorily and selling it to the tenants.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that in this case the owner has refused to sell at the price estimated by them, and that on the 20th November they published in the Dublin Gazette a notice of their intention to acquire the lands compulsorily under the Evicted Tenants Act.
    MR. FFRENCH: I hope the tenants will get back in time to sow the spring crops.
    MR. BIRRELL: I should be sorry to express an opinion. We will do our best.

    Police Action Against Cattle-Drivers.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
    690
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any special instructions have been issued authorising the police in certain cases of cattle-driving to arrest the offenders and bring them before a single resident magistrate out of petty sessions, with a view to their being bound over to future good behaviour under the statute of Edward III.; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of these instructions.
    MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Attorney-General to a similiar Question asked by him on the 11th instant. Any instructions issued to the police are of a confidential nature, and it would be contrary to public policy to lay them on the Table.

    Boycotted Protestants at Riverstown.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the authorities first became aware that persons were being boycotted in the Riverstown district for refusing to subscribe to the funds of the United Irish League, what action was taken; and at what date did the authorities move in the matter.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the cases of the Protestants in the Riverstown district who have been boycotted for some months past were included in the statistics of boycotting recently given: and, if so, whether these cases were classified as serious or minor boycotting; and what was the total number of persons comprised in the cases so recorded.
    MR. BIRRELL: As a prosecution is pending in this case, it is not desirable to make any statement on the subject.

    Failure to Report Irish Outrages.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what are the reasons assigned by the Inspector-General and the local police for the failure of individuals who have been the object of serious outrages, affecting either their person or their property, to report such outrages promptly to the police.
    MR. BIRRELL: It would be utterly impossible to give the reason for withholding information in each individual case. Reports made to the Government by the police authorities must be regarded as strictly confidential.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: IS the right hon. Gentleman aware that we might put a great many Questions about police court cases in Ulster constituencies, but we do not believe in defiling our own nest?
    MR. BIRRELL: There are quite enough Questions put to me as it is.

    Cappamore (Limerick) Untenanted Lands.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that arrangements for sale and purchase have been concluded between Mrs. Lloyd, of Portnard, Cappamore, County Limerick, and her tenants; and will he recommend the Estates Commissioners to take measures for obtaining a few hundred acres of untenanted land outlying the demesne, from which about sixty years ago several families were evicted, in the interests of poor tenants and the people of the town of Cappamore and surrounding districts, to be apportioned among them, with the turbary attached to same.
    MR. BIRRELL: The purchase agreements in respect of this estate were only lodged on 10th October. When the Estates Commissioners are dealing with the estate in its order of priority they will make inquiry as regards the untenanted land referred to.

    Labourers' Cottages in County Clare.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say how many labourers' cottages have been erected in County Clare under all the Acts, and stating the number in each union.
    MR. BIRRELL: For the number of cottages erected in each rural district up to 31st March last, amounting in all to 518, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question asked by him on 14th July last. The Local Government Board cannot say how many cottages
    692
    have since been erected, but the additional number authorised was 714, distributed as follows:—Ballyvaughan, eighty-one; Corrofin, forty; Ennis, 125; Ennistymon, sixty-eight; Killadysert, forty-six; Kilrush, 125; Limerick (No. 2), fifty-six; Scariff, sixty-four; and Tulla, 109, making a grand total of 1,232 cottages built or authorised in Clare alone.

    Crime in County Clare.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of specially-reported cases in the county of Clare for the ten months ending 31st October, 1908 and also for the year 1907.
    MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that the number of offences specially reported in County Clare during the year 1907 was 149, and during the ten months ending 31st October last, 229.

    Holycross (Tipperary) Disturbances.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received particulars of the attack made upon the police at Holycross, County Tipperary, on Monday; how many policemen were injured; and how many persons were arrested.
    MR. BIRRELL: A district inspector and two constables were seriously injured on this occasion. The county inspector and some other constables were also struck with stones. Nineteen persons have been arrested and remanded. As proceedings are pending it is not desirable to make any further statement.
    MR. CULLINAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sole cause of this trouble is the fact that while the landlord agreed to sell land from which some seventy-two tenants had been evicted, the Estate Commissioners refused to take action?
    MR. BIRRELL: I cannot go into that, but I cannot help thinking this landlord is a very much injured man.

    Gortdromerillagh Outrage.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

    693
    of Ireland whether he has received particulars of a moonlighting outrage at Gortdromerillagh, near Firies, in the early morning of Thursday, 19th November, and an attack by masked men upon men proceeding to a certain quarry for lime on Friday; and whether any arrests have been made.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that at 1.30 a.m. on the date in question one or two men visited the house of Patrick Sullivan at Gortdromerillagh, smashed the window and fired some revolver shots outside the house, and warned Sullivan not to work any more at Firies Quarry. The following morning about 6 a.m. two men, who were driving to the same quarry for lime, were stopped by some men who ordered them to turn back, and fired two shots. It was dark on both occasions, and the men who fired the shots were not identified. The police have not therefore been able to make any arrests.

    The Mount St. Vincent Orphanage.
    MR. MACCAWI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the death of nine inmates of The Mount St. Vincent Orphanage, at Limerick, and the illness of forty-four others, as the result of eating meat which had been kept five days in the institution before being cooked; whether this orphanage receives any grant from public funds; whether it is inspected on behalf of any public authority; and whether it is intended to take any action with a view to safeguard the health and lives of the inmates of this and similar institutions.
    MR. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to this case. The institution is an industrial school and as such receives a capitation grant from the State and is subject to Government inspection. It also receives contributions from county and borough funds. It has always been regarded as one of the best female industrial schools in Ireland. This unfortunate occurrence was a misadventure which might have happened any where and is deeply regretted by the managers of the school.
    MR. JOYCE: Did not the medical gentleman who gave evidence at the inquest pay a high tribute to the manner in which this school is conducted?
    MR. BIRRELL: No doubt.
    MR. JOYCE: Why do hon. Members bring up such questions unless they wish to disparage the school?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: IS it in consonance with the practice of this House to make a great public calamity the vehicle for personal political attack?
    MR. SPEAKER: I deprecate it, but it has often occurred before.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Not on our side. It is a question of taste.

    Work of the Estates Commissioners.
    MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in Ireland among vendors of land and their tenants at the methods by which certain estates in the books of the Estates Commissioners appear to have gained an undue priority over others originally earlier in point of time; and if he will grant the Return to be moved for by the hon. Member for North Armagh.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am not aware of any ground for the suggestion that certain estates on the books of the Estates Commissioners have received undue priority, and I am not prepared to grant the Return asked for by the hon. Member.
    MR. CULLINAN: Has not the hon. Member for North Armagh been asking thirty one years purchase for his land?
    MR. BIRRELL: I cannot say.

    County Westmeath Police.
    SIR WALTER NUGENT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the free apportionment of police for the county Westmeath, prior to fixing same at 190 men in May, 1906; what was the basis on which the reduction was made, and why the original free allotment should

    695
    not be restored when more men were required; where the extra police at present in the county Westmeath were drafted from; if from the number allotted free to other counties, will he explain why they are not to be credited with cost of same; and if they have been drawn from the reserve at Dublin, why are they not paid from Imperial funds, as they would be if retained in Dublin.
    MR. BIRRELL: The free quota of police for the county of Westmeath was 235 men for the three years prior to May, 1906, when it was fixed at 190, under the authority of Section 1 of the Act, 48 Vic. cap. 12. No change in the free quota can be made until the end of the period of three years fixed by the Act. When the county was proclaimed under the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1836, detachments were serving in it drawn from the following counties: Cork fifteen, Kilkenny two, Mayo twelve, Waterford five, Wexford eight, Wicklow three. These detachments became by virtue of the proclamation and warrant an additional establishment under the Act, and ceased to belong to the counties from which they had been drawn. Steps were then taken to fill up the vacancies thus created in the counties named. As counties are not required to pay any part of the cost of their normal police force they are not entitled to any credit or payment in respect of men temporarily absent.

    Kilbeggan Cattle Drive.
    SIR WALTER NUGENT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the recent prosecution for alleged cattle - driving in Kilbeggan, County Westmeath; if he has any official information showing that the defendants thought they were carrying out a contract with the owner of the land, and not violating the law, is he aware that the evidence of the parish priest and the late occupier bears out this contention, and that it was admitted, during the hearing of the case, that the herds employed to look after the land assisted in removing the cattle; and whether in view of these facts, he will endeavour to get the alternative sentence of three months imprisonment passed on the defendants mitigated.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have no power to interfere with the decision of the magistrates in this case, nor would it be proper for me to discuss the evidence on which they acted.

    Kildorrery Labourer's Cottage.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain from the Labour Department of the Local Government Board the grounds upon which the claim of John McGrath for a labourer's cottage and acre plot on the farm of eighty acres occupied by Mr. John Therry, J.P., Springvale, Kildorrery, County Cork, has been rejected, seeing that the house occupied by John McGrath and his family of ten was condemned as unfit for human habitation by Dr. Browne, Local Government Board inspector, and by Dr. Buckley, district medical officer, and that the application of John McGrath was sanctioned by an inspector of the Local Government Board at an inquiry held at Mitchelstown last March; and whether he will take any action in the the matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have no information as to the grounds of the County Court Judge's decision in this case. That decision is final.

    Irish Land Bill.
    MR. MACCAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill is likely to be taken.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am in communication with the Prime Minister on this subject.

    Unemployment in Limerick.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a Distress Committee for the relief of the unemployed has been set up in Limerick; if so, what steps have been taken with a view to secure a grant; and whether any such grant has been made, and, if so, what is the amount.
    MR. BIRRELL: An order has been issued by the Local Government Board

    697
    enabling the corporation of Limerick to constitute a Distress Committee under the Unemployed Workmen Act. When the Committee is formed it will be open to it to apply for a grant from the unemployed fund, and the application when made will receive due consideration.

    Ballyfarnon Cattle Drive.
    SIR P. BANBURY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to an outrage which occurred last week near Ballyfarnon, County Roscommon, the residence of Miss Frazer, when three valuable cattle were driven off the farm and, after having had their tails cut off, were driven into a swamp and drowned; and what steps have been taken to bring the offenders to justice.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that on the night of the 11th instant four bullocks, the property of the Misses Frazer, were driven off their land and forced into a bog hole. The cattle were not drowned, nor were their tails cut. The police, with the assistance of some civilians, got them out of the bog. A claim for compensation has been lodged.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Mr. Speaker, is it not a rule of this House that any hon. Member putting down a Question should make himself responsible for the truth of the statements contained in it, and does not censure attach to the hon. Member for the City of London for putting a Question containing two absolutely false statements?
    MR. SPEAKER: The rule is that any Member who asks a Question makes himself responsible for the statements contained therein, but it sometimes happens that these statements turn out to be inaccurate.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Is not an expression of apology due from the hon. Gentleman?
    MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid a great deal of time would be occupied in this way.

    Irish Extra Police Charges.
    MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
    698
    Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how the charge of £43 6s. 0d. per annum for each extra head constable and £34 9s. 3d. per annum for each extra sergeant or constable made against Irish county councils is arrived at; and what are the items that make up the charge.
    MR. BIRRELL: The charges in question represent a moiety of the cost of the extra force arrived at in the manner prescribed by the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1874. The rate of charge for a head constable is fixed by the Act, while that for sergeants and constables is based upon an average of the cost of the entire constabulary force in Ireland, regard being had to the rate of pay sanctioned by the Act, and to the cost of clothing, medical attendance, barrack accommodation, local travelling expenses, and subsistence allowance.

    Galway Extra Police.
    MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many of the 346 extra police drafted into county Galway have been withdrawn, and whether he can state the intention of the Irish Government with regard to those that still remain.
    MR. BIRRELL: None of the extra police sent to county Galway have been withdrawn, and the reasons for sending them there still continue.

    Mr. Frank North's Kerry Estate.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of M. H. Franks in North Kerry has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners, and, if so, has it been bought by the Estates Commissioners, and when: and, if bought, whether the agent to the landlord has any power or authority at present to take proceedings for arrears of rent due on the estate.
    MR. BIRRELL: The estate in question has been offered to the Estates Commissioners, but they are not yet in a position to make an offer for its purchase.
    MR. FLAVIN: Was not this estate offered to the Commissioners eighteen months ago, and are negotiations still proceeding?
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not know. I will inquire.

    Killarney Fair Rent Appeals.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the decisions on the fair rent appeals heard before the Chief Land Commission at their last sitting in Killarney will be delivered.
    MR. BIRRELL: It is expected that judgments will be given shortly in these cases.
    MR. FLAVIN: Were not these decisions to have been given a month ago?
    MR. BIRRELL: No doubt there has been delay. I will press the matter forward if I can.

    King-Harman Estate Tenantry.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the month of July, 1905, agreements were entered into by the tenants of the King-Harman estate living in the parish of Ballinamuck to purchase their holdings at terms fixed by the Master of the Rolls, which included a handing over of the bogs for the benefit of the tenants; whether for the past three years no interest in lieu of rent was called for in respect of this property; whether he is aware that by notice dated 10th November, 1908, the tenants have been called upon to pay up their old rents at Longford on 2nd December; whether he is aware that this break up of the sale will mean ruin to the 100 families on this property; and whether, in the interest of peace in the district, he will ask the Estates Commissioners to arrange to take over this property at once on the terms sanctioned by the Master of the Rolls.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the agreements referred to appear to have been provisional agreements indicating the price at which the tenants would be prepared to purchase, in the event of proceedings being instituted for the sale of the property to the Commissioners. An originating request for such a sale has
    700
    now been lodged and will be dealt with by the Commissioners as soon as possible, with the view of making an offer under Section 6 of the Act of 1903. Until the offer has been made and accepted, and until undertakings to purchase have been obtained from the tenants, the latter continue to be liable for rent. The Commissioners have no knowledge of any proceedings which the receiver may have been directed to take for the collection of rents now due.

    Public Accounts Committee.
    EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to state if it will be possible to grant a day for discussing the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts.
    MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir; I am not in a position to make a statement on this matter.
    EARL WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider if it is possible before the end of the session to give even a part of a sitting for this purpose?
    MR. ASQUITH: I have already expressed my desire to do it, but I have found it impossible.

    Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill.
    MR. GLOVER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state the day the Report stage of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill will be taken.
    MR. ASQUITH: I hope that the Report stage will be taken the week after next.

    Parliament and the Ratification of Treaties.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in the light of recent circumstances, he will consider the advisability of making provision in some form that the assent of Parliament should be required to be given to the making of treaties by Great Britain with foreign Powers before the actual ratification of such treaties, with a view to the conferring on Parliament of a more direct control than it at present possesses over questions of foreign policy, having regard to the fact that Parliament is not consulted even as to the essence of a treaty.
    MR. ASQUITH: I am not prepared to give any positive assurance that no treaty concluded by His Majesty's Government will be ratified until Parliament has been consulted and its approval obtained. Such a course would involve a material change in the constitutional usage hitherto followed in this country, and could obviously only be adopted in pursuance of a formal debate and after mature consideration. Nor does it appear to me that any such alteration of procedure is really required, as it will usually happen that an opportunity for debate will be found in the considerable interval that generally takes place between the signature of a treaty and its ratification, and no diplomatic document would be ratified against the declared wishes of this House.
    MR. VERNEY: Is there any rule governing the class of treaties which do or do not demand the assent of Parliament?
    MR. ASQUITH: I ought to have notice of that, but I can say at once that if a treaty involves any alteration of statute law, of course the assent of Parliament is needed.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: IS the Prime Minister aware that a Motion in this House was all but carried in 1886, approving that treaties in some form should be submitted to this House before being ratified; and is he aware that only one week after Parliament was adjourned we heard for the first time of the promulgation and ratification of an important treaty—the Anglo-Russian Treaty?
    MR. ASQUITH: There is a great difference between a thing being carried and all but carried, and I do not quite know what importance my hon. friend attaches to the difference. I will look into the historical side of the matter.

    Pension Regulations.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it was his intention when moving the Old-Age Pensions Bill to exclude from its provisions those persons who were costing the guardians nothing, only the cost of collection or
    702
    distribution of moneys paid them for the dependants of certain persons, and whether he will take any action whereby the pension committees shall be empowered to include these as genuine applicants for pensions.
    MR. ASQUITH: The persons referred to are applicants for and recipients of poor law relief, and the disqualification was intended to be attached to the receipt of poor relief as such. It is not affected by the question whether the amount so received is a final charge against the rates or is recovered from a person or persons legally responsible for the maintenance of the pauper. The disqualification in these cases could be removed only by legislation.
    MR. CROOKS: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the relief is frequently not given to the applicants until it is received from the relatives, and there is therefore no actual charge on the rates?
    MR. ASQUITH: I will look into the matter.

    Disturbances at Cashel.
    MR. CONDONin accordance with private notice asked the Irish Secretary if he was aware that on Tuesday last on the occasion of the trial of eight respectable young men at Cashel the police charged through the streets knocking down men, women, and children, striking them with batons while on the ground, and batoning old women as well; and that at night they paraded the streets, burst into private houses and batoned the inmates, and arrested a number of people returning home from an entertainment; also—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice in the usual way.
    MR. CONDON: It is a matter of public inquiry.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should have first submitted it to me. I cannot tell hearing it in that way whether it is urgent.
    MR. CONDON: I gave notice to the Chief Secretary last night.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he wished to ask the Prime Minister a question. It was certainly contrary to public practice, and almost indecent, that they should be asked on Monday to begin the discussion of the Committee stage of the Education Bill, which raised every sort of difficulty, and affected the interests of every part of the country, and could not be regarded as an agreed Bill; and whether under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to put off to a later date than Monday the discussion in Committee.
MR. CROOKS: May I ask whether, before the Prime Minister replies to that, he will send a message up to Lansdowne-house and hear what is said there?
MR. ASQUITHsaid he must take strong exception to the use of the word "indecent." His sole desire in a matter of this kind, and on a Bill which was not controversial, was to meet the convenience of the House. The only chance of this Bill securing the Royal Assent was that it should be regarded as, in substance, a non-contentious Bill. There was no desire on the part of the Government to press it with undue haste, but they must all consider the time of year. They must also bear in mind the fact that, if the Bill was to receive the Royal Assent, it must not only pass through this House, but through another place. With the view of carrying out the legislation the Government had in view, it would be better to commence the Committee stage on Monday. The choice was between doing that or postponing it until Tuesday, and curtailing the interval between the Committee stage and the Report stage. If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends opposite thought they would prefer the later alternative, he should be willing to meet their wishes, but he believed the general convenience of the House would be better served by commencing the Committee stage on Monday.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That does not reply to my point. My point was that it is absolutely unprecedented haste in carrying through a measure of this importance. I do not know that anything will be gained if we are not allowed the ordinary space of time habitually given when very big measures are discussed in this House, and if the right hon. Gentle-man persists in putting down the Committee stage for Monday, I will say no more at the present time.
LORD R. CECIL: Is it the purpose of the Government to have a Saturday sitting next week for the purpose of considering this Bill?
MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid that may be necessary.

SELECTION STANDING COMMITTEES.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills the following Twelve Members (in respect of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Bill and the Local Government (Scotland) Bill: Mr. M'Killop, Mr. Barrie, Sir Berkeley Sheffield, Mr. Henry Gooch, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Lord John Joicey Cecil, Earl of Ronaldshay, Mr. Waldron, Sir Clement Hill, Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh, Mr. M'Kean, and Major Renton.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) No. 2) BILL).
Motion made and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Elementary Education (England and Wales (No. 2) Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of this House)." —(Mr. Asquith).
The House divided: — Ayes, 239; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 416).

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Alden, Percy

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Armitage, R.

Barker, Sir John

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barnard, E. B.

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

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Beale, W. P.

Henry, Charles S.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Beauchamp, E.

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

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

Beck, A. Cecil

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

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

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

Higham, John Sharp

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Bennett, E. N.

Hodge, John

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pullar, Sir Robert

Slack, Arthur W.

Holt, Richard Durning

Radford, G. H.

Brigg, John

Hooper, A. G.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Brooke, Stopford

Horniman, Emslie John

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

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

Hudson, Walter

Rees, J. D.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hyde, Clarendon

Ridsdale, E. A.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Idris, T. H. W.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Byles, William Pollard

Illingworth, Percy H.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Robinson, S.

Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

Jardine, Sir J.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Chance, Frederick William

Jenkins, J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rose, Charles Day

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rowlands, J.

Clough, William

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jordan, Jeremiah

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jowett, F. W.

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

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Cooper, G. J.

Kekewich, Sir George

Scott A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Seely, Colonel

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Laidlaw, Robert

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

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

Cox, Harold

Lamont, Norman

Sherwell, Arthur James

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Crooks, William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lewis, John Herbert

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Stanger, H. Y.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

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

Lupton, Arnold

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Duckworth, Sir James

Lyell, Charles Henry

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lynch, H. B.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Strauss, E. A. (Abindgon)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor

Maclean, Donald

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Summerbell, T.

Essex, R. W.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macpherson, J. T.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Callum, John M.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

M'Crae, Sir George

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

Ferens, T. R.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Micking, Major G.

Tomkinson, James

Findlay, Alexander

Maddison, Frederick

Toulmin, George

Gill, A. H.

Mallet, Charles E.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Marnham, F. J.

Ure, Alexander

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

Massie, J.

Verney, F. W.

Glendinning, R. G.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Vivian, Henry

Glover, Thomas

Menzies, Walter

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Middlebrook, William

Walsh, Stephen

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Walters, John Tudor

Grant, Corrie

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Walton, Joseph

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Wardle, George J.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Morrell, Philip

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Grey, Rt. Hon Sir Edward

Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Gulland, John W.

Napier, T. B.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Grurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Nicholls, George

Waterlow, D. S.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

Watt, Henry A.

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whitbread, Howard

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Harvey, W. R (Derbyshire, N.E

Partington, Oswald

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

Harwood, George

Paul, Herbert

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Paulton, James Mellor

Wiles Thomas

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Perks, Sir Robert William

Wilkie, Alexander

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth),

Hedges, A. Paget

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

706

707

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Winfrey, R.

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

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

Yoxall, James Henry

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Morpeth, Viscount

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fletcher, J. S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Ashley, W. W.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Oddy, John James

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, J.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Gretton, John

Percy, Earl

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

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

Renton, Leslie

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Renwick, George

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hills, J. W.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, John (Lancashire).

Castlereagh, Viscount

Joynson-Hicks, William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Kerry, Earl of

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Courthope, G. Lloyd

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Thornton, Percy M.

Cross, Alexander

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Winterton, Earl

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Doughty, Sir George

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Duncan, Robt.(Lanark, Govan)

Magnus, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Forster and Lord Edmund Talbot.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Fell, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (No. 2) BILL.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [25th November], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Which Amendment was—
"To leave out the word 'now' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Hutton.)
Question again proposed "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the House will expect that I should say something on the subject which is engaging all our thoughts; but I desire to preface such remarks as I have to make by the observation that I can only, upon this matter, speak for myself alone. A compromise, or proposed compromise, of this kind, especially with the notice that we have had of it, cannot be regarded as one on which organised opinion can be stated, and I desire to commit nobody but myself to the point of view which I shall endeavour to
708
lay before the House. May I also say that I approach this burning topic with a very special sense of the difficulty of the situation and with the responsibility which attaches to any man who makes the prospect of peace, if prospect of peace there be, more difficult to attain. And certainly, although. I cannot think that what I shall say will be agreeable to or consonant with the views of His Majesty's Government, still I think that, when I sit down, they will admit that I have endeavoured as far as possible to avoid anything in the nature of provocative retort or unnecessary acerbity of statement. That course is the easier because I do not think that I am required to discuss the merits of the Bill before the House. I do not think it is the merits of the Bill which are, indeed, under discussion. It is not whether the new system of education which the Government measure contemplates is in itself a desirable system—that is not the point, or at any rate the main point, with which we are dealing. What I conceive; the House has got to think of—what each of us has got to think of—in the vote that

709
we stall be asked to give to-night, and in the votes that we shall be asked to give on subsequent stages of the measure, is not the mere bare merits of the Bill, but the question—Is this or is it not what it professes to be, a settlement of the education question?—and it is to that point, and to that point alone, that I desire to address myself. I am quite aware that many Gentlemen naturally have not restricted themselves to that aspect of the question. We have had speeches from both sides of the House explaining how far the solution of the Government departs from the various ideals which Members of this House have formed for themselves as to what ought to be our educational system. The mover of the Amendment we are now discussing—the hon. Member for Morley— gave a description of what he regarded as the consequences of this Bill, which I think must have almost converted some of my friends to the belief that it was an exceedingly good measure for the Church. On the other hand, there have been speeches delivered from this side of the House which I am quite sure suggested to the Nonconformist auditor that after all, perhaps, this measure does not carry with it the peril to the sacredness from denominational teaching of the provided schools which they were afraid it would involve. Those Members on different sides of the House who have discussed the merits of the Bill have probably gone far to converting their opponents to the desirability of supporting it. But I do not propose to enter into the lists either with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Morley or with any of the friends on my side of the House who take the very gloomiest view as to the actual working of the measure, or as to the probability that the measure really would carry out what the Government said they desire to see carried out. I do not propose to discuss that in detail. I am going to confine myself strictly to the question: Is this going to give us—what we all desire—a final settlement—a settlement final within the ordinary reasonable outlook of reasonable men—is it going to give us a settlement of the vexed education question as far as we in this House can look forward? Many Gentlemen seem to think that this Bill is going to give us a settlement because it is a com-
710
promise; but while I quite admit that almost every final settlement of any controverted question has in it elements of compromise, I would venture to point out to the House that a compromise is not necessarily a settlement, and we have got to consider the terms of this compromise to see whether or not it does carry within it elements of a permanent or quasi-permanent settlement. After all, if the-Bill is not a settlement, it is nothing. Nobody defends it on its merits. It has not found in this House, in the whole course of yesterday's debate, so far as I know, one single individual sitting in any quarter of the House as representing any section of public opinion who does not think from his own point of view it is a bad Bill. The Government do not think it a good Bill; the hon. Member for Morley thinks it is an abominable Bill. The spokesman of the Irish Party on this occasion denounced it, or that part of it which affected his co-religionists, in the most uncompromising manner, and nobody who spoke upon these benches, whether they look forward with hope, as does my hon. friend the late Secretary for Education, or whether they look forward without hope, to the future of the measure—not one single individual has found anything to say for it on its intrinsic merits. If it is not a settlement, it is nothing. What ground have the Government for believing and hoping that it is to be a settlement? The President of the Board of Education brought it forward yesterday as if it was in the nature of an agreed treaty between high contracting parties, and, no doubt, like other treaties between high contracting parties, it embodied provisions which neither of the contracting parties wholly approve, but to which they were ready to assent, and on which they were ready to make a permanent treaty of peace. That was the contention of the Government. Who were the high contracting parties? Between whom was the treaty made? A treaty of peace between two countries may carry with it the most admirable and desirable consequences, because each is bound in honour to carry out, even to its disadvantage or partial disadvantage, the provisions of the treaty. Who bound themselves by this treaty? Are the Government bound in the future?

711
Are the Church party bound? Are hon. Gentlemen opposite bound? Are my hon. friends behind me bound, or the Irish—those for whom the Member for the Scotland Division spoke yesterday? Are the Nonconformist divines bound? Are the bishops bound? I confess I am deeply impressed by the extraordinarily unpractical position, cloudy, obscure, ambiguous, in which we all find ourselves at the present moment in connection with this matter. Let me just go through these various interested parties to whom I have referred. Take the Nonconformist divines. As I understand their attitude, as explicitly stated by high authorities like Dr. Clifford, they say this may be tolerable as a step towards what they call a national system. Quite so. That which is recommended or accepted only as a step cannot in the nature of things be regarded as a settlement. I do not think I shall be accused in this matter of at all exaggerating the attitude which Dr. Clifford and I am sure many gentlemen who are listening to me take up. They look upon the arrangement embodied in the Bill with the deepest distrust, and if they tolerate it at all, they tolerate it because they think it is a stepping-stone to something more in accordance with their preconceived ideas. I do not say the treaty of peace does not bind them, or that they do not mean to be bound by it; but neither Dr. Clifford outside this House nor gentlemen in this House who agree with Dr. Clifford will think of getting up here or elsewhere and saying: "We do not like this measure; we are not pledged to accept it; but we mean to accept it, not merely in this Session, but as a permanent settlement of the whole question." They will not do that; they do not mean to do it. I do not know what opinion hon. Gentlemen opposite have formed of the views of divines belonging to the Anglican Church. We have had so little time to make investigation that I hesitate to give a conclusive opinion upon it; but I should be astonished if a vast majority of the clergy of the Church of England are not found to regard this measure with the utmost suspicion and dislike, which, in itself, mind you, does not necessarily condemn it if it is to be a permanent
712
compromise, but which does condemn it if they can only be required or forced to accept this measure until better times come and a better measure can be modelled more in accordance with their views. But if they accept it in any other spirit than that, they, equally with the Nonconformist divines, are practically in their hearts already contemplating by what future steps this so-called settlement is to be modified so as to suit their views as to the manner in which elementary education shall be carried on in this country. If these statements be true, and surely they are true of the Anglican and Nonconformist divines, what am I to say of the Roman Catholics? As everybody knows, they are to a man opposed to this solution. I do not believe there is a single exception, either in this House or out of it, among those interested in the education of Roman Catholics, or I would add, as far as I know, other bodies of our countrymen who attach the utmost value to denominational education, who do not regard all the provisions in this Bill dealing with their interests as in themselves evil, as necessarily temporary, and as measures which it will be their bounden duty to upset as soon as the power of upsetting them is given. The Government may lightly regard the importance of the Roman Catholic vote in this country, and I imagine that as far as English Roman Catholics are concerned the vote may not be important from the wire-pullers' point of view; and, as far as the Irish Roman Catholics are concerned, no doubt they are bound to the Government by other ties so strong that their difference with the Government on education may not be sufficient to separate them. But, although the Roman Catholic vote may be a negligible quantity politically, do not tell me that any settlement can stand permanently which every earnest and high-minded Roman Catholic in this country thinks an outrage upon his faith and absolutely fatal to the education of his children. And if you embody provisions of that kind in your Bill, is it not as certain as that day follows night that what you call a settlement is predestined to be upset upon the first favourable opportunity by some fresh arrangement of your system introduced in another Session devoted

713
to this thorny, difficult, and embarrassing question, and that you will not be able by this measure to put out of sight this painful controversy? Those who cherish that delusion are destined not only to a very rude, but an early awakening. I turn from the Roman Catholics and ask whether the Radical politicians on the other side regard this as a permanent solution. Does the hon. Member for Morley and his friends regard it as such? We have always been told that the Nonconformists are a most powerful element in the party opposite. Do they conceive themselves bound by this Bill to leave the question of education exactly where this Bill leaves it? Do they regard themselves as pledged in honour to it? I do not believe they do. I think they would be mad if they gave any such pledge. But other Gentlemen give no such pledge, and if they expect to have an opportunity of remodelling it in their own interest, where, I ask, is the element of settlement which we all desire to find in these terms? I turn from the various classes which I have ventured to enumerate, and I ask what is the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury and those most eminent and distinguished prelates who have worked with him and who agree with him. The Government know much more about this than I do. They probably know exactly how they stand with the Archbishop. I confess I do not know. We had a long correspondence published the other day; and, like a well-managed serial story, it stopped just at the interesting point. The last published letter of which we have been put in possession is one from the Archbishop, in which it seems to begin to dawn upon him that the Bill contains provisions which make it utterly unpalatable to himself and his friends. I cannot read this in any other way. He mentions certain points and says—
"It is because these are not mere incidental financial details, but inherent elements in the structure of a balanced settlement, that I have throughout made my assent to the general plan of settlement depend upon such conditions being satisfactory."
We know nothing as to whether the Archbishop is satisfied with these inherent elements in a balanced settlement
714
—the Government have not yet told us. The Archbishop goes on to say—
"I am eagerly anxious that we should go forward with the proposed settlement. But you will, I know, recognise the impossibility of our doing so with any degree of general assent, or with the hope of ultimate success, if one limb of the arrangement is paralysed from the outset."
Apparently, according to the Archbishop, it is paralysed.
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. A. J. BALFOURI: Well, we have not had the letter in which he says it is not paralysed. I should very much like to hear how that stands, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to tell us. I was startled to hear on good authority that the Bishop of London, whose name has appeared in the very forefront of all those who desire a settlement—that his opinion is against the Bill as it stands and that he will vote against its Second Reading. How does the Government stand? At what point are these negotiations deficient, and how far are the parties committed, not merely to the Bill of the Government, but to this Bill being regarded as permanent? And, in this connection, I very earnestly ask one quite precise and specific question of the Prime Minister. If this is a treaty between any two parties at all, the high contracting parties are the Government on one side and the Archbishop and certain other members of the episcopal bench on the other. Do the Government conceive that the Archbishop is bound in honour if this Bill passes to withhold his encouragement, indeed, to discourage, any later attempt by which perhaps another Government, with a different balance of parties in this House, might seek to place all sects, all denominations, upon a precisely level and equal basis? I do not know whether it would ever be possible to carry out what I conceive to be the real solution of the education difficulty, but if it is I want to know whether the Government consider that the Archbishop of Canterbury, by giving his adhesion to this compromise, the terms of which he does not, of course, like any more than the other parties to the compromise, is bound to resists any such further reform of our education

715
system. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will answer me across the floor now or prefer to wait till he speaks. But supposing that the answer is, as I conceive it must be, that the Archbishop is at liberty to-morrow or the day after, or after the next general election, or whenever you like—at the earliest possible moment—to try, if this Bill passes, to amend it by the terms of this compact. If he is not bound, may I ask whether in this agreement between two contracting parties there is the smallest hope or prospect of a permanency? I think it is a most unhappy condition of things, most obscure and difficult as regards this arrangement as considered from the point of view of a treaty. Perhaps you will say: "After all, this is not a treaty. It is an arrangement which, if we can only get it through by Parliamentary pressure or otherwise, has in it such necessary elements of stability that, though there is grumbling now on the part of Nonconformists, of the Church, and of Roman Catholics, practically, when you have got the new system working every one will acquiesce in it." That may be said. Does anybody really say it; does anybody really think it? I have referred to the feelings of the great Nonconformist bodies, politicians, clergy, and leaders in that particular school of educational thought, and I will not refer to them further. But consider the feelings of Churchmen. I do not ask you to say that those feelings are justified, but to consider what they must be, and whether an arrangement which, starting under the shadow of such feelings, can have in it the elements of a settlement. Now, just see what you are doing in the matter of transfers. I am told that since 1902 over £1,000,000 sterling has been subscribed by Churchmen for voluntary schools in this country. I leave out the Roman Catholics and other denominations. We all know that there are cases in which the local authority, perhaps a hostile local authority, has required most costly and difficult changes to be carried out in some voluntary schools. Churchmen in the district have, at immense personal sacrifice, raised the necessary funds, have made the necessary alterations, and acquiesced in the, perhaps, most unreasonable
716
demands of the local authority. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what their feelings would be, and appeal to them quite uncontroversially, as men of the world who understand human beings, to say what they would think if money raised at the bidding of the local authority and of the bishops and archbishops in this way, is suddenly confiscated by the local authority itself and put into its own pockets. I appeal to the hon. Member for Morley, whether the Church be right or wrong, whether, while human beings are what they are, it would not be regarded as a most bitter injustice. It is quite true that in the opinion of some persons, and in the opinion of the Archbishop, there are general advantages to the cause of religion and that form of Christianity taught by the Church of England which make up for these local injustices, great as they unquestionably are. But my point is, not what is good for the Church of England as balanced, but that you are starting your so-called compromise by raising so enormous a feeling of grievance among some of those who may be committed to it that you cannot expect them to acquiesce, and that they will not acquiesce. I go from the subscribers to voluntary schools, who are not always large subscribers, to the parents. I again appeal to the hon. Member for Morley to put himself in the position of the parent of a child who has subscribed in quite recent years to a school, because that school is going to teach the denominational religion in which he believes and which is going to belong to his denomination. The Bill passes and the school is transferred to the local authority. He finds that so far from the denomination to which he belongs and for which he has subscribed having any special position in that school it is at a special disadvantage. The child of the parent who does not want denominational education finds everything arranged for him. He has to pay nothing; the headmaster may teach him; all the best rooms of the school are at his disposal. The parent who has subscribed to the making of that school has to go through formularies before he is allowed to have his child taught the religion of the people who made the school. When the religion is being taught

717
him he is given some perfectly insufficient accommodation. He has the knowledge that the State has put its imprimatur on this new form of State religion. He is aware that the headmaster is not, or ultimately will not be allowed to teach him religion, and that he is under a stigma, and he is told that he has to pay for what religious teaching he wants in the school that he has built, while his neighbour's child has the religious teaching he wants without any payment for it at all. That really does not exhaust the hardship which will be felt by these people, because you have taken care that, while making them pay for their religious instruction, not one penny that they do pay is to go into the pocket of the man who gives it. Of course, the local authorities will give the same salaries to every teacher of equal grade in the school, whether he volunteers to teach denominational religion or is asked to give Cowper-Temple teaching. The parent pays the education authority—the representatives of the ratepayers. So that the man who helped to build the school is not only in the inferior position described by the Bill, but has got to help his Cowper-Temple neighbour by lessening his rates in payment for his own denominational teaching. There may well be an answer to that, but does not everybody know that that state of things must produce immense bitterness of feeling among the people whom you want to accept this as a final settlement? I am quite sure that they will not be placated by the extraordinary statement of the Secretary of the Board of Education, who seems to think you may divide a trust into two in some extraordinary manner. If a man gives £10,000 for education to be given in a particular way, you cut it into a bigger and a smaller half, and say: "We take the bigger half. It is true that you gave the whole £10,000,thinking that the education was to be denominational, but the denominational part of £10,000 is only £1,500. We give you that back and keep the £8,500 ourselves." That may be bad law; I am sure it is bad equity; but whether it is good or bad law, it will produce an extroardinary feeling of soreness among the great body of clergy and laity. Do the Government consider that, by their contracting-out, they are doing anything in the world except sowing the seeds of
718
fresh difficulties in the immediate future and making it necessary that the whole scheme should be revised, and, by that fact, destroying all hope of a settlement on which we are all asked to accept a Bill of which none of us approve? I do not know what the Government think they do with regard to the money arrangements. They have not told us whether they are to be modified in Committee, but surely it is relatively immaterial. I do not believe that the denominationalists of this country will ever be content with a system of contracting-out. I think it is possible that here and there an Anglican school in a special position or which wishes to have a special clientele might welcome the arrangement. But it is quite impossible that either the great body of Anglicans or Roman Catholics will either desire to be divorced from the national system or to be asked to be content with a fixed Parliamentary grant in these days when education is increasing in cost from, I might almost say, week to week. I am not going to argue the special estimates of the Roman Catholics. I leave all those details on one side. I am asking the House to consider the bigger questions. But I would remind the House of the preroration of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary to the Admiralty, in the speech he made last night. He asked the House to pass this Bill in order to get the religious difficulty out of the way and thus free the energies of educational reformers to deal with a long catalogue of important questions which he declared quite truly demand their immediate attention. I would remind him of what three of those great educational interests are. One of them is that the qualification of teachers should be raised. Another is that smaller classes should be adopted in all our elementary schools; and the third is that improved buildings should be provided. Now did it occur to the Secretary to the Admiralty that, while he and his friends are gaily setting to work freed from the pre-occupation of dealing with the religious difficulty, there may be other persons interested in education, like the Roman Catholics, who may be just as anxious for the great reforms of which he spoke as he is? Did it further occur to him that all these reforms are in their essence and nature of the most

719
costly description? Did he remember that you cannot raise the qualifications of the teacher, that you cannot make big classes into small classes, and that you cannot make indifferent buildings into good buildings without an enormous expenditure of money; and where did he think that expenditure of money is to come from? Is it not manifest and plain on the face of it that, if you carry it out, all the schools which contract-out, except the rich and exceptional schools partly supported by large fees and endowments, all the ordinary schools, especially the Roman Catholic schools, because they affect the poorest of the population, will be left behind in this reforming race which the Secretary to the Admiralty desires to run? While he is adding to the qualifications of teachers, improving buildings, and making classes smaller, their buildings will remain the same, their teachers will remain the same, and their classes will remain unchanged. The difference, which will immediately arise between schools which have rates and taxes behind them and schools which have only taxes behind them will be an enormous difference, and what is more, it will be a growing difference. It is a difference which would be aggravated from year to year. I do not see how you are to get over it, and I do not believe mere money can get over it. It is possible that, if the Government have the mines of Eldorado behind them, they may find a contribution from the taxpayer to these denominational schools so great that they might be bribed, as it were, into acquiescence in their severance from the general national system of education. But I doubt it, and I do not believe that in any case you will be able to find the money or, if you do, that you can possibly employ it without creating the grossest inequality, not merely between school and school, but between district and district. Therefore I confess that it seems to me that, if there were no other blot in this Bill, if there were no other ground for thinking that it did not embody within its four corners the elements of a permanent settlement, those difficulties would emerge in the contracting-out clauses in a form so aggravated and so violent that we must all of us abandon the hope that, if we pass this Bill, we have dismissed the
720
problem of elementary education for more than a few months or a few years. Whether you survey the question from the point of view of the establishment of a contract between the various interested parties or whether you consider the nature and the value of the settlement from the point of view of the sentiment which it is going to arouse in the different classes of the population, or whether you regard it from the educational point of view and from the point of view of those who you admit must have special denominational facilities, I am reluctantly driven to the conclusion that in this direction and in this issue peace is not to be found. I think it is a deplorable conclusion. Nobody more deeply regrets it than I do, but I have attempted to deal with it perfectly candidly and clearly, and I think that those who most differ from me will admit that I have not used one single argument which may be described as other than going honestly and straight to the very centre of our difficulties. I should consider myself as paltering with the truth and as deceiving the House, who at all events have a right in this matter to have my innermost thoughts, if I pretended to find in this more than what I do honestly find—that is, a sincere desire on the part of the framers of the Bill to see a way out of the difficulty. I am sure the Government have done their best, and I am sure the bishops have done their best to find some way out. I do not know what has passed between the Government and the Nonconformist divines. I only imperfectly know what has passed between the Government and the Anglican divines; but I am perfectly ready, indeed anxious, to admit that all the parties to this so-called arrangement have done their best to find some way of settling these difficulties. They have, as I think, failed. They have failed, not from want of good will, but from want of an appreciation of what I think is the core of this problem, the central principle to which everybody must strive, if they are not content with the historic compromises of 1870 or 1902. If you dislike my word, I will choose yours—the historic arrangements of 1870 and 1902. When I just now observed parenthetically that I thought equality of treatment between the different denominations was the only

721
ultimate solution of this problem, an hon. Gentleman below the gangway interrupted me and said: "How about the Act of 1902?" I never pretended in 1902, and I have never pretended since 1902, that the inherent illogicalities and, if you will, the injustices of the Act of 1870 were more than mitigated by the Act of 1902. I entirely agree that, if you look on the one side at the single-school area in the country or if you look on the other at those vast urban districts in which there is not a single school where denominational teaching can be given, on whichever side of the picture you look you may say with absolute justice, "Here is an anomalous state of things, which may well require remedy." But the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me must be aware that in this world you must do one of two things. You must build on an historic foundation or you must try to work on fundamental principles. The Act of 1870 itself was only justifiable on historic grounds. The Act of 1902, in so far as it dealt with religion, also was based upon historic grounds, and could be justified upon no other ground, and never was justified upon any other. If you are going to abandon the historic ground, as you are going to do in this Bill; if you are going to say to the Nonconformists, "You must admit denominational teaching in everyone of what used to be called council schools"; if you are going to turn to the Church on the other side and say, "You must give up all the buildings for which you have sacrificed so much"; if you are going to turn to the Roman Catholics and say, "We shall no longer allow you to carry out denominational teaching except under conditions which will make your schools a by-word in education, and will separate you hopelessly from the national system"; you are cutting yourselves adrift from tradition, and I believe you will only find a safe anchorage by trying to go to first principles. The first principle is that we should try to devise a scheme which should treat every man, Nonconformist, Church of England, Roman Catholic, be he what he may, as nearly on an equality as the imperfections of this imperfect world will allow. It is because you have refused to go that length in this Bill that you find yourselves in all the
722
difficulties which surround you—difficulties which are predestined to bring this question again to the front in a very short time. But you will say to me: "Why should this logical and symmetrical system which you propose be more permanent than the imperfect solution offered by the Government or the other imperfect solutions which have preceded it?" The reason is that, if you do put everybody on an equality, you will have established a system which commends itself to every man who tries to consider this thing in the daylight of modern toleration. Every man who refuses to accept equality puts himself out of Court, and his claim will never be listened to. Therefore, I say until you have got that equality you will never have full, perfect, complete, and secure peace in this country. The Government themselves will not pretend that this Bill gives equality. It establishes, rightly or wrongly, but it does establish out of public funds a new religion or a new way of looking at religious truths and of teaching these truths. It ostracises by comparison every other way of looking at religious truths, and so long as that disparity exists your so-called arrangement is destined to crumble within the lifetime of every man to whom I am now speaking. It is for that reason that I would earnestly beg the Government to reconsider the whole method with which they approach this question. I do not believe that my plan would be particularly favourably received by many friends of my own. It involves giving up the Church schools, just as it involves giving up the council schools. It involves one single system, in which everybody would be treated alike. But there is no unpopularity I would not be prepared to undergo in supporting the Government in a scheme which tried at all events to give to the parents of this country the kind of education which they desire for their children. We believe that this House has no business to inquire whether the parents of the children are right or wrong, wise or unwise. There are many people who think that in their own hearts the parents prefer Cowper-Temple teaching to Church teaching or any other form of teaching. If this is so, I am content to abide by the result.

723
But the only principle which can really stand examination, which can be defended on every platform, which would hold water, which would withstand criticism, which is in accordance with all that is best in modern ideas as well as in ancient traditions, is the idea of religious equality, not the spurious form of religious equality which the Government have endeavoured to introduce in this Bill. I congratulate the Government upon the spirit that they have shown on this question. I do so quite honestly and sincerely; and I do not associate myself with those who have criticised the members of the episcopal bench who have perhaps lent themselves occasionally rather rashly to the soft wiles of the Minister for Education. I believe the motives of all concerned have been high motives and good motives; but if I am asked whether, short of the panacea which I have proposed, there is in my judgment any hope of a settlement of this question to be derived from anything which this House can do, I have in all truth, in all sincerity, and with great sorrow, to admit that that is not my conviction.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,: I gladly acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman in the speech which he has made has completely fulfilled the intention which he announced at the outset of avoiding any manifestation either of the spirit of acerbity or of the language of provocation. But none the less I confess to a sense of profound disappointment at the conclusion to which he has felt himself compelled to arrive. I should have been quite content, were it not out of respect to the right hon. Gentleman, to have left the case for the Second Reading of this Bill as it was presented with extraordinary lucidity and persuasiveness last night by my right hon. friend and colleague the President of the Board of Education, to whose tact and judgment and moderation and fine temper it is largely, and so far as the Government is concerned, I may say mainly, indeed exclusively, due that we are able to submit these proposals to the House. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, and said with truth, the debate upon a proposal of this kind necessarily cannot be cast in the dialectical mode of
724
our ordinary party conflicts. I agree with him that this is not a measure which either the Government or any other party in any quarter of the House, if they were acting upon their own initiative, and if they were putting forward proposals which they believed would attain their own ideals, would have submitted to Parliament. And he, if I may venture to say so, quite rightly and quite logically has approached the question from the only point of view which is relevant to a measure submitted under these conditions—namely, not from the point of view of whether it is ideally the best solution of a difficult political problem, but whether it does contain the elements of a reasonable and workable settlement. Upon that point there are, I think, two questions which every one in the House must ask himself. The first question, with which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt very lightly, though I may assume he would have answered it in the affirmative, is this—whether the time has not come when, in the interests of all parties, and above all of that section of the community so much talked about but often so little regarded in this great controversy —namely, the children of England— whether the time has not come when something in the nature of an agreed settlement is not only politic but absolutely necessary? The right hon. Gentleman has said a great deal about the precariousness and the short duration of any settlement that is likely to be attained upon the lines here proposed. Let us look back for a moment upon the past. Look back to the Act of 1870. I am stating, not a matter which is capable of controversy, but a matter of universal acknowledgment among those who are acquainted with history, when I say that the Act of 1870 embodied a compromise, and a compromise which was heartily disliked both upon one side and upon the other. It was not liked by those who represented the Church of England in those days, because, side by side with a voluntary system to which, they had made by far the greatest contribution of any denomination in this country, they saw set up a system of school boards, and in the schools provided by the school boards under the Cowper-Temple clause sectarian teaching at the expense of

725
the rates was excluded altogether. It was equally disliked by the Nonconformists; and I do not think there is any historical fact better attested in our electoral history than that it was largely due to the resentment of the Nonconformists at what they conceived to be their betrayal by the leaders of the Liberal Party at that day, that the great defeat of Mr. Gladstone in 1874 was due. Well, there was a settlement, or a compromise rather—I will not call it a settlement—which started with just the same drawbacks and disadvantages— more accentuated, more acute, and much more inflamed in point of passion and temper—as the proposals which the Government is now submitting to the House. But what was the result? I am not exaggerating when I say that for twenty years it produced something in the nature of educational peace. It brought about a co-operation, nowhere more remarkably exhibited than in the School Board for London, between Nonconformists and Churchmen working together, in which they combined their energies and sank their differences, and as far as possible helped to promote the development of the educational interests of the children. If that took place in 1870 under conditions such as I have described, are we too sanguine —are we the victims of an untenable and unjustifiable credulity—if we suggest that to-day people, none of whom in themselves and by themselves, would have selected this particular via media that we are submitting to the House, may, working in the same spirit, and with the same honest desire for peace and for educational efficiency, attain, at any rate, another truce which may last perhaps an equally long time? Because what has been the history of the last ten years? I will not go into the question of how it was, both upon one side and upon the other, that in the course of time defects in the settlement of 1870 developed themselves and became more and more apparent, were felt more and more acutely, and produced on the one side the Nonconformist discontent at the condition of things prevailing, particularly in the rural schools, and the discontent on the part of Churchmen In regard to the state of things in particular which prevailed in the urban
726
districts. The fact is, whatever be its historical explanation, we have now been suffering, for more than ten years, from a condition of educational warfare. There was the Bill of 1896, the Act of 1897, the Act of 1902, and all the turmoil and controversy which has gone on in connection with the successive Bills which the present Government have introduced; and, after twenty years of comparative peace, we have had twelve or thirteen years of unsettlement, warfare, turbulence, and no progress. Would it not be the duty of any responsible Government—I do not care to what party they belonged, or what their educational tendencies and desires might be—to try and devise some means by which another truce could be arrived at, a fresh period of educational peace entered upon, and the while energies of the persons engaged in this great domain of social and philanthropic activities concentrated, not upon the points upon which they differed but upon the points upon which they ought to be at one? That, at all events, appeared to me, long before I held my present office, but particularly since I held it, to be the first object which any Government of this country ought to aim at. We may fail. Well, I would rather fail in the attempt to obtain peace on reasonable terms than not to have made the attempt at all. This is not an occasion on which we desire to draw the ordinary weapons of party warfare. I believe there is an honest desire on both sides of the House—nowhere more clearly manifested than in the speech of the light hon. Gentleman—to devise a way. But I quite agree that that does not exonerate me and my colleagues from the obligation to show that in the proposal which, under very unusual conditions, we are submitting to the House there is a reasonable prospect of attaining such a settlement. What are the conditions? Surely I shall carry everybody with me when I say that the conditions of a durable settlement in a matter of this kind are that upon be the sides there should be a surrender of what is secondary and subordinate, without any sacrifice of what is primary and fundamental. I quite agree that unless the settlement—I do not say in all its details, but in its broad and general outlines—conforms to that condition, it is

727
not one which should be pressed upon Parliament, and which Parliament should be asked to accept. What are the right hon. Gentleman's objections to the proposals which we have brought forward? In the first place he says—Who are the parties to your agreement; are they plenipotentiaries; have they power to bind those in the country whom they assume to represent; and are they really at one? I think that is a misconception of the situation. This Bill is not put forward as a request to Parliament to ratify an already concluded treaty between sovereign powers; nothing of the kind. What happened was this, that the Government, through informal communications with the representatives of Nonconformity on the one hand, with the highest authorities in the Anglican Church upon the other, and with some communications—not so frequent and continued as I should have liked—with the representatives of the Roman Catholic Church—the Government, without pretending for a moment that these various parties had entered into a deed or agreement, signed, sealed, and delivered, thought they had come sufficiently near —within a measurable and approximate distance of one another—so that they themselves might take the responsibility of putting down on paper proposals which they thought might meet with general agreement, and this Bill represents that i attempt. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the Nonconformists whom we consulted probably exceeded their authority; that the Bishops, in the course which they took, had no power to bind the clergy; and that the Roman Catholics were altogether left out of account. That would be a very relevant criticism if we were putting forward this Bill as an absolute concluding settlement. But the question is whether, having regard to all that has passed, Parliament may not itself say: "These people ought to have agreed, or, at least, we ought to lay down in an Act of Parliament, the terms upon which the question in future shall be settled, because the points which separate them are of so comparatively small importance, and the gap between the one and the other is so easily capable of being bridged by bringing common sense to bear that there is really no excuse for their not
728
agreeing." I would like to say one word about the Roman Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman has used language which I was sorry to hear. He said this Bill had been denounced by those representing the Roman Catholic Church as an outrage upon their faith. There is not a Roman Catholic in this House but knows perfectly well this Bill is not put forward in that sprit or with that intention. There is the provision for contracting out. We regret that—I think everyone regrets it—and would rather see a universal national system in which every school was subject to the same conditions. The system of contracting out proposed in this Bill, of which it is believed the Roman Catholic Church will largely take advantage, is a system which prevails largely in Scotland. It is a system of which we in Scotland, and I speak as a Scottish Member, have never complained. We are not sufficiently liberally treated in Scotland, certainly, but that is a point for accommodation and adjustment and is not a question of principle. The sum now actually paid out of State grant in respect of Roman Catholic children in Scotland is about 40s. per head. Under this Bill it will be about 50s. per head. Therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, in regard to this Bill, that a proposal of this sort can be regarded by Catholics as an outrage upon their feelings is, I venture to say, an abuse of Parliamentary language. I pass to what will be gained by the other two parties. We have the Nonconformists on the one side, and the Church of England on the other. Let me for a few minutes put down the two sides of the account, the gain on the one side and the loss on the other, as if it were a question of debtor and creditor, and we were constructing a balance-sheet. What do the Nonconformists gain? In the first place, they gain complete popular control wherever rate-aid is given and untested teachers. They gain, in the second place, complete prohibition of rate-aid for sectarian teaching. In these two things they have gained in essence and in substance what we pledged ourselves to obtain. On the other hand, what does the Church of England gain? The Church of England, in the first place, gains the thing for which her

729
advocates in this House have striven strenuously and persistently ever since I have been here. The Church of England gains the right to follow her children with her own definite, dogmatic teaching into the provided schools of the country. As the hon. Member for Oxford University said last night, the value of that right depends upon the use which the Church of England makes of it. But I venture here strongly to protest against the notion that there is anything in this Bill which is intended to make that right of entry anything in the nature of an illusory or a nugatory right. I think a fear was expressed that in order to exercise that right clergymen would have to go through formularies, and that in some way or another they would be embarrassed and impeded in the exercise of that right which the law will give. That is not the intention. They have only to write their name on a bit of paper and the thing is done. Anything simpler or more effective for the purpose we, at any rate, have not been able to devise. If it can be shown in Committee that there is anything in the clause which requires greater simplicity and clearness, we shall be ready to consider it. The only condition attached to this right of entry—most offensive as it has always been regarded, and must be regarded, not only by Nonconformists, but by persons specially interested in education, and by none more so than the teachers—the only conditions by which we propose to fetter its exercise are the necessary safeguards for due order and the proper conduct of the school. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself in the published correspondence has admitted, and very properly admitted, that any such right must be granted subject to the necessary administrative conditions, and those are the only conditions that will be imposed. Then, what is the other gain? I will not here speak about the head teacher, although that is a point to which great importance is attached, but it is a temporary arrangement, and I am now speaking of permanent gains. In all but single-school areas, where the Church wishes to preserve, or to bring into existence, schools of her own type, where the teacher will be chosen by members of the religious denomination
730
itself, subject to any tests they may see fit to impose, and where the curriculum of the school in regard to religious teaching will be such in all respects as the authorities of the Church in the locality desire, she will be able to do so, not at the expense of the rates, but with a liberal provision out of the public Exchequer. There are two considerations laid down in the correspondence between the Archbishop and myself on this point. The one was, what I was ready to concede, that in the provision made for these schools they should be given "a reasonable chance," I think was the phrase used, of existence. The other was a condition to which the Archbishop was quite ready to subscribe—namely, that at the same time a substantial part of the expenses of carrying on the schools should be borne by the denomination. I am not going into the question now, because it is a question for the Committee stage of the Bill, of whether these conditions have been actually carried out in the provision made in the schedule of the Bill. We believe that they have been. But I must enter a passing protest against the language used by the right hon. Gentleman just now in his denunciations of this part of the Bill. This provision of contracting out is not new. It was proposed, as every one will remember, in the Bill of 1906. At that time the provision proposed to be made for the contracting out schools was very substantially less than the provision which we are proposing in this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman himself told us on 24th July, 1906, in the debate on the contracting out Amendment:
"That a peaceful settlement of the question was to be found in the direction of accepting this Amendment rather than rejecting it."
Having taken up that attitude in 1906, the right hon. Gentleman could not now say there was anything objectionable in point of principle to contracting-out.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: All I did was to say that I preferred the Amendment to the Bill. I thought the Amendment improved the Bill, and that, as compared with the Bill, it made for peace.
MR. ASQUITH: To use the right hon. Gentleman's own analogy, he was

731
in the position of the man who was given his choice of being drowned or hanged, and who said he preferred neither. We have reached the stage now at which we must, all of us, make a certain surrender in matters of this kind. None of us can pursue exactly the line he would like to. The right hon. Gentleman chose the contracting-out Amendment rather than the Bill of 1906, as being more likely to lead to peace. I have tried briefly to summarise what I have called the balance-sheet between Nonconformists on the one side, and the Church of England on the other. Does it not contain the basis of a reasonable settlement? I must add, though we are now on Second Reading, that an arrangement of this kind is in its nature of such a character that you cannot—when you come to deal with its details as we shall presently in Committee—treat it as though each part was separable and independent. You can very easily upset the balance, and when you have upset the balance and destroyed the equilibrium' the whole thing is gone. I say that, of course, as the House will readily understand, without prejudice to the fullest right and opportunity for discussion of the details in Committee but only to make it clear that the Government are submitting the thing as a whole in the belief that each side is giving up a great deal, and, on the other hand, that each side is receiving some substantial equivalent. Surely after these ten or twelve years of tumult and controversy we may without any sacrifice of honour or principle, either upon one side or upon the other, fitly bring to a conclusion the labours of an unusually arduous and exceptionally combative session by giving, with something like general consent, to the educational system of this country, for the first time for many years, the chance of a life of real efficiency and peace.
MR. DILLONsaid this was a question on which they had had during the last ten years a conflict of the most extraordinary character among all parties in the House. In the year 1902, he himself voted side by side with the Member for Morley and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, against some of the provisions of the Act of that year. In 1906, he found himself with his colleagues on
732
these benches dividing against those two hon. Members, who opposed the Act of that year; and now in 1908 he found himself again with the hon. Member for Morley opposing this Bill. He thought one ought to draw from these extraordinary and kaleidoscopic changes in parties and individual Members of the House in the course of these controversies on the education question the lesson that it was wise not to use too bitter language, because they might find themselves next year side by side with the very men who were opposing this Bill. They had heard one of the foremost champions of the Church in that House in his zeal denouncing the bishops of his own Church as having been traitors to the cause. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone had declared his incapacity to follow the twistings and turnings of the episcopal mind. The hon. Member for North West Manchester had declared that the Churchmen of Lancashire would not allow themselves to be ridden down by any body of bishops. That was another instance of the extraordinary effect of this controversy on the minds of hon. Members. The Member for Morley, in moving the rejection of the Bill, drew a terrible and lurid picture of the consequences which would happen to him and to his friends and to all that Nonconformists held most dear, if the Bill were passed into law. He said that the consequence of the admission of the clergy to the provided schools of the county councils would be most disastrous, and that the Nonconformists of England were now called upon to surrender all that they had fought for during the last ten years, and the worst and bitterest thing of all was that this surrender came not with a great party defeat, but with an unparalleled party victory. His old friend, Mr. Hirst Hollowell, had used this extraordinary language—that the acceptance of a scheme like this would turn the Liberal Party into a clerical party, and thus prepare the way for its fall and obscuration. Speaking of Clause 4 of the Chief Secretary's Bill of 1906, a clause by the way which both the hon. Member and his friends helped largely to wreck, he said that that unfortunate clause would have made sectarian schools more sectarian still, but the present proposals would admit sectarian creeds into nearly 7,000 schools,

733
which up to this day had been absolutely free from sectarian instruction. There was a great deal of truth in these two statements, and in his opinion, which might be of some worth, as he had followed this controversy as closely as any man in that House, the Nonconformists were asked under this Bill to surrender a great deal more than they were asked to surrender under the Bill of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. In regard to Clause 4 of the Bill of 1906, it was the hon. Member for Morley who was largely responsible for the destruction of that provision, and who said that those for whom he spoke would not tolerate its re-introduction. That was not the advice some of them had urged upon hon. Members when they were in opposition; and Members of the Irish Party felt that if the Bill, as finally agreed upon, had been brought up again in January or February of 1907, and sent to the House of Lords with a majority of 340, because Irish Members on those benches would have supported it, they would not have had the difficulties which confronted them now. They would have come fresh from the constituencies with a mandate on this subject, and they would have been in a position to teach the Lords a lesson which certainly was a good deal wanted. The Member for Morley himself was one of the chief instruments in wrecking that settlement.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid this was the first time he had heard it suggested that the Bill of his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary was to be reintroduced.
MR. DILLONsaid he had suggested publicly in that House more than once, that the Bill should be again introduced, and he believed that the Bill would have been re-introduced but for the fact that the Nonconformists of this country would not tolerate it. That was his view and he remembered that he was laughed at when he ventured to say to some of his friends on the opposite benches, who were somewhat bitter in the controversy, that they might go farther and fare worse. His words had come true. They had gone further and they had farad worse, at least in their own judgment. The hon. Member for Den-
734
bigh District, who seconded the Motion for the rejection of this Bill, said, he thought, perfectly truly, that one of the chief grounds of objection to it was that it would introduce into the schools of this country a totally new system, and one entirely inconsistent with and destructive of one of the main principles of the Liberal Party, namely, a system of endowed religion. For the first tine the Liberal Party was proposing to endow a system of religious teaching, to establish it, and to make it absolutely compulsory. He did not wish to use any language that would be considered offensive. Far from it. But he found an expression used by a man whose name would carry great weight, the Rev. Scott Lidgett, President of the Wesleyan Conference, who had taken a great interest in this subject. He was a supporter of this compromise although he objected and always had objected to the right of entry, but he was reconciled because Cooper-Templeism would be the established religion of the national schools. That he should say, was his expression, not his own, and he thought it was an unfortunate expression. Let him give this warning. They could not get a settlement of this question by a process which established one form of religious teaching, which passed over and made them pay, or made the people for whom he was speaking pay, for the religious teaching, which placed the religions teaching, which they considered essential to their religious convictions, in an inferior position, and told them then that they must pay for it them-selves. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion for the rejection of the Bill, that it was a principle hopelessly at variance with their long declared principles of Liberal policy. He recalled the fact that as a strong friend and advocate of friendly compromise upon this question he came to that conclusion long ago when listening to the debates in 1906 and 1907. He came to the conclusion that there could be no settlement of this particular question which was the result of a party victory. Why? Because they could not settle such questions without taking into account the religious and conscientious convictions of the people whose interests were dealt with. If they tried

735
it, it would be a signal for war, and, therefore, he had always felt that except by mutual concession it could never be settled. He therefore, would naturally be a strong friend, as he had proved to his detriment sometimes, of a settlement by compromise, so that if he could see his way to do so, he would gladly support this compromise. He remembered a conversation he had with the late Cardinal Vaughan in 1908. He differed from him very strongly upon the line of the policy he was adopting, and told him that if he persisted upon that line of policy, two things would happen, either he would end in securing a settlement driving religious teaching out of the schools altogether, or, as he thought more likely, there would be a Protestant settlement behind their backs, leaving Catholics out in the cold. Now that was what had happened. He foresaw that for years. Why? Anyone who studied these debates carefully ought, he thought, to have arrived at that conclusion. He saw that, although there was bitterness on this subject between the occupants of the benches on either side of the House, there was no difference of principle. Although Churchmen and Nonconformists were strongly divided in their views on some points, they were not really irreconcilable. They did not object to Cowper-Templeism. They did not object to Cowper-Temple teaching and they knew that many members of the Church party regarded Cowper-Temple teaching as most excellent Protestant teaching. Of course that immediately divided them from Catholics by an impassable gulf. He did not say that they might not be able to carry on many of these controversies, but he always foresaw that there was a great danger that both sides would agree to a settlement to which Catholics were not party at all. That was exactly what had happened, and when the Prime Minister said that this was the result of a conference, he must say that the Catholics were not really consulted, and that they were not in any sense or degree a party to the present settlement. He c id not want to introduce any recrimination, bitterness, or provocation. There had been a great deal too much of that. While he could not for a
736
moment accept the Bill as fair or tolerant to Catholics, he saw in it a clear proof of an earnest desire on the part of the Government according to their lights to do something for the Catholics, but their lights were insufficient. The Catholics were not a party to the negotiations. In the first place he attached very great importance to the provision allowing them to build their new schools, which was a great and burning question. Also he attached great importance to allowing their children so far as working centres and medical inspection were concerned inside the national system. He attached great importance to the provision allowing the Catholic teachers to remain inside the national system so far as pension privileges were concerned. But admitting all their improvements in the Bill and also the small increase in the grant, the arrangement was one which the Catholics could not accept. To come to the kernel of the whole situation, here was a passage from the last letter from the Minister for Education in his correspondence with the Archbishop—
"We have endeavoured to frame a scale of grants to the contracted-out schools so that they should be given a reasonable chance of existence, but of course we have always held and expressed the view that where the owners of schools desired to retain the management and patronage in their own hands, they must make a substantial contribution for the privilege."
That was where they took their stand and differed totally from the view of the Government. Evidently the idea had got embedded in the mind of the Government that they regarded it as a privilege to remain outside the national system. For years they had claimed their right to come into it, and if they were to be put outside the national system it was an outrageous proposition that an indefensible and impossible position to take up that they were to pay for the privilege. It was useless to argue—he did not know that the Secretary for Education would argue—that no scheme could be devised which would meet Catholic consciences and allow them to come into the national system. He was estopped from that argument because his own Government had devised a scheme in the Chief Secretary's Bill which they, on behalf of the Catholics of this country, had accepted.

737
Therefore it could never be said again truthfully that if they were put out of the national system they were accorded a privilege for which they were to be called upon to pay.
MR. BYLES: I wish to understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. Does he not regard it as a privilege that the Church to which he belongs should have the appointment of teachers and be exempt from many of the restrictions which are imposed on provided schools?
MR. DILLONsaid he did not when it was combined with expulsion from the national system. They had accepted Clause 4 of the Bill of 1906, which brought them into the national system and gave the appointment of teachers to the public body, thereby getting rid of the whole of this unfortunate system of contracting-out which was condemned by every educationist. The National Union of Teachers were strongly against it, the Catholic teachers were all up in revolt against it, and there was not a single teacher in Ireland who supported contracting-out, and yet they were told they were to pay for the privilege of being expelled. He hoped he had disposed once for all of that argument. He wished earnestly to remove from the minds of the Government the idea that they would ever consider it a privilege to be allowed to contract-out, but they preferred to contract-out on reasonably fair terms rather than have their schools completely taken away and destroyed. He had been engaged in very hot controversy over this question, but he was not one of those who had engaged in any mud slinging at the Nonconformists. He had always insisted that among them were some of the best friends they had, who had put a severe strain on their conscientious convictions in order to meet them, and they had good reason to know that in the course of the debates on the Irish University Bill the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk and other Nonconformists saw that Bill through when, if they had given way to their prepossessions, the Bill would never have lived. The hon. Member who, he knew, was sincerely desirous of meeting them, said: "When the demand is made in a
738
Protestant country for Catholic schools for Catholic children taught by Catholic teachers at the public expense, this is a demand which connot be met." First of all he asked why not? The demand was met frankly and fully long ago in Germany, which was one of the few countries in Europe where there was no educational war of any kind. Had it ever occurred to hon. Members opposite to ask why Germany was so far ahead in matters of education? They got rid of religious controversy years ago by a frankly denominational system, meeting all the demands of the Catholics, Protestant country though she was. It lay upon the hon. Member to explain why he took up that position. Protestants had always professed to set up Protestantism as synonymous with civil and religious liberty. Were they prepared to prove that in connection with this Bill? It was no use appealing to foreign countries. The question was what were they prepared to do? When they applied the criterion of actuality of facts to the statement of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk they found they were, by contracting-out, providing for Catholic schools and Catholic children by Catholic teachers at public expense. They were doing the very thing that he said could not be done. They were giving away the principle absolutely. They recognised that in this Protestant country they must provide Catholic schools for the Catholic children, but they were fining the parents and punishing the children and the teachers by putting the brand of inferiority upon them and giving them smaller salaries because they adhered to their religious convictions. If these Catholic children went into the board schools, immediately they got into a better atmosphere. There was better provision for them and larger salaries for the teachers, and by getting a better class of men they acted on the children at once. But they were not maintaining any principle. They admitted that this was a case which was affected by the Bill and by the whole course of policy of the Government, but they said: "Yes; we shall allow Catholic schools for Catholic children, but they must be inferior schools, and the children and the teachers must suffer." When it was put in that way, and that was the true way to put the

739
case, it was absolutely indefensible. It could not stand. And of course the case was made much stronger by the fact that this prescription of inferiority was levelled against the poorest part of the population. There were a good many Anglican schools to whom the privilege of charging fees might be an alleviation of contracting-out, because in some districts, and in one or two Catholic schools, perhaps, the charging of fees was a rather popular thing. It might seem strange, but it was so. But in nine-tenths of the Catholic schools the privilege of charging fees was simply a mockery and only increased the outrage of driving them out of the national system by saying to the poorest people of the country: "You may pay for your children in the schools if you choose, but all the children of those who are better off than yourselves will get free education because they are not Catholics, and have no conscientious difficulty in the matter." In his opinion this provision for contracting-out was absolutely indefensible, and was, as clearly as anything could be, a penalty on people for religious convictions. As long as that was maintained it was idle to talk to him of a settlement. He had always preached to his people that they ought to seek for a settlement, and above all a settlement through the Liberal Party. He had been denounced up hill and down dale by great ecclesiastics and by members of his own church in this country for preaching that doctrine. He had always said that if they got a settlement from the Liberal and the Nonconformist parties it would be permanent, whereas a settlement from the Conservative party might be good for a time but would be upset whenever the Liberals came into office. That was why he thought a settlement from the Liberal Party would be more likely to be lasting, and that was the reason why he supported the settlement of 1906. He preached the doctrine of compromise in 1902 because he thought it would have been infinitely better for the Conservative party and the Church party to have compromised this matter when they were in power, when they would have secured better terms than they were getting now. That view, however, was not listened to at the time, with the result that they had been driven
740
to their present position. He had been looking at an interesting Return published that morning giving the figures for all the counties, county boroughs, and London, of the cost per head, and he had calculated what the Catholic share would be under the Schedule. They were offered an average grant of 49s. 6d., and he fully recognised what had been said about the pooling system. Taking London the amount was 94s. as compared with 49s. for the Catholic schools. That was to say, the Catholic schools lost £2 5s. per head per child.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,: Will the hon. Member kindly state what that 94s. includes?
MR. DILLONsaid he was taking the Return published that morning.
MR. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will look on page 2 he will find a large number of items of expenses and maintenance in the 94s. which will not necessarily fall on the other schools to which he refers.
MR. DILLONsaid he suspected those charges were not very heavy. Supposing, however, they made an allowance. The figures for London gave 94s. 3d., which represented a loss of 44s. 9d., but he would place it at £2 per head per child in Catholic schools. Did any reasonable man propose that in the poorest schools in London, except the Jewish schools, it was fair to start them on their new career with a dead deficiency of £2 per head per child? Taking a Catholic school in London with 1,000 children it meant a loss of £2,000 a year, and yet they were expected to compete with other schools getting the full grant. This gap would go on increasing, and such a system was really inconceivable and impossible. The right hon. Gentleman sought to show that the pooling arrangement would do very much for them, but he very much doubted it, because it would apply mainly to Catholic schools in the large county boroughs. In Liverpool the grant was 74s. 6d., but the Catholic schools received only 49s. 6d., leaving a deficiency of 25s. 10d. per child. If

741
they took off the 4s., that left a deficiency of 21s. In Manchester the grant was 70s. 6d., the Catholic grant being 49s. 6d., leaving a deficiency of 21s. Every one of the great centres where the Catholic schools were situated would be severely hit. He took it that this Bill was a decree of destruction against those schools. He could not believe that the Government realised what they were doing when they embarked on this principle. Finally, he desired to make an earnest appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to draw a lesson of toleration from what had occurred during the past few months. They might have had the Bill of 1906 if they had met the Catholics in a proper and fairer spirit, and that would have saved them altogether the invasion of their board schools which was now proposed. The other night they heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Oxford University making a most remarkable declaration which had influenced many Anglicans in this country. He said that there was hardly a week passed when they had not read of Anglican schools being transferred to the public authority, and he further declared that the Anglican schools were a diminishing and dwindling quantity, whilst the board schools were rapidly increasing. He had no such complaint to make, because the Catholics never transferred a school. They had never read of a Catholic school being transferred, and Catholic schools were not a diminishing quantity. Catholics were fighting for a great principle, and they would stick to their present lines as long as they could. He asked the right hon. Gentleman in the interval between now and the Committee stage to see whether the Government could not devise some means of allowing the Catholic schools to remain inside the national system on the terms that were offered them by the Government of 1906.
MR. ELLISsaid he was sure the hon. Member for East Mayo would allow him to say that it had been his lot to listen to the speech he had just made more than once. That, however, did not diminish its force, and he quite recognised the Catholic position. He was rather
742
astonished to hear the hon. Member say that there was a better atmosphere in council than in Catholic schools.
MR. DILLON: No, I did not say that.
MR. ELLISsaid it had been his lot to accompany Catholic priests into their schools, and no one appreciated more than he did the self-sacrificing; efforts of his Roman Catholic fellow subjects to preserve their schools. He had always said that Roman Catholics in this matter were in an exceptional position. It was true that they had preserved their schools, but relatively to the total number, the children in the Roman Catholic schools were a diminishing quantity. Out of 7,000,000 children in average attendance in the schools of this country there were little more than 250,000 in Roman Catholic-schools. Therefore, the matter came quite within reasonable compass and he was prepared to be not only just but generous as regards finance for educational efficiency. He had listened with a little-regret to what had fallen from the Leader of the Opposition. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not speak for the whole of the party which he led in this House. As he listened to the right hon. Gentleman conjuring up all sorts of evils he could not help reflecting how little they were in accord with the real facts of the case as he knew them in urban and in country districts. He remembered very well in the debates on the Bill of 1902 asking the Leader of the Opposition whether he had ever sat upon a local education authority in his life, and whether he had really taken any part in the practical administration of our educational system. The right hon. Gentleman admitted at once that that had not been his lot, and it was a great deal owing to that defect that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken in the way he had done in this debate. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a terrible picture of a parent subscribing to the erection of a particular school to secure that his child should be taught in his own faith and then finding his child relegated to some dark and inconvenient room to receive religious instruction. The right hon. Gentleman

743
had drawn an alarmist picture of what was going to happen. They all knew very well that common sense, fair play, generosity, and practical acquaintance with life on the spot which the local authorities possessed would not permit anything of that kind to happen. He welcomed very warmly and heartily from the bottom of his heart the change of tone which had come over the debate this year, yesterday, and so far as the debate had proceeded that night, as contrasted with what he could recollect in previous years on the educational controversy. He believed there was no subject in regard to which the people outside were more sick of hearing the House of Commons occupied in than educational debate. He approached the matter in the spirit so well laid down by the Bishop of Southwark. He said—
"We are in the position of men who have battled long, and fought for our principles hard, against opponents who have done the like. We have grown in the process more sure of the truth and consistency of our convictions. But so, we observe, have they. Perhaps we have both learnt that there are strong points in the other's case. And now the time has come, and the moment (perhaps a brief one) is here, when both charity and wisdom invite us to remember that there are some controversies which can never be fought out to an end; that when a question becomes really national, a national solution cannot tally with, or even fully embrace, partial claims; that principles need not be forgotten because they are not driven up to the hilt; and that a particular controversy, however important, must be handled, with a view to the interests of the larger life amidst which it occurs."
These words might well be the keynote of those who supported this Bill and the compromise which lay in it. When the arrangement was made in 1870 Nonconformists did not like a great deal that was contained in the Act of that year, but as time went on the common sense of the local authorities in the different localities enabled them to work the measure beneficially and with a success quite different from that prophesied when it was passing through the House of Commons. In the debates which took place then all sorts of evils were prophesied, but these evils did not occur when the Act came to be administered by the people in the localities. The same thing would take place if this Bill became law. The Loader of the Opposition had that day
744
foretold difficulties which would happen from the passing of the Bill, but he did not think they were likely to arise in actual working. He believed that if throughout England the system of establishing a school board in every parish had been followed they might have had in this country locally elected bodies administering education as satisfactorily as in Scotland, where, under the Act of 1872, the school board system was general. In England since 1870 there had been two systems running and the position had become more and more involved. The question came to be whether the Church schools should come on the rates. Everyone could foresee what would result if they did. The the Archbishop of Canterbury said he was perfectly certain that if the Church of England schools accepted aid from the rates, public control would follow. Facts and figures were all one way in this matter. A Return was issued the other day which was very significant. Taking the two school years 1901–2 and 1906–7, the total number of school places in the first period were 6,726,000, and of these 3,723,000 were in denominational schools, or 56 per cent. of the whole. In 1906–7 the proportion had fallen to 49 per cent., there being a greater number of places in council schools. The figures of attendance were more striking. In the first period 46 per cent. of the children at school were in council schools, and in the latter period 54 per cent. The denominational element in our system was diminishing, both actually and relatively. Under these circumstances the question was whether it was wise to go into this compromise or settlement. From his point of view the question of public control was the fundamental and vital matter. He once committed himself in this House to the statement that he would even give up the Cowper-Temple clause if necessary, to secure popular control. By the Bill now before the House they were extending the system of popular control and they were also maintaining the Cowper-Temple clause. He wished to say a word about the secular solution. On that subject his hon. friend the Member for Leicester made an interesting speech. Lord Hugh Cecil had committed himself to the statement that any Government that

745
proposed to abolish the Bible and religion from the people's schools in this country, would not be allowed to exist. The hon. Member knew very well that such a proposal would not be approved by the people of Leicester. There had been a school board system in Leicester which was appreciated by the people there and they were abundantly satisfied with it. If the hon. Member attempted to define secularism, he would find it as difficult as would be the effort to define socialism. Both meant different things to different people, and they were not within the range of practical politics. The people of this country were not so doctrinal as was sometimes supposed. They were profoundly religious, and he believed the wished it to be the basis of the education of their children. But a religious atmosphere in the schools did not necessarily simply the recital of creeds. The unseen verities in which most of them in this House believed were too deep and too sacred to be always put in terms of human speech. Therefore, he for one would resist to the utmost the idea of banishing the Bible and simple Bible-teaching from the schools. They were under obligation to those Gentlemen on both sides who with assiduity had considered this question and arrived at a concordat. In commercial matters he had always held that there was no such thing as a good bargain unless it was good for both sides. He did not believe in one man getting the better of another, and so in the great matter of national education, he welcomed, and was grateful for, the spirit shown by those who had conducted the negotiations. He believed they had arrived in this great matter of national education at the golden moment, and he earnestly hoped that the House of Commons would not allow this session to close without being able to say that this statute was a statute of the realm.
MR. LOUGHsaid he wished to begin his observations with a word of personal explanation. He did so the more readily because the last time he intervened in a somewhat similar debate he was told by the President of the Board of Trade that his recent connection with the Government rather limited his
746
freedom. He might be assumed to be in an even more delicate position now than he was in connection with the matter to which his right hon. friend referred. He had been in all the educational controversies of this Parliament, and his name was on the back of three Bills. If he said a word against the principle embodied in those Bills he would do so unconsciously and against his will. He was in favour of all they contained, and his friendliness to the Government's proposals up to the present had not changed one whit. He thought the first Bill of 1906 was a good Bill, and if his Nonconformist friends had stretched their consciences sufficiently to accept it, they would have escaped with one-tenth of the concessions which they would have to make if this Bill were carried into law. The atmosphere was full of conciliation. He had been a man of conciliation from the first. He had often spoken on education questions, and he had never said a single offensive word as to any creed represented in the House. It was his desire to arrive at a settlement by a process of give and take and conciliation—one which could be adopted without sacrifice of vital principles. With great heartiness he welcomed, the speech of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said, in answer to a question of the Leader of the Opposition, that the Bill was one which could hardly be pressed if a strong feeling in opposition to it was developed. A little later the Prime Minister said that they should not take it that a complete settlement of the question could be arrived at. However, in the beginning of his last speech the right hon. Gentle man intimated that the Committee stage would not be a farce, but that reasoned Amendment would be considered. He thought that this was much more satisfactory than certain remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill, who said that they should not disturb the equilibrium of the settlement, or the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury who described it as a "balanced settlement." He also welcomed the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition and of other hon. Members opposite. In fact, everybody seemed to be full of the spirit of peace and of a desire for a settlement of this

747
long discussed question. That was his own feeling; but that must not prevent theim from examining this question in a friendly spirit. He must say that the suddenness with which the present situation had come upon them and upon the country appalled him. He understood that the excuse of the Government was that this question was extraordinarily difficult and that they were bound to sacrifice something in order to solve it. It was right to point out that all the difficulties were not inherent in the question itself, nor was it solely due to the tyranny of the Opposition. He thought it must be admitted that the Government had had a great deal of trouble in the Education Department. There had been constant changes made. He was very glad to hear that his hon. friend the Member for Denbigh, in his speech the previous night, did not make the slightest criticism upon the permanent officials of the Department who had had such an amount of work thrown upon them. He was sure he would command the assent of everyone on the front bench when he said that no officials could do more to carry out all the wishes of the Government now in power than the permanent officials of the Department had done. A terrible burden had been cast upon them especially in connection with the last settlement, as was shown by the published correspondence. With regard to the politicians, of course, they deserved, in a sense, all that was said about them, and he thought that all the changes that had been made were perfectly agreeable to those subjected to them. But he believed these changes must have interfered with the attempts to secure a settlement of the question. His right hon. friend the present Minister for Education had not had quite fair play. He had only been in that office a few months when he had to bring in this Bill, but, though so young, they all desired to acknowledge his great abilities. There had not only been a change in persons, but a charge in principles. He had been astonished at a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in April last. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman said—
"I met a bishop down in Wales the other day and he said to me: 'Cannot we settle this
748
question?' and I said to him: 'Why, certainly.' And so the bishop brought some of his clergy and I brought some of my Nonconformist friends and there we would have settled everything, only some busy bodies interfered."
He could not help asking himself when that conversation with the bishop took place? He remembered in 1902 the right hon. Gentleman shaking his finger at the present Leader of the Opposition, and warning him against going buccaneering with the bishops. He also remembered an occasion in 1906 when his right hon. friend tapped the box on the Table and shouted—
"Clericism is the enemy."
And now he said, "What is the good of embittering the quarrel; cannot we get to business"? It might be said: "Why recall these things? The men who then carried the sword and heaved the bricks are now for peace." He fully agreed, but he only wanted to point out that such men did not always make very good conciliators. They were too violent at one stage and went too far in the other direction at the text. So, his right hon. friends might have gone too far in the Settlement of this education question and given away vital principles, the loss of which those for whom they spoke would for ever regret. He wanted to look at this matter in a businesslike way. Let them ask What was the principle of the Bill? It was quite different from that of the last Bill. There was a talk of its carrying over the last Bill with a few Amendments, but that was absurd. The last Bill contained six clauses printed on five pages; this Bill consisted of twelve clauses and covered ten pages of print. Therefore, it could not be called an Amendment of the old Bill. The principle of the Bill might be stated thus: to introduce sectarian teaching into council schools and to abolish the religious settlement of 1870. He need not take the two things separately because they were both the same. He wanted to say a word or two on behalf of the settlement, of 1870. His right hon. friend the Member for Rushcliffe said that that was a splendid settlement and he exclaimed: "Look how successful it has been!" And then his argument was: "Let us sweep it away." That was not his feeling. If they had got hold of some principles that had

749
stood the stocks of time and had brought much good to the nation for nearly forty years, they ought to hesitate before they swept them away. His right hon. friend talked as if Cowper-Temple teaching was to go on in future just as it was doing to-day. There might have been more accuracy in the statement. What was Cowper-Templeism? It was that no formula or catechism of any particular Church was to be taught in any board or council school. Now, was it not the object of this Bill that all these formulæ and catechisms were to be taught in the council schools? If they passed this Bill they destroyed the Cowper-Temple compromise. That compromise was a most remarkable one. He never looked into it without wondering at the wisdom of their predecessors. The first principle of the compromise, the law as it now stood, was that the State should not interfere in the religious teaching in the schools; that that should all be left to the local authority. The school inspectors were not to interfere with the religious teaching sanctioned by the local authority. No grant was to be paid for religious instruction. No question was to be asked by the school inspectors about religious teaching. And finally, no school was to suffer in any way if it did not give religious teaching. He spoke on this matter as one profoundly impressed with the importance of religious teaching in the schools. In 1906 they discussed this matter at great length, but no true facts were presented to the House with regard to what Cowper-Templeism really was. When the 1906 Bill was before the House of Lords that House ordered a Report to be published in regard to Cowper-Temple teaching, and two remarkable Blue-books on the subject were issued in 1907. He was sorry that there had never been a discussion in this House on that Report, which showed that of the 331 local education authorities into which this country was divided, all of them, with the exception of one and even that one subject to some qualification, stated that religious teaching was given in their schools. That was to say that Cowper-Temple teaching was given in the 7,000 council schools in the country, and only in sixty or seventy schools was
750
it not given. Was it not remarkable that this provision, so free, without compulsion, should have secured such a wonderful result? What was it that their predecessors in this House trusted to in regard to religious teaching? They put their trust in the religious instincts of the English people; and that was the reason why religious teaching had spread so much through the schools all over the country. But in this Bill, instead of trusting to the religious instincts of the people and leaving them a free hand on the matter, instead of relying on the wisdom of the local authorities, they had, on the prompting of the bishops, made it secure that there should be denominational religious teaching for three-quarters of an hour twice a week. They had put the local authorities under two authorities—first under the State and then under the priests. He feared that they had made a great mistake. He was speaking from the standpoint of a purely Protestant country. He thought that his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo had a perfectly good case when he said that this system was no good to the Roman Catholics. His Church had proved that, because no Catholic School was ever transferred to the local authority, and some other system to meet the needs of the Catholics must be devised. As he said they had never examined these Blue-books, but there was a debate on them in the House of Lords, and the Archbishop of Canterbury declared that he had always held that Cowper-Temple teaching contained the backbone of Church teaching. If the Church had got the backbone of their teaching they ought to be satisfied with it. He thought his Nonconformist friends had been quite unfairly treated throughout this matter of Cowper-Temple teaching. It had been described as Nonconformist teaching, and it was always talked of as if the Nonconformists made no sacrifice in accepting it. That was an insult to the Nonconformists who had their creeds and formularies as well as other Churches. What, however, was the position of Nonconformists with regard to this matter? Their position was that they had obeyed the law, and carried out the compromise. Then they were

751
asked to accept another compromise, and the inquiry was made what they had given up. They replied that they had given up the right to teach their creed for the sake of setting up a good system of education in the schools, and they asked the Church to follow their example. He thought the Church had hitherto got the best of it; and as we had got in this country one system which had had such a proud record, and which secured so much to everybody, they ought to hesitate before they swept it away. Let them look at the effect it would have upon schools if they did this. A short time ago there was not one Liberal on those benches who would not have agreed with everything he had said, but what startling change had come over them. In eloquent language the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty said that if they took the course set up by the Bill they would create pandemonium. He did not wish to put it so high as that, but he said that they would create great confusion if religious teaching were introduced in this way. If hon. Members studied the Bill they would see that it bristled with dangers. The two mornings did not mean two mornings a week altogether, but two mornings a week for every child, so that this sort of teaching would go on every morning. Then it was imagined that only religions with creeds would be taught, but they might have Christian Science and atheism brought in, and they might have a dozen jarring sects struggling in the schools for the bodies and souls of the poor children. They were told that at this moment war was going on, and that they ought to make peace, but the war was among the politicians, and there was peace in the schools. In the Catholic schools of the country the children were not experiencing any difficulties with regard to religious instruction, and in the Church and council schools they were getting on very nicely, and they had a great deal to thank this Parliament for. It had passed a food Bill and measures for medical inspection and sanitation. They had done much, and the cause of education was not stopped, but they were making great progress, and he did not believe that there was anything in this Bill which would advance educa-
752
tion one whit. What would the Government do by it? They would transfer the strife which was raging among politicians to the schools, and he did not want that to be done. They were grown-up people, and were accustomed to strife, and could carry it through with comparatively little damage to themselves. But if it was introduced into the schools it would do permanent injury to the young mind. They had no experience of this system in this country.
LORD E. CECIL: The day industrial schools.
MR. LOUGHsaid he did not allude to them; he was speaking of the ordinary elementary schools. In the ordinary elementary school, whether it was a Church school or a council school they had got only one system of religious teaching. There were 7,000 of these schools in which there were 3,000,000 children in attendance, and he thought the House ought to pause before it disturbed a system which had worked so long and so well. What would be the effect of the Bill if it passed? It was said that only extremists were against it, but that was not the case. He was not as extremist. He did not like to mention another matter, and yet he felt bound to bring it before this House. He did not think the financial provision of the Bill was satisfactory. This was part of the difficulty in which they were placed owing to the extraordinary hurry with which the Bill had been produced. He should like to ask this question: Would the council schools get the grant which was given to the contracted-out schools?
MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend will find the financial proposals of my predecessor were published on 26th February last, and they have been before the House, ever since.
MR. LOUGHwas glad to have elicited that information. He believed, therefore, that the same grants would be given to the council schools as would be given to the contracting-out schools. If that was so it would go a great way to meet the difficulties. In London they suffered under the Education Bill by getting

753
about 2s. less than they ought to receive, and if anything was done with regard to education grants something should be done to remove the inequalities in regard to London. The financial proposals of the Bill were of a very subtle character in another respect. He wanted the House to look at the character of these associations, which were distinctly bound up with the financial arrangements. They were told that the Roman Catholic Association might get an amount of £750,000, and that the Roman Catholics did not think that was sufficient; and perhaps they might be able to make out a case to that effect. But he wanted to see the position of the Church Association. This question had been discussed as if it were quite certain that all Church schools would be transferred to the local authorities, but there was not a word about transferring Church schools except the 5,000 schools in the single school areas, and although that was a great number there was no compulsory provision for transferring any other schools. These 5,000 schools had only 500,000 children, and there would still remain about a million and a half of other Church school children. If all those contracted out the Church Association might have an income of three or four millions. He thought it was a very serious question for this House to consider at the end of an Autumn session whether associations of this kind were to be set up, and given such large sums as those proposed by the Bill. The very forefront of the Bill said that all tests for teachers would be removed by it, but he was afraid that those tests although driven out in one place, were put back again in another. He could not see how the teacher could be asked to volunteer to give religious teaching without introducing in a subtle way the tests which were condemned in the first clause. A teacher would make an excellent reputation for himself by volunteering to give religious teaching, and a great many would ingratiate themselves with the authorities in that way with a view to promotion. These were a few of the difficulties which he saw, and which he had always seen, in any system of establishing a right of entry or interfering with the Cowper-Temple compromise. They were difficulties which he did not
754
think the Government had fully considered. It was not enough for them to say: "Let us meet this in a spirit of conciliation; let us give up something, and the other side give up something, and all will be right." It did not follow in human affairs that all would be right, and he saw a subtle danger in the way in which the Government were going about this that appealed to him very strongly. If the President of the Board of Education had brought down a Bill, and said it was out of his own mind, and expressed the conviction that he had been brought to it by a long struggle as a politician in this country, he would have received that Bill with greater respect. He did not like these arrangements behind the back of Parliament. They had had two of them this year, and the effect of them was to reduce this House to a registering assembly and their free judgment was not exercised upon them. They were told by the Prime Minister that there was an equilibrium about this settlement, but what was the result of it? It meant that they were going to waste ten days more in Committee and do nothing. They were the legislative authority of this country and he did not know who gave the Archbishop of Canterbury a right to dictate to the Nonconformist majority of this House. He had a great respect for the Archbishop of Canterbury, and all other clergymen in their proper places, but when they came to male laws he said they had not been selected by the people for that purpose, whereas the Members of this House had been, and they ought to approach the making of the laws with every faculty that they could bring to bear upon the ask and with perfect freedom. They ought to be asked to express their opinions with due regard to limitations as to length, and as he did not wish to break that excellent rule he would not continue his remarks further, except to say that he was in favour of conciliation ["Oh!"] Certainly he was, his whole record proved that. He was for conciliation and he had mentioned those points in a perfectly business way to his right hon. friend in charge of the Bill, and until the last moment when they might have to give a decision on the subject he would certainly give the Government the benefit of

755
any doubts which he had in his mind, and if they could remove those doubts they should certainly have his support.
MR. BUTCHERexpressed the opinion that no one on the Opposition side of the House, whether he approved or disapproved of this Bill, was insensible of the admirable spirit and intention of its authors. The Bill itself was in marked contrast to that which it displaced. The principle of the last Bill was that if you wanted religious freedom you must buy it at the cost of educational efficiency, and if you desired educational efficiency you must forfeit all claim to religious freedom. That could not be said of this Bill. On the whole it would be unfair to say that any large section of the community was to be penalised for its religious convictions. But there was one exception, and that was the intolerable position in which the Roman Catholics were placed. Those who desired, from the church of England point of view, to come to a settlement could hardly do so without a sense of betrayal and dishonour resting upon them so long as something better was not done for the Roman Catholics, and he trusted that in Committee the case of the Roman Catholics would receive much more careful consideration. Many people, both in the House and outside, felt that this Bill inflicted so great an injustice on the Church of England that it would be impossible for members of that communion to accept it. He owned that some ominous remarks dropped on the previous night by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk seemed to portend mischief, and to raise the question which, after all, was the main question before the House—Was this intended to be a lasting settlement, a permanent peace, or merely a truce? He confessed that those remarks disquieted him, nor did the text of the Bill appear fully to embody the understandings arrived at in the published correspondence. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had that day done something to reassure them on that score. He had told the House that if it were maintained that the Bill did not give full effect to the agreement, he would give careful attention to such criticisms.
756
Everyone was alive to the enormous sacrifices which the Bill entailed on both sides. On the side of the Church of England, whether they considered it from the point of view of the sacrifice of money or of cherished sentiments, the sacrifices were immense and incalculable. In the rural areas and country villages the Church gave up everything and gained nothing. If the country clergy looked at this Bill only from the point of view of their own schools he would not be surprised if they said that the terms were impossible to accept. The only grounds upon which they could be accepted were that there might be found in the Bill, as a whole, other compensating advantages which made these great sacrifices worth incurring. There were two novel features in the Bill, which he put down as gain from the Church of England point of view. One was that for the first time the rights of parents were here explicitly recognised to have that form of religious instruction which they desired given to their children. That had been the demand of the Church for years past, but it had never yet found expression in legislation. Hitherto, the parent had a right to say, "The child shall not learn this"; and so the parent might withdraw the child; but until now no right had been given him to say "the child shall learn that." This was a great and a positive gain. It was brought about mainly through the universal right of entry. It was said that these facilities were precarious and illusory; that an unfriendly Board of Education or a hostile local authority might defeat their purpose; that the plea might be put in that the administration and discipline of the school made it impossible either for a school teacher or a stranger to give special religious instruction. But the working of this Bill, as of so many other things in our social and political life, must depend on the goodwill of those who worked it. As for the words of the Bill, they could be so amended as to make the intention more clear than it was at present; for the rest it must be left to the local authorities, who throughout England had shown remarkable reasonableness and toleration, and had managed to work out a difficult Act with wonderful harmony. Anyhow he did not feel able

757
to depreciate the right of entry as had been done by some of his friends both inside and outside the House. He regarded this as a great opportunity which had come within the reach of the Church of England, and had hitherto seemed unattainable. The value of that opportunity would depend on what the Church made of it. It would provide a test of the vitality of the Church and of the convictions of the parents. If the Church had sufficient organising power, and the parents sufficiently strong religious convictions, the right of entry would be the greatest boon ever conferred on the Church of England. It probably could not be worked merely through the teachers in the schools. He put aside the question of the head teacher for a moment, though in passing he would say that the one-sided liberty given to the head teacher was most inequitable. If he was to be allowed to refuse to give religious instruction, he ought also to be allowed to give it if he liked. He thought, however, that the Church would find it necessary not to call in mere amateur teachers but to bring in trained volunteers, and they would have to devote their energies to the training of such teachers.
The second gain was this. It was the intention of the Bill to secure that Christian teaching should be given on the demand of the parents in every school in England. It was no longer to depend on municipal contests or on the warfare of local factions, it was now to be a statutory right. That had been criticised as one of the blots of the Bill. To his mind it was one of its chief merits that it lifted religious teaching above municipal squabbles, and recognised the duty to give that teaching as something enjoined by the State. But this Christian teaching—a description disputed by some of his friends—would not be made effective merely by such provisions as that for the formation of a religious instruction committee. It would be necessary to provide religious inspection of that teaching; and there must also be a complete change of policy of the Department as regards the training colleges. There must be no more of that policy of harsh repression which had characterised the Education
758
Department towards the training colleges during the last two years. He welcomed the signs which had already been given by the Minister of Education that there was to be a new departure in that respect. He would only say a passing word upon the question of undenominational or Cowper-Temple teaching. It was said that it henceforth received a preferential place in our educational system; also it was described as "a new creed," a "State religion." As regards preferential treatment, the Bill did not for the first time give it preferential treatment; that treatment had been given for many years. As regards the other objection, he could not persuade himself that Cowper-Templeism was a creed or in any strict sense an "ism" at all. He quite admitted that for the Roman Catholics it was a form of religious creed which it was impossible for them to accept. But to the great mass of English Churchmen it was the common basis of Christian teaching, the groundwork upon which the rest of the fabric was raised. Church membership might be superadded to that teaching. Church teaching could supplement it. If that were not so, how could English, Churchmen so long have acquiesced in a majority of their children being taught this form of religion in the Council schools of England? That fact alone showed that in the mind of most members of the Church Cowper-Temple teaching was not the poisonous thing it was thought to be by some extreme denominalionalists. He frankly admitted that the unified denominational school, both educationally and from the point of view of religion, was far better than the other kind of school; yet the description often given of undenominational schools could not be sustained by anybody holding the moderate views of the Church of England.
But he would add another remark—it was a vital consideration—that the Church of England must look ahead—it must look to the future. In the course of the debate, figures had been quoted which showed that the Church schools were dwindling in number every year, many of them had been recently closed, the number of children attending them was steadily declining, while the

759
number of children in the Council schools was steadily increasing. He had heard no answer from his friends who took the other view to this question: "What do you propose to do looking to the future? Your whole interest seems to be concentrated upon the Church children in Church schools. Have you no concern for that much larger number of Church children who are in the council schools, who in a very few years will form an enormous majority over the others?" There were many poor parishes in the suburbs of London and in all the great cities where there were no Church schools, and now for the first time the Church would get access to those Church children; it would have the right of entry which, if it were used well and wisely, might be in the end the salvation of the children. Further, the Church of England was the Church of the nation, and not the Church of a sect, Her first obligations were to the members of her own communion, but she had also duties to those outside that communion. Other denominations might regard their duties as discharged when they had provided for the needs of their own children. Not so the Church of England; she was the trustee of the religious life of the whole people, she must have regular for the spiritual interests of the nation as a whole. It was surely a matter of the first moment to the Church of England that the State should not be secular, but that religion should be recognised, as it was solemnly recognised in this Bill as a concern of the State. He laid great stress upon the special duty the Church of England owed to those who were not only outside her own communion, but outside all the Churches there was a mass of children in our great industrial centres whose parents were untouched by the organisation of any Church; and if a secular system, which many advocated, were established, who would be responsible for those children? What body was there, what organisation? There was no agency other than the State, and that form of religion which the State authorised. The Church of England, therefore, could not take a narrow or sectarian view. She could not get absolute equality in the sense in which that phrase was some-
760
times used. She must make some sacrifices, and provided that she could safeguard the principles for which her own schools existed, she might well consent to surrender her strict rights in order to fulfil larger duties. If the present settlement were rejected, then candidly he saw nothing before them but the secular solution. It seemed to him that they would be steering straight for the secularisation of the schools, and he could not wonder that those who desired that solution entered the passionate protest which they heard last night against the proposed compromise. It was not a matter for the Church of England only, but for all who cared for religious education, to avert such a result. He trusted that Church people would consider this matter not only from the point of view of their own schools, the surrender of which might be to them a grievous hardship, but that they take care that their allegiance to their own Church did not prevail over their allegiance to religion itself.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (M. TREVELYAN,: My right hon. friend the Member for Islington stated with great truth that most of us who are supporting this Bill are practised fighters in the education field, and I am reminded that my first political pilgrimage with my right hon. friend the President, was in an autumn campaign denouncing the Bill of 1902. Probably most of us envy in some degree those who are still compelled to maintain an attitude of splendid irreconcilability. It has very many attractions. But also because we have fought so long we have been able fairly and correctly to measure the strength of the position of those who have hitherto been opposed to us. I think we are wise in coming to the conclusion that we cannot have peace except on terms. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, speaking to-day, was emphatic in his opinion that we none of us approve this arrangement, and that we none of us support it on its intrinsic merits. Is that true? Is it the case? Most of us see in this Bill the acceptance of some of our cherished principles, though it is true that there are

761
disagreeable concessions in it that we should very much like to avoid. For myself, I should be no party to arrangements which did not in essentials give us those things for which I and my forbears have been working. To my mind this controversy has always hinged, more than upon anything else, on the question of the test of teachers. The first time that I hoped for accommodation in this controversy and the effectual ending of this long warfare, was in the spring of this year, when I listened in the House of Lords to the Archbishop of Canterbury speaking on the Bill of the Bishop of St. Asaph. He used these words, speaking on 30th March—
"Then this Bill admits the principle of the freedom of the teacher as such from religious tests. That is the more difficult question, I think, of all the many difficult questions which arise in connection with our educational problem. I have myself all my life supported the principle of freedom from tests of all those who occupy public offices in the Civil Service, or in other similar public capacity. I think that it is accepted now by most people, and I confess I have come to admit it myself even for teachers in their professional capacity."
I came away from the House of Lords on that occasion with new hope after these observations of the Archbishop. I want to say a few words about this question to my hon. friends on this side of the House. This Bill intends to abolish tests for teachers and I think it does so. The criticism which requires most to be met from this side of the House is the allegation that we have incidentally reimposed tests for teachers by this Bill. I think that everyone will admit that in rate-aided schools at any rate, legal tests are going to be abolished for teachers. You cannot abolish tests absolutely, because you cannot prevent a bias in the minds of the selectors of the teachers. Some men do not know what religious liberty means, and until you get perfection of public opinion you cannot get perfect freedom from tests. It is alleged by some of my hon. friends that clergymen and other enthusiastic Churchmen will, in order to get the assistance of the assistant teachers in the public schools, practically impose a test upon them by letting it be known that when it comes to promotion they will have their suffrages. I am not prepared to say that there would be no danger of this occurring among small bodies of managers where there are
762
clergymen who have a somewhat narrow view of their responsibilities. In this Bill we make an attempt to remove the appointment of teachers out of what from the educational point of view I regard as the unsatisfactory parochial atmosphere where local prejudice and the limited power of selection injures the chances of free choice. We propose that the local educational authorities shall henceforward appoint the teachers themselves, and when the time comes I am ready to argue that as a great and valuable education reform. Here the provision is inserted as being an absolute safeguard against any systematic use of the power of promotion in order to reward, the teacher. Among the varieties of partisanship which you find on county councils and corporations religious fanaticism very rarely appears. Since 1902 the county councils and the corporations have very often with very great difficulty worked what many of their members regarded as a partial Act with singular impartiality. What I say now is that when all moderate men are determined to make this Act work, as they will be if it is passed, the last thing that any county council will do is to tolerate the appointment of its teachers by religious prejudice. I believe in the commonsense of the average Englishman, and I believe he will prevent the county councils, being made the fighting ground for sects, for everybody, from the squire to the working-man, is thoroughly sick of this kind of thing. I think those teachers who take the view of my hon. friend the Member for Nottingham are singularly ill-advised in their attitude towards this Bill. As a matter of fact the teachers stand to gain more than anybody else by it. There are 5,000 schools now closed to half the teachers of the country which will certainly be open to their free competition under this Bill. It appears to me to be a somewhat short-sighted policy on the part of the teachers for the sake of an indefinite, exaggerated, and speculative mistrust of their average fellow-citizens to reject what is for them a great actual professional emancipation. I say that, as far as I am concerned, I believe many people on this side of the House holding Liberal principles are thoroughly satisfied by this Bill. We get freedom for teachers, and

763
by the control of the schools coming into the hands of the local authorities passive registers can now pay their rates with peace and honour. But we have to make concessions. I do not myself like the right of entry, and I do not think we should concede the right of entry except to get a far greater thing, namely, the public control of the schools and a non-sectarian system. I very much wish that the clergymen would leave the schools alone, and I am sorry they are not satisfied with the ordinary Cowper-Temple teaching. But it is a solid and undisputed fact that they are not satisfied with it. That may be regrettable from our point of view, but it is very easy to exaggerate the harm which the clergy or anybody else can do by coming into the public schools. There may be here and there a clergyman who will try to make himself a nuisance by interfering and proselytising. I do not think they will, but that is a possible danger. Again I say that I do not believe public opinion on the local education authorities will allow that to take place. I think this fear in the minds of those who suggest that if this Bill is passed everybody from the parson to the managers are going to be unreasonable is wrong. I think that is a grotesque view of my fellow-countrymen. The Bishop of Manchester has used some words in which he spoke of something like an epidemic of sentimentality passing over the country. What there is throughout the country is an atmosphere of conciliation and common-sense and if we pass this Bill by the New Year we shall be able to go down to our counties, where we shall find everybody in responsible positions anxious to consider all the foibles and difficulties of others, resolutely and determinedly ready to work the arrangements in the Bill. It is in that spirit of confidence in our fellow-countrymen that I should like to see members of the Church of England approaching these proposals. Naturally we do not expect all sections of the Church to approve of this Bill, but I think we may fairly ask that those who care primarily for the rights of parents to support us. Since 1870 they have never been in a position of case or security. They have had a limited number of Church schools which have been maintained at great expense and with little advantage to the Church owing to the
764
unpopularity of the system. Their children in the provided schools were unable to obtain on any terms the religious teaching which they thought they had a right to have. Until the; Archbishop of Canterbury presented these possible terms to his Church they were as far away as ever from obtaining what they wanted. A diminishing proportion of the children of the country were able to get Church teaching, and they were always liable through turns of political fortune to lose even the opportunities which they had. By this Bill, if honestly and properly worked, parents will have the absolute right conceded to them of getting their special religious teaching. The greater part of the arguments which have come from the other side of the House, and from those who are not wholly against these arrangements, has been that the facilities which the Government are offering under this Bill are not real. The noble Lord the Member far Marylebone said that the facilities under this Bill were an excrescence which was likely to disappear. The hon. Member for Chichester said they were meant to be illusory, and even the hon. Member for the Oxford University had some doubts as to whether these facilities were really effective. Now let us be quite clear as to what the Government mean. First of all, this Bill is meant to be an honest settlement. The granting of those facilities is meant to be a real permission. They are meant to be as fair as possible, and they are meant to be an absolute right to the parent limited only by the minimum of precaution necessary to prevent educational chaos. You might have a condition of things where there was an application by so many denominations that the educational efficiency of the school would be impossible to maintain during the first three-quarters of an hour. When we produce the provisions by which the local education authority have the absolutely necessary administrative control over the management of facilities, we are turned upon and told that then the Church is to be at the mercy of the local education authority, who may squeeze the teaching out of the schools in detail if not in the gross. Again, look at the condition of the public mind. If this Bill were passed would moderate opinion allow the county

765
council to do anything of the kind? The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone said the other day that if this Bill were carried you would have the various sections going into local politics in order to see that facilities were properly worked. The very last thing that the members of the county councils want is to have their bodies turned into cockpits of religious squabbles, and they will take very good care to work these facilities honestly and straightforwardly in order to avoid any such occurrences as that. If it should happen that there are one or two counties so perverse as to attempt to break up the national settlement we may rely upon the honesty of the President of the Board of Education doing his best to prevent it. I want to know why we should expect the granting of these facilities becoming a failure. A few years ago I was in Australia, in New South Wales, where they have a system like the settlement which the Government is now proposing in this Bill. There are in New South Wales State-aided schools, State-managed, no tests for teachers, and no dogmatic or polemical theology taught. General religious teaching is part of the normal course of instructions in all the schools of the Colony, but superadded are facilities which, with the exception of certain details, are almost exactly what the Government are now proposing. Provision is made for setting apart one hour each day during which the clergymen may give special instruction to those scholars of his own particular persuasion. As a matter of fact, the compromise we give is rather better, because they do not allow instruction lay the assistant teacher. I made very careful inquiries, and I elicited that the privilege of giving special religious teaching was availed of by the Church of England and by that body alone. That was the system which ha I been working in New South Wales some ten or fifteen years, and there has been no case of friction recorded between the educational authorities and the Church in carrying out those facilities. In order that the House may see it was a real concession I should like to read from one of the Reports issued in the diocese of Sydney, where the Church displays a great activity, from
766
the Rev. Arthur W. Payne, on special religious instruction—
"A good record of work done during the past year can be given. It is impossible to furnish an absolutely complete statement, but there has been an increase in the number of clergy and catechists engaged in this work. Altogether at least 449 classes were taught, representing about 28,000 children. These are the highest figures yet reported."
This seems thoroughly satisfactory. I never heard anyone say there was any harm in it from the point of view of the Church. The Church was thoroughly satisfied. And on the other hand, when I was there, although I made many inquiries, I never heard any complaint on the part of other Protestant Churches of the use made by the Church of England of a privilege which was on their part deliberately neglected. I believe it might work in the same way here. Some hon. Gentleman opposite are alarmed because some of my friends on this side say there need be no fear in granting facilities because they will not last long; in ten years nobody will be utilising them. Of course, it is possible that at any rate in some parts of England the Church may prefer to restrict the denominational teaching to the Sunday schools. It may prefer to keep its money for other purposes than paying teachers to come in for denominational teaching. I am entirely disinclined to be prophetic myself. I do not know what is likely to happen. But even if that should happen it would not vitiate the arrangement from the point of view of the Church. They could always re-adopt the system if they pleased. I prefer to say, with the hon. Member for Oxford University, the right of entry will be whatever the Church, chooses to make of it. None of us like contracting out. Some Churchmen want all schools that can be to be contracted out, and they are asking for a grant which is equivalent to the present rats aid. Obviously that would be no settlement at all. Clearly there are districts which are not covered by the single school area provisions, in which there are two or three denominational schools, as the case may be. If contracting out were allowed with enormous grants equivalent to rate aid, what would

767
happen in those districts? All the Church schools would remain and costly public schools would have to be built for those children who did not want to go there. There would be from the point of view of a large number of people, no public gain, and a great deal of educational and financial loss. We are all agreed with regard to contracting-out, if contracting-out there must be, that it should be as limited as possible, because it is an educational evil, and where it is specially desired there must be some kind of readiness to contribute towards it. Last night we had a surprising speech from the hon. Member for North-West Manchester. He informed us that in the unfortunate parishes of Lancashire there are no subscribers. He did not appear to appreciate that even if that were true they could get assistance from the rich subscribers to their association in other parts of England. But really are we to believe that the Lancashire Churchmen are so determined to be outside the national system, and yet so unable to pay for the privilege? Surely there must be some exaggeration in the hon. Gentleman's figures. Either the Churchmen of Lancashire are not so anxious for their separate schools or else they are not quite so poor as he represents them to be. The Church can very well afford to pay for this exceptional privilege. In 1901 £640,000 were subscribed by the Church of England to these schools, and there is no reason why they should not pay a large proportion for the special privilege of standing outside the national system. Again, on the Roman Catholic aspect of the question, from an educational point of view, we regret contracting out, but the terms we offer cannot be regarded as ungenerous. In Australia they have systems which absolutely satisfy the whole of the Protestant part of the population. But what happens to the Catholics there? There is no money for Catholics at all They are pariahs. The whole of the money has to be found by them—a terrible misfortune for the education and the progress of the country. We are being generous to those who choose to hold themselves out of our national system. I believe this Bill is the basis for some kind of settlement. I believe
768
we are in it reverting to what might have been achieved in 1870 if the opportunity had been taken, a national system with the fewest possible exceptions instead of the exceptions being made the rule. I do not believe in 1870 the National Church need ever have been outside the national system. I do not believe it ever wanted to be outside the national system, but a bribe was offered it to stay outside, and no inducements were offered it to come inside. We, to-day, honestly offer terms to the Church to enter, and many of its wisest leaders are anxious to accept these terms if they can. I believe our country will be intensely angry with us if we reject this Bill. We shall be felt to represent neither the Churches nor the State. The mass of the electors want a settlement. They may be the less articulate part of the electors, but they are the more numerous, and in the end it will be found they are the more important.
MR. GEORGE ROBERTSquite agreed that some constituents might be angry if the Bill was rejected. But he was perfectly sure, even if the Bill was enacted, no considerable part of the people would be very enthusiastic about it. He wished to give his reasons for having decided to vote against the Second Reading. He had generally agreed that a Bill should secure Second Reading, and that there every privilege should be availed of to effect desired Amendments. But in regard to this Bill if he read the signs aright there would be no chance of emendation in Committee. They had to take the Bill as a whole. They would be able to make their speeches but the Government and the supporters of the Bill would be able when occasion required to rally their forces and outvote any arguments which might be adduced against any provision of the Bill. This seemed to be a grave violation of Parliamentary privilege. He entered an emphatic protest against these compromises being entered into and Bills being framed upon them simply with the idea that Parliament had the power only to ratify but neither to amend nor reject them. They had been plainly told by Ministers that the Bill was to be accepted

769
as a whole, that if any portion of it was modified or tampered with the balance would be disturbed and the whole arrangement would have been broken. He felt that that was an undesirable thing. The House of Commons was the representative body of the nation, and Bills ought to be passed through the House as the result of free expression of opinion and due consideration of the various points comprised in them. One wondered how far this system of conference and compromise was likely to proceed. Would they see a conference to consider whether it was possible to get a Licensing Bill through? He did not see why, if it was possible to bring two hitherto irreconcilable elements such as the bishops and Nonconformists together, it was not equally practicable to bring the brewing interest and the temperance reformer into cooperation. He would have no objection to a Licensing Bill going through, but he did not think it was practicable on these lines. He had never contemplated seeing Nonconformists accept a Bill containing such startling provisions as this. During the general election, although in the whole of his public career he had been convinced that the only abiding and natural solution of the question was the secular solution, his sympathies were Nonconformist, and he had pledged himself in his constituency to see redress for the undoubted grievances that Nonconformists laboured under. But if this was the way in which Nonconformist grievances were to be remedied he could not read the terms aright. In this compromise they seemed to think that the nation was composed entirely of Churchmen and Nonconformists. There was a considerable proportion of people who perfectly honestly rejected all creeds. He had never heard previously that the rejection of creeds invalidated the rights of citizenship, and he could not see how the rights of this considerable portion of people were properly preserved in this Bill. True the conscience clause was retained, but there was no man with a proper respect for his children who liked them to be marked as heretical in the schools. They had a strong objection to the children being called upon to bear the whole responsibility for the
770
idiosyncrasies of their parents, and he felt that even the retention of this so-called conscience clause did not compensate for the abrogation of the rights of a considerable class of people, many of whom he was acquainted with as being good citizens and equally worthy of consideration with any sects who were parties to this compromise. They had been told repeatedly that if this Bill was not accepted the only alternative was the secular solution. Others said that that would never be accepted by the nation as a whole, but he was convinced that more and more people were coming to recognise that it was the only enduring solution of this vexed question. Undoubtedly in the realm of sectarianism the non-combatants were diminishing. More people were becoming convinced of the desirability of the State confining itself to the imparting of what was known as secular instruction. Another portion of the people were so sick and weary of this sectarian bitterness that they had turned to the secular solution, some said as a policy of despair, because they desired to put an end to this question. The Government ought to accord more credit to those who had advocated the secular solution. If it had not been for the spread of that idea he did not think the bishops and Nonconformists would ever have come together in this matter. The Archbishop of Canterbury had referred to "the gaunt spectre of secular education." He felt his Grace had become convinced that some sort of settlement ought to be arrived at, otherwise the nation would, as a whole, embrace the idea to which he had referred. It was proposed by subsection (b) of Clause 1 of this Bill that Cowper-Templeism was for the first time to become a statutory part of our national education. He regarded that as a most undesirable departure from the State point of view. Although Churchmen and Nonconformists might have succeeded for the time being in coming to an arrangement on this matter he believed they would find that they were opening up fresh difficulties, and that strong resentment would be manifested against this new provision. Hitherto they had had a more or less correct idea of what was meant by Cowper-Templeism, but

771
did the provision in Clause 7 mean that a committee of religious bodies was to decide about the syllabuses which were to prevail in the public schools? Were they to have a free hand in compiling the syllabuses? Was it to be that according to the composition of the committee the syllabus was to have a delicate denominational tinge in one district, and a vividly coloured denominational tinge in another? He saw a grave danger that Cowper-Templeism as they had understood it in the past might be a pronounced form of denominationalism. If the local education authorities were to have power to appoint the special committees these committees could compile the syllabuses which would satisfy the whole of their denominational demands. He hoped that his fear on this point was unfounded, and that the Government would be able to assure him that no such power was contemplated. He was, for a number of years, connected with the school board of his own district, and, whatever might have been his speculative difficulties, he had always sided with his Nonconformist friends in protesting against the right of entry into the national schools. Until this Bill was sprung upon them he did not think that certain members of the Cabinet would ever have allowed such a principle to be embodied in a measure brought forward by a Liberal Government. He was convinced that the Government were placing them on the slippery slope of denominationalism. He felt sure that they would ultimately be convinced of the truth of the statement which had been constantly made that there was no logical halting place between the exclusion of all religion and the inclusion of all denominations in our educational system. The hon. Member for Louth, speaking on the Second Reading of the 1906 Bill, stated that he had a strong objection to the right of entry to public schools being conceded to the clergymen of every Church, because the Church of England was approximating more and more to Roman Catholicism. The attitude of some undenominationalists on the benches opposite was somewhat remarkable; he never conceived that it would have been possible, but there they had it. The teachers were still as strenuously opposed
772
to this as ever. Their desire was to promote education, and, therefore, they were not prepared to temporise with this arrangement at all. The teachers ought to know what sort of supervision would be exercised by those who were to have the right of entry into the schools. Were those who entered to be allowed to impart anything they liked? He had seen a letter from a Nonconformist who sent his children to a particular school as a matter of convenience. The children on returning from school one day stated that they had been told that unbaptised children could never enter the kingdom of heaven. It seemed to him that under the proposals contained in the Bill they were laying their children open to that kind of teaching. He could conceive that some children might be penned off in one classroom to receive such teaching, while others in another class-room might be taught something entirely different. It was undesirable that such conflicting ideas should be imparted to children attending the same school. Did the Government desire to see a system of fee paying growing up in the schools? He could not understand the meaning of the provision with respect to that matter. He hoped that no provision would be put in any Act of Parliament to encourage the establishment of schools on the fee-paying principle. He presumed there was a desire in some quarters to have a sort of class schools established, because some parents were able and willing to pay fees. That provision would have to be closely watched in Committee, and, if necessary, excised from the Bill. As to teachers being allowed to give religious instruction, he thought the hon. Member for North Camberwell put it in a rather paradoxical way last night when he said that the teachers would be asked to volunteer. A teacher might be asked to volunteer by a member of the authority by whom he was engaged. That would simply mean that the teacher's economic dependence would not allow him to refuse. If a local education authority desired that a certain kind of religious instruction should be given and a teacher refused to give it, the refusal would militate against the teacher's chance of promotion. Therefore, teachers did not want to be placed in that position. All educationists were opposed to the principle of contracting-out. There had not been an argument adduced that day in favour

773
of it. It meant that public control over contracted-out schools would be lost, and it necessarily followed that the standard of education would be depreciated in those schools. Under the system of contracting-out, the management of the schools would become largely clerical, and he was afraid it would become loose and inefficient. Further, the teachers would always be liable to have extraneous duties laid upon them. Very often they would be selected, not because they were able to impart certain secular knowledge, but because they were willing to perform duties which did not come within their functions. He and his friends who shared his views had a genuine complaint against this Bill. He never offered vexatious opposition to any measure. He would prefer in this case, if it were possible, to exercise restraint in order that the Bill might be passed, and the path cleared for the tackling of other social reforms. He was convinced that this Bill would afford no permanent solution of the question. He had heard Nonconformists say that they did not believe that the right of entry would be readily used. It was because he thought it would be largely used, and that it would be detrimental to the development of a national system of education that he objected to the Bill. They should look at this matter from the standpoint of the children. If they did so they would appreciate the futility of teaching these sectarian formulae to the children. He did not believe that the children could grasp these sectarian subtleties. They accepted them because they were told to do so, but when they grew up, if the teaching on these matters remained with them at all, they accepted it instinctively, not as the result of reason and reflection. He believed that in all spheres of thought their conclusions ought to be arrived at from study and reflection. For his own part, he wanted to see the children given as full an education as it was possible for them to acquire, so that when they arrived at maturity they would be able to judge these religious matters for themselves. They would then be in a position to determine for themselves whether these formulae were incongruous or wise on the whole. He did not believe that sectarian teaching had improved the character of the people of this country. Religion did not consist in
774
an intellectual assent to theological propositions. Religion was a thing they could not explain and could not put into the clauses of a Bill. It was something to believe, and he insisted that to allow clergymen into a school for a certain period two or three days in the week was not to promote a true idea of religion as he had been able to apprehend it. He agreed with other hon. Members that it was time this religious difficulty in the schools was got out of the way. He felt that they could do more to promote genuine educational progress by putting aside religious and sectarian controversies, and by extending the school age of the children, reducing the number of children in the classes, improving the qualifications of the teachers, and making it easier for the children to pass from the elementary to the higher forms of education. These things would never be possible until they put this religious controversy outside the field of educational affairs. He was convinced that this Bill would not effect that desirable consummation, but would do something to accentuate the existing evils. He believed that sectarian issues would be imported into Parliamentary elections, and it was evident from his speech that day, that the Leader of the Opposition would not let this question die. The right hon. Gentleman had practically said that if he was in power again he would be met with a demand for the extension of the privileges given in this Bill to the denominations, and he admitted the possibility of his party acceding to the demands of the denominationalists and placing denominationalism completely on the public funds. Municipal squabbles would arise over the question; Parliamentary issues would be obscured by sectarian conflict, and progress would be arrested. The duty of the State was to educate the children only in that which was common to all. This country did not consist alone of Churchmen or Nonconformists. There were other sections that had to be considered; and he very respectfully submitted that, however objectionable the idea of secular education might be to some people, it was the only practical solution of this vexed question. He apologised for the length of time he

775
had taken, but he wanted to make perfectly clear the conscientious reasons which he held for voting against the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he wished to give his reasons for voting for the Second Reading of this Bill. It was no ordinary Bill, and it had to be considered in its relation to the circumstances in which the measure had been brought in and the intentions with which it had been introduced. The objections he had to the Bill, though very great, were all clause objections, which might well be argued and enforced in the Committee stage and finally given effect to by a protest on the Third Reading. His inclination to support the Bill on the Second Reading had received some disturbance since the beginning of the debate. There were two causes of disquietude. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, who occupied a position of a rather representative character in this matter, had used the strange expression that this Bill was what he called an instalment. He would not be doing his duty if he did not draw attention to the use of that word. Again, the Prime Minister had said that this Bill was to be taken "as a whole," and the right hon. Gentleman had also used the expression that to make any material alteration in the Bill would be to "disturb its balance." He quite recognised that; but he was entitled to ask whether that meant merely that they were not to move for concessions of a substantial and material kind, or whether it meant that they were not to ask that concessions which some of them believed to be only apparent, should be converted in the course of the Committee stage into real concessions? Churchmen and the trustees and owners of Church schools were being asked to part with something which they could never regain. Vendors of land did not usually part with the possession of their land until the cash or specie was laid on the table. In this case the Church was asked to part with its schools for something which could easily be taken back again, or could be made altogether nugatory, as regarded its value. He did, not wish to impute want of faith,
776
or anything of that kind. Bills were not usually framed on the understanding that the whole population was going to enter into a conspiracy to defeat them when passed into law; but on this Bill they were justified in proceeding with the utmost possible caution, and were not entitled to proceed on the most optimistic assumptions. He did not wish, to mention names or to give currency to phrases used in the course of private conversation, but rumours had reached him and his friends, which showed that there had been no abatement on the part of certain local authorities of their hostility to Church schools. Was there any person on the benches opposite who could give, and was entitled to give—was there any leader of thought and opinion in or out of the House, who was prepared to give assurances that local authorities were prepared to change their conduct in relation to Church schools on advice from headquarters? If such assurances could be given they would go far to remove the objection which many on that side of the House had to voting for the Second Reading. He wished to enter the caveat that in voting for the Second Reading, he detached himself from approval of the actual provisions of the Bill. His vote for the Second Reading meant no more than that he wished to keep alive beyond that night the possibility of a settlement, because he felt that to close the door that night was to close it much too soon, and he did not wish to make impossible the carrying of Amendments which might make the Bill an equitable and a durable settlement.
SIR ROBERT PERKSdid not think that any Nonconformist in this House, or in the country either, could or would express much enthusiasm about this Bill, and he greatly doubted whether it was in accordance with many of the election pledges which they gave prior to the last election. He ventured to dissent from the view expressed by the Minister for Education when he said that in its main features it really carried out the principles which they had been for many years contending for. Indeed, if some of them had gone to their

777
constituencies three years ago and told them that they proposed to throw open the portals of the old school board schools, now the council schools, to the incursions of the clergy of every sect for the purpose of teaching their doctrinal theory, and if they had told them that they intended to extend the principle of contracting-out, and been asked to support such educational measures, the only answer, he thought, that they could have given them would have been: "Is thy servant a dog to do this?" None of them ever contemplated the remotest possibility of having to stand up in the House, and give even a measured degree of approval to a Bill of this description. His right hon. friend the Minister for Education was, he knew, familiar with the past history of Nonconformity in this country, and it seemed to him that history was strangely repeating itself in connection with this measure. He turned up last night a passage from a letter written by Lord Ripon to Mr. Forster in 1870, in which he stated the difficulty in which he found himself placed in forcing through the House a Bill which undoubtedly proved, as they had been told that afternoon, fairly satisfactory for many years, and which was sometimes called a settlement. Mr. Forster, as they all remembered, was brought to task, as he had no doubt the present Government would be, by many people throughout the country for being a party to a concession which was then considered educationally unsound and conflicting absolutely with the principles of religious equality and the teachings of Nonconformity. Lord Ripon replying to Mr. Forster said—
"Your business and mine is simply to try and get the Bill through without alteration. If Gladstone prefers to carry it by the aid of the Tory rather than by consulting the bulk of the Liberals, that is his affair not ours, and we must let him do what he likes on that point."
That was the view of what possibly some people might call a practical politician, and others would call a political opportunist. At all events, the result of the action was that the Government of the day was deserted by many of its most active supporters throughout the country, and the Liberal Party in 1874 was beater hopelessly at the polls. The Government unquestionably must have had all these facts before them when they
778
entered upon these negotiations, to which such frequent reference had been made in the House and in the Press. He would like to say that he spoke on behalf of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, which was the largest in. this country next to the Church of England, and when he said that no negotiations of any sort whatever had taken place between the Government and the educational authorities of that Church in connection with this Bill, prior to its introduction. They knew absolutely nothing about it officially. He did not think, with one or two exceptions possibly, that any of their leading ministers or laymen were consulted, and therefore they were in precisely the same position as the Roman Catholic Church. The Wesleyan Methodist Church were in absolutely the same position. As representing a village constituency, he would confine his remarks for the moment to the rural districts, and he would ask whether in the rural parts of this country they were going to gain or lose educationally by this Bill. It certainly seemed to him that the Bill for rural districts had three very distinct advantages, coupled, as it now stood, with two serious drawbacks. In the first place, the parson ceased to be the ruler of the school, and the sectarian majority on the management committee for the first time disappeared. The school, therefore, became a public school under the management of the local education authority, and that was unquestionably a great advantage, because it brought 6,000 single area schools in the country within the purview for the first time of a national system of educational control. He ventured to point out that this was not an effective-control unless this Bill, or some future Bill, was going a step further, and provide for very much smaller educational areas of management. Those who were familiar with the rural districts-knew that in many counties—let them take Lincolnshire as an illustration, there they had a great Nonconformist county, and its representation at present showed it to be a preponderating Liberal county, and yet the district and county educational authorities were, unhappily, through the smash-up of the school board system, now Anglican and

779
Tory, and failed altogether to represent either the political or religious complexion of the county. Consequently, unless they restored, and very quickly restored, the local educational authorities in small areas, they would not have the advantage of the educational assistance and supervision of the men in the locality. It was illusory altogether to suppose that this Bill give effective local control over their schools, and the point taken by the hon. Member below the gangway who spoke a few minutes before with reference to Clause 7, was a very practical one in such a county as Lincoln, because there it would be possible, under Clause 7, which he should very much like to see excised from the Bill, for the Lincolnshire County Council, and many other county councils, to provide a small sectarian committee for the purpose of formulating the religious curriculum to be used in public schools, this being Cowper-Templeism. But there was no doubt in these districts it was a great advantage to get rid of the parson who controlled the school and to make it into a public school, and place 6,000 schools under the national system. In the next place, the Bill undoubtedly emancipated in those districts the teacher from clerical control, and he became for the first time a free man, not appointed by managers of sectarian schools, whether they were Anglican, Wesleyan, or British, but he was appointed regardless of sectarian qualifications by the central educational power. That was a great step forward in the English, village and the small town, because it threw open for the first time, he thought he was not wrong in saying, some 10,000 or 12,000 places for head teachers and assistant teachers to the Nonconformist boy or girl. That was the second great advantage of this Bill in the rural district. The hon. Member who spoke last but one, he thought, spoke quite correctly when he said that possibly this Bill found them in a position of readiness to accept it, owing to the spectre of secularism in the distance—in the near distance. The paramount reason, however, was that they believed that religious or irreligious conflict was hostile to educational efficiency and progress. In the next place he believed that most of them were anxious for a settlement,
780
because there was no doubt that the controversies of the last few years had thrown into hostile camps many men who were anxious to work together for religious, social, and moral reform. But there was no doubt there was a third reason which governed many men, and that was to keep away from the young life of the country an educational system without the teaching of the Holy Scriptures in schools. Therefore while he would prefer to leave the local authorities the powers which they enjoyed under the Act of 1870 to decide for themselves whether they would have Bible teaching in the schools or not, whether they would have Cowper-Temple instruction or not, yet he was so anxious to base the education of the country upon the moral law derived directly from the reading and the teaching of the Holy Scriptures that he was prepared to give up his views in that respect and consent to a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide for Cowper-Temple instruction as a normal condition in all the State-controlled schools. Those were the three advantages of this Bill, but they were face to face with the right of entry and "contracting-out." He unhesitatingly said that he did not believe that the right of entry would be used for many years to come. He did not believe the right of entry would be used for many years, because what the people of this country desired for their children was simple Bible teaching, given by the teacher, and not by a cleric of any denomination. What was the position of the teacher who might offer to give this teaching? In the first place, he might, and probably would, give plain Bible teaching. He would then be called on by the parents to give sectarian religious instruction. He would receive no payment for it, and he would have to plunge into Biblical studies about which he had hitherto not troubled himself. The importation of the clerical teacher to impart to the children the theory of transubstantiation and other doctrines would reduce the schools to a state of pandemonium if long continued. While he believed that contracting-out was bad educationally, bad for the children and the teachers alike, one could not fail to see that the trend of educational life in this

781
country was wholly in the direction of council schools under public control. Balancing the advantages of the Bill against its disadvantages, and believing that the right of entry and contracting-out were conditions not destined to very long continuance, he came to the conclusion that his duty, much as he disliked it, was to make the best of a bad job. He hoped the President of the Board of Education would not under-rate the depth of feeling which existed among Nonconformists in regard to the Bill. His right hon. friend had spoken lightly and flippantly about the views of an eminent Nonconformist, the Rev. Hirst Hollowell. That gentleman was supposed to represent the extremists, but where would the Liberal Party be but for the extremists? Their battles were won by men who were called fanatics, enthusiasts, and extremists. To under-rate men of that sort would be to strike a fatal blow at Liberalism for years to come. Much as he disliked the compromise, it contained elements of advantage, and, taking a debtor and creditor account, he thought the balance came down a very little way in favour of the Bill.
MR. BOLANDsaid the Prime Minister, in speaking about contracting-out, had stated that the figures of the schedules would be the subject of discussion at a later stage. Of that the House would take due note, but if the guillotine was going to fall on the Bill the time given for that discussion would be very short. In the Scottish Education Bill discussion recently it took three hours to wring from the Secretary for Scotland an admission which they had been trying to get for a long time, and, therefore, he hoped in this Bill the right hon. Gentleman would see that there was full time given for discussing the figures of the schedules. Contracting-out was not the special privilege which it was supposed to be, in so far as it enabled those who supported voluntary schools to stand aloof from the national system. On the contrary it was the Government who forced the supporters of voluntary schools out. The Catholic authorities had not been consulted, and it was not a proper use of language to speak of a privilege being presented to the Roman Catholics
782
and other voluntary school supporters in suggesting that they could contract out. He would use the analogy of the Parliamentary Secretary, with regard to the Roman Catholic schools of Australia getting no grant from the Government, for his own argument. That was certainly a great hardship, but even if they got no support from Government funds they were able in spite of that to maintain their schools in a high state of efficiency. With regard to the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary yesterday that the Roman Catholic schools of Scotland were maintained at 40s., and that the Roman Catholics had made an extra claim of 10s., bringing it up to 50s., which was the exact amount that had been put in this Bill, he would say that as regarded Scotland, they were not asking for the utmost that they were entitled to. If they asked for full justice they would ask for 25s. and not for 10s. The Scottish parallel was not a sound one; a second parallel to that of Scotland could be brought. In the White Paper issued that day the voluntary and council schools were all lumped together and the average struck for the county, but if all the voluntary schools were taken out, and then the average of the council schools struck, the average, instead of being 64s. 10d., as it was now, would be 94s. 10d. for all children attending the voluntary schools. The fact that they made a moderate claim in connection with the Scottish Education Bill was brought against them, but he feared that if these figures were not looked into it might be that the cost of the council schools in England would be brought into juxtaposition with the cost of the Catholic schools and rate-aided schools in Scotland. It had been said by more than one Member on the opposite side of the House, notably the present Secretary to the Admiralty, that the Members of the Irish Party on a previous occasion had voted for contracting-out. That was not the case. All they ever did was, as a last resort, and in order to save a certain number of schools, to vote only in respect of those schools which were not taken over by the local education authority in order to evade granting the facilities which were provided in Clause 4 of the Bill of the present Chief Secretary. In

783
that sense only had they voted for contracting-out, and in no sense could it be said that the Members of the Irish Party had ever voted in favour of the principle of contracting-out. He wished to put that on record now, not, he was afraid, for the last time, because the memory of the House was proverbially short. Unless satisfactory proposals were made for contracting-out, either on the figures adduced or on the merits, he hoped that they were opposed to contracting-out; and he was sure that the President of the Board of Education, who was present, would bear that in mind when he came to deal with the matter in the Committee stage.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid he was anxious to say a few words in support of the Second Reading of this Bill. He did so with no light heart. He approached the subject in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Louth. He did not often agree with him, but he thought that on the present occasion what they had to do was to make the best of a bad job. It was with regret that he thought this should be necessary. It would cause great heart burnings to many of those who had given their life and. substance to the work of education for years past. He was afraid that it would not tend to educational efficiency and that it would impose very heavy burdens on the Exchequer already greatly pledged. Yet they were bound to face the situation in spite of the lurid prophecies of his right hon. friend the Member for Islington, who was speaking of the old experience which they both had of the Act of 1870, and of the most grievous influence of the change which was to be wrought. But he thought that a Bill conceived in a spirit of conciliation and compromise, and regard for the feelings of opponents, must commend itself to them, and ensure from them very respectful attention. Their object must be to make the Bill workable and fair, and, if possible, not to leave the sting of cruel injustice and wrong in those who were called upon to make concessions. It was very painful to listen to the pitiful appeals of friends and supporters who said: "Why not leave this alone? We have in time past done our duty to the chil-
784
dren; we have made sacrifices and efforts. When the State cared nothing about the education of the children, they have been our care, until gradually as time went on, and the educational demands of the country caused competition to arise, we were ready to allow the use of our schools. We accepted as a matter of obligation rate aid, and we admitted public control into the management of our schools." With the acceptance of rate aid which no doubt was a necessity, an unfortunate necessity for the Church, fresh complications and fresh interests were brought in which could not possibly be disregarded. This Bill had received very strong opposition from Lancashire. He remembered it was to Lancashire that they owed the fact that they entered on the slippery path of rate aid, and he was not at all anxious now to follow the lead of Lancashire in this matter. Those who were opposed to the present proposals, wrote in despair saying, with truth, that they had fought the battle of purity and morality against a mass of indifference and wickedness, and that if they took away from them the care of the children they were depriving them of one of the chief instruments of maintaining true religion and honesty in the country. Yet if they ousted the parson, of which the hon. Member for Louth spoke with some satisfaction, and put in his place a teacher of whose qualifications to give religious teaching they were in ignorance, they would be doing a very doubtful service. In spite of his hon. friend's rejoicing over the total abolition of tests, he hoped that they would hear sooner or later that there was to be some guarantee that those who were appointed to teach religion had some qualifications for it and some interest in it. His hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who was the son of a very old friend and schoolfellow, and who, he was rejoiced to see, was coming well to the front, had spoken of how this very serious difficulty was to be met. He would ask his hon. friend to admit that there was another side to the question, and to listen to the counterplea of those who considered themselves outraged by anything that interfered in the least degree with absolute religious equality. He

785
would also ask hon. Gentlemen to consider what they seemed to have forgotten, that a very emphatic verdict was given by the country three years ago on this education question. Having made this question one of the special planks of the Unionist platform, the country had most emphatically declared against taking schools out of public control and against tests for teachers. It was idle to suppose, as he thought their hon. friends were supposing, that that verdict could be ignored or forgotten. Two Bills had been introduced, and their failure had induced people to try to let things go on as they were. There had been delay in carrying out what he could not help thinking was a clear mandate from the country, and it was idle to suppose that the State in these days would not be supreme in the schools which it provided, and of which it paid the whole cost. He would ask them to remember that though this measure did affect them very strongly, yet there were points which compensated them to some degree for the losses which they had sustained, and the Bill went further in the direction of justice than anything which had yet been proposed. It gave opportunity for Church teaching in many schools from which it had hitherto been excluded. Whether it would be a lasting settlement, as had been well said on those benches, again and again, must depend on the way in which the Church rose to her new opportunities and undertook the responsibilities which would be cast upon her if this Bill became law. He trusted also that consultation committees in conjunction with the local authorities would result in securing that Cowper-Temple teaching should be definite religious teaching based on the Holy Scriptures, the Lord's Prayer, the Apostle's Creed, and the Ten Commandments, which could not be said to be distinctive of any denomination. Everything depended on that. If they succeeded in securing that, he agreed with his hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University that it should be called fundamental teaching rather than denominational teaching. It was the teaching of the Prayer Book, and the teaching of the baptismal service; the children were to be brought up in the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Com-
786
mandments and the Creed. It did not go to the higher and more difficult portions of Church teaching. The children were to be first fed on pudding, and after a time they would come to meat which was the real basis, and was suited to stronger tastes. It was because the Bill held out a hope of this teaching being enforced in every school by those who were competent to give the teaching that he should give his support to the Second Reading. It was very easy to talk about inequality, and to say that no Bill could ever be satisfactory except that which gave perfect equality to all sects and denominations. He understood that the demand was that the State out of the rates or taxes should provide separate religious teaching for all the different denominations. It was because he thought that was an absolute impossibility that he put aside that very specious plea for absolute equality of treatment. It was true that in Germany and Switzerland there was denominational teaching given by the State, but the circumstances of those countries were very different from ours. They were roughly divided into Catholics and Protestants and certain districts were Catholic and certain were Protestant. They were not mixed up as they were among us with not merely two divisions, but probably five or six or more. Therefore he could not admit that there was any precedent in that matter. They had also to look at the question in the face of what was spoken of as injustice to the Church, and he thought it would be a gross injustice to the Church if she was forced to give up her buildings for inadequate consideration. They had had figures put before them which seemed to show that there was a fair case for reconsideration of these figures when the time came, and he also hoped the grievance under that head would be removed. There was another grievance very prominently put forward, that the Church had to pay for teaching of which it disapproved, and again for the teaching of its own faith. If they admitted, as he had been contending, that they could not disapprove of fundamental teaching based on the simple Christian faith, there was no injustice in their being called upon to pay for that, and to pay specially for further

787
doctrines. His own strong feeling was that if they went for this question of absolute equality it was only to be had by the adoption of the secular system, and it was because the Bill pointed a way of averting that — it might not be the best way and it might not have the success that was hoped for it, but it was a fair and honest attempt to settle the religious question and to keep the schools of the country religious— that he supported the Second Reading.
MR. ADKINSsaid he thought the speech to which they had just listened would not only command great weight from the character of the right hon. Gentleman, but from the temper and spirit in which it was addressed to a position of unusual gravity and of no little doubt and difficulty. He was quite sure that in so unusual a position, one might well avoid the temptation into which a few Members had fallen of treating the highly vulnerable parts of this proposed settlement with the rhetoric and invective which might be so easily launched against it when they were asked to consider proposals brought forward by the Government in accord with the vast mass of moderate opinion and at the same time in grave difference from previous proposals. It was perfectly obvious that those who in past years had taken any active part in the educational controversy must find many things in these proposals which they not only regretted, but to which they were vehemently opposed. Yet if they allowed themselves to deal with these proposals in a spirit of controversy they knew they would find themselves not merely where they were before the Bill was introduced, but really in a worse position. If this settlement failed, it was not merely that those who in any way supported it would have their flank turned by opponents from their own side, but the failure of the settlement would undoubtedly conduce to embitter this controversy more than ever and to bring a feeling of despair to the minds of all who felt that some working settlement was essential, if the educational progress of the country was to be carried on. They had been asked to consider whether this compromise was likely to make a permanent settle-
788
ment, and for that purpose they were bound to scrutinise carefully the provisions of the Bill and to ask themselves whether they really carried out this compromise. As he understood, here was a proposal in the first place to have publicly controlled schools in every part of the country. That was a proposal for which, upon grounds apart from religious controversy, educationalists had for years been looking forward. Even those who on grounds of highest conscience had maintained with ardour existing non-provided schools in rural districts had often in moments of candour admitted. that that involved grave administrative difficulties. Accordingly to those who came to the consideration of this Bill from the point of view of practical administration and from the civic point of view, first of all, the main principle of the Bill, that there should be a popularly managed school within the reach of every child in all parts of the country, was so great an educational step in advance that it might well make them anxious to go as far as possible in other directions of concession, if only that could be secured. The other part of the compromise, as he understood it, was that there should be in all the schools thus popularly managed, facilities for special religious teaching. They would have to ask themselves in Committee whether these facilities were on the one hand genuine and adequate, and on the other hand fully guarded against the character of the school being changed by means of them. When they heard in one part of the House a forecast that these facilities would be of no value, and from the other side a forecast that they would be used so extensively as to undermine the national system, they were bound in the interests of a permanent settlement to see how far they could secure that parents who really spontaneously wanted those facilities for their children should have them, and at the same time secure that no pressure should be put on the teacher, that no unneedful disorganisation should come upon the school, and that it should not be made easy for persons to proselytise by these opportunities. It would be very desirable if the regulations governing these facilities could be embodied in the Act itself, because

789
from whatever point of view they approached this settlement they were most anxious that there should be as little ambiguity as possible. He hoped the Minister for Education would consider whether it was not possible for Parliament to know, before it passed the Bill, exactly what regulations were intended in order to see that those facilities were genuine and yet guarded against all abuse. In the next place he thought that if those were the principles of the Bill—and they considered that the principle of having a school of a public type within the reach of every child was the main principle of the Bill—and if facilities were only to be given to persons who genuinely desired them, and given in a way which, in one sense, was subordinate to the normal life of the school, but in an equally true sense was specially adapted to special needs—if those principles commended themselves to the House, then they were free to consider how far the carrying-out of those methods did or did not conflict with those religious ideals which on their better side had done so much to elevate education, and on their worse had done so much to embitter it. He hoped the House would not attach too much importance to the grave though perfectly honest fears expressed by Members on both sides of the House. After all, the agreement on religious matters which had been come to by most of the trusted leaders of Nonconformity on the one side and was obtaining the support of the bishops of the Anglican Church on the other, was an agreement in which neither religious community was entitled to say it had been sold or given away. It was quite inconceivable that on the purely religious aspect of this problem those who had great authority and knowledge and had devoted their lives to the religious aspect of their affairs were going to agree upon something which in their judgment really involved a sacrifice which it was not conscientious to make. He agreed that it was not for theologians or divines to lay down principles of educational administration. Therefore he based his guarded and anxious support of this Bill on the ground, first of all, that the administrative principles it laid down appeared to be on the whole worth, supporting; and in the second
790
place, because the religious aspects of the question had apparently been harmoniously arranged, and that fact was entitled to carry the very greatest weight. He very rarely troubled the House with a discussion of the purely religious aspects of this question, but he would like to say a word or two in reply to speeches of great power and obvious sincerity which had come from the representatives of the Labour Party. The hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member for Norwich were both supporters of the secular solution, and they had made very little of and minimised in every way the religious value of Cowper-Temple teaching or denominational teaching under the ordinary conditions of elementary school life. The great value of the Government plan was that they would have taught in the schools, as in practice was being done now, not religion in any full sense, but that on which religion could be based. At any rate there would be instruction given to the children in that great story of the life and death of Christ, which had altered the life of humanity during the last 1,900 years, and with which everyone in this country ought to be acquainted at as early an age as possible. Unless children became acquainted with it at an early time they would find it a disadvantage in after years when they would have to put their own interpretation upon it. He had only one other word to say. He supported the compromise at this stage, but he could not conceal from himself the fact that this compromise was one in which those who held opinions such as he had held for years on this subject were giving up to the very extreme that which they could give, even for the sake of peace and for the sake of a settlement. In Committee he claimed that they were entitled to discuss whether the clauses of the Bill actually carried out the settlement which had been advocated by his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education. If this settlement was disturbed in any material particular, if there were more concessions made by those who placed the highest importance on public control and the absence of privilege, then the compromise would be sure to break down. He had no words of hostile

791
criticism to apply to his hon. friends who felt it was their duty to support a Motion for the rejection of the Bill. He felt certain that behind them there was a considerable body of public opinion, and all he wished to say upon that point was that the settlement proposed had gone to the extreme limit. With a full sense that he would be doing his duty to the House and to his constituency he intended to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. He should, nevertheless, watch with the utmost concern the progress of the Bill through Committee, and he should retain absolute freedom of action upon the subsequent stages of the Bill. If the hopes of peace came to fruition, he was sure they would all be delighted, but this could only happen if on both sides of the House the greatest restraint were practised, and if the basis of the settlement remained unmodified.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had addressed his speech chiefly to his colleagues on the other side of the House. That speech indicated that the hon. Member had persuaded himself with some difficulty to support this Bill. He was himself compelled to announce with deep regret that he was obliged to divide himself from the right hon. Baronet who spoke from the bench beside him, for he could not support the Bill. He was aware that in a great debate like this it was only fair that each hon. Member should direct himself to one aspect only of the many points which arose throughout this Bill. It was a great responsibility which they all recognised for anyone to resist what apparently appeared to be a movement towards peace. They had heard exhortations which had moved them strongly in that sense, and he would be the last person to doubt the sincerity of those exhortations, or the motives which prompted them. He was struck, in listening to the President of the Board of Education, with one curious change in his speech as it proceeded. At the beginning of his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to those on both sides who found difficulty in agreeing to this Bill as swash-bucklers, but at the
792
close of his speech he spoke of them as those who were the most conscientious Members of each Party.
MR. RUNCIMAN: I used the word, but it was not used in that sense.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, attributed the difficulties which had arisen to the swashbucklers.
MR. RUNCIMAN: What I said was that during the last ten years of strife the only people who had thoroughly enjoyed themselves were the swashbucklers.
SIR HENRY CRAIKthought those who held most conscientious convictions on this subject were entitled to greater respect. He felt bound to say that whatever the exhortations for conciliation might be, and whatever motives might prompt them, he had his doubts of a reconciliation which had not been brought about upon sound and strongly held principles, but arose in a great measure from boredom. They had been told that the country had been bored to death with this question, and it ought to be settled in some way or another. He was opposed to any reconciliation made from mere weariness. The point he wished to direct attention to was whether the interests of real sound administration of education which were not likely to go to the wall from a huddled up reconciliation between two fundamentally irreconcilable standpoints. The Secretary to the Admiralty had told them how essential it was that they should advance in education, and he quite agreed with him. It did not, however, do any good to exaggerate or to use very high-sounding words about the great work that had been done inside the schools. On the whole, he was inclined to think that education in their schools was something which those sitting on the Opposition side desired to advance just as much as the Secretary to the Admiralty. For over 100 years, the Secretary to the Admiralty said, they had been fighting this question of religion in the schools. He wondered whether the hon. Member had found out when

793
the connection of the State with education began. That connection commenced exactly seventy-six years ago. It was in the year 1832 that grants were made by Lord John Russell to education, and it was a curious fact that for exactly one half of that period—namely, thirty-eight years—they carried on education without any Education Acts at all. Before 1870 they did not have any of those great disputes about religion. He had made himself acquainted with this subject because it happened to be his duty to do so, and he was fully acquainted with the provisions of the various Minutes of the Education Department from 1832 to 1870. He was absolutely ignorant of any sign in those minutes of those acute disputes which the hon. Member opposite had cited. On the contrary, gradually step-by-step their administration became more liberal. The national school system was extended to the Catholic schools and to the British schools, as the schools of the Nonconformists were then called, and before 1870 the necessity of a connection with any religious communion was done away with. The advance in education made between 1832 and 1870 without any Acts of Parliament was proportionately as great as it had been from 1870 to 1908. In fact a great deal of their difficulties had been caused by the disputes which had arisen from the Acts of Parliament which had been passed dealing with education. An Act of Parliament was necessary for certain administrative reasons because they had to establish local authorities, and they had to confer upon them the right to raise an education rate. But what, after all, were the Education Acts? They were not really Education Acts but administrative provisions. Mr. Speaker had held over and over again that educational directions were matters for the administration of the Department and for the Code, and not matters that ought to be dealt with in the Education Acts at all. What was the first principle which had thus emerged out of the disputes over these Education Acts? It was one of which they heard much in 1906, and it was that there should be no duality in schools, but one unity of administration. Where had that gone
794
now? He himself saw no need of it in 1906, and he had not pledged himself to that shibboleth. The other day the Under-Secretary for the Colonies made a speech in which he said that "the greater variety the better, and that nothing could be worse than one fixed immutable type of school." Those were the very words which he himself used in 1906 and for which he was denounced. Was unity the ideal now? Duality was expressly allowed in the management under this Bill. Another principle was no tests for teachers. He made bold to say that there never had been a test for any man to become a teacher since certificates were first granted. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, was any religious test or examination required for a man who desired a certificate? The Department had no right to ask what his religion was. A certificate might be granted to a Buddhist or a Mussulman. But if they inserted a provision in the Bill enabling the teacher to volunteer to give certain religious instruction, local education authorities would appoint teachers whose views were in accordance with their own in this matter, and so long as human nature continued to be what it was, he contended that that would be a test. If he were a member of a local education authority at this moment he would endeavour to secure the appointment of a man who would carry on the teaching in accordance with his own views, and he was certain hon. Members opposite in a like position would take the same course. If a Mussulman obtained a certificate from the Department, was it the least likely that he would find a post under the London Education Authority, or would an Anglican obtain a post under a Nonconformist education authority?
MR. LUPTON: We should give the appointment to the best man regardless of his private religious views.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid the last of the principles which had emerged in these disputes about Education Bills, was that they were to have public control. That had become a sort of shibboleth, but it was one the importance of which might be exaggerated. They had been told a

795
great deal about the excellence of the educational system in Germany. Was there public control there? Everyone desired that education should be as efficient as it could be made, but he did not think anyone cared a straw whether it was given under public control or not. The former contentions of the Liberal Party that there should be no duality or variety in schools, and that there should be public control of all schools, were abstract theories, formed in discussing the administrative provisions of Education Bills, and had given way one after another when they were examined. Now the Government were attempting to make a compromise which would cripple education and make fetters for their own hands, for the Department, for the local authorities, and for the teachers. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend that the fixed grants were to apply only to the contracting-out schools?
MR. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. friend had read the Schedule he would know that they apply to the contracting-out schools. The other schools are dealt with under the Memorandum circulated by my predecessor in February last.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he knew quite well that in the form in which the Bill was presented they applied only to contracting-out schools, but what he wanted to know was whether they were limited to those schools. Was the elasticity which had existed hitherto in other schools to go on? If so, would that be fair treatment to the contracting-out schools which were represented by hon. Members below the gangway? The managers and teachers would be fettered by the proposals now made. There had been faults and defects in connection with past educational methods in Scotland as well as in England, but if there was one thing of which Scotland was entitled to be proud it was the old parish school which made the youth of that country for generations what they were. The parochial teacher in the past had become the proverbial type of a good teacher. How would the right hon. Gentleman have been treated if he had attempted to say to one of these parochial teachers that he should have no part in the giving of religious
796
instruction to the children, and that somebody else would come in at a certain hour to give that instruction in a particular prescribed form? He ventured to say that such an attempt would have been strongly resented. They were told sometimes that the schoolmaster was the man who formed the character of the child, but if they took out of his hands that part of instruction which went to form character, how was that influence to be exercised in future? Religion was not the only thing on which there might be difference of opinion. Were they going to extend their limitations to such questions as temperance, tariff reform, and free trade? There might be members of local authorities holding fanatical views on these and other questions, and they might wish to appoint teachers who would advance their views. Once they began to interfere with the freedom of a school they would not be able to stop at religion; they would be forced to apply the same reasoning in connection with other subjects. He held no brief for sectarians of one kind or another, but he was deeply interested in the future free development of the schools. He concurred with what the Leader of the Opposition said earlier in the evening, namely, that they could settle these disputes solely by giving perfectly equal treatment. He thought they must not only give perfectly equal treatment, but they must give perfect freedom. He had been referred to as the Member who first of all moved an Amendment in favour of contracting-out. When he Aid so he had not the support of his hon. friends on this side, and, although the Leader of the Opposition made a sympathetic speech on the subject, he did not get his support. Matters had developed in the direction he had indicated, and it was with a feeling of pride that he found the Secretary to the Admiralty supporting a proposal which he formerly described as the worst expedient which could possibly be adopted. But there was contracting-out and contracting-out. He wished a contracting-out which would be fair and equal to both sides. He did not wish a form of contracting-out under which certain schools would be selected and others excluded. He should then leave these local authorities absolute

797
freedom. It was on these grounds that he felt bound to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down knew very well the history of education in Scotland, but he did not understand the history of the development of education in England; otherwise he would not have made the statement that these religious wranglings and ecclesiastical squabbles had not impaired the efficiency of real and effective education in this country. Apparently the hon. Gentleman had never heard of the Cockerton judgment, which had impaired the efficiency of the school board and had certainly interfered with the efficiency of education. That judgment was obtained by people who went in for denominationalism in the interests of the denominations.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he did not think that the Cockerton judgment had anything to do with denominationalism.
MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid that they knew who was responsible for that judgment. It was not obtained in the interests of the London School Board, but purely from sectarian rivalry.
SIR HENRY CRAIKasked if the hon. Member suggested that the permanent official of the Local Government Board who stopped these payments was moved by sectarian feeling?
MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid that the whole inquiry was moved by sectarian feeling which had been going on for years. Thousands of Church parents in London were perfectly satisfied with what had been going on before the Cockerton judgment, and had freely paid their rates. He had only referred to this to show that it was because of these ecclesiastical and denominational issues that the real trend of educational development in this country had been arrested; and that that was why we were so far behind some of the other countries in Europe. There was a desire on both sides to support the compromise embodied in the Bill. He meant to vote for the Second
798
Reading, although he could not say that he liked some of its provisions. During the controversy of 1902, he, in common with many of his colleagues, tried to get something not unlike this compromise, knowing that without it they might go on for generations neglecting the best interests of education. The hon. Member for Mayo, he well renumbered, wanted, in the interest of the children, to allow representatives of the parents on the Education Committee; but the right hon. Gentleman opposite went into the lobby against the proposal. The fact was that they had had no real education debate in the House at all for a long time. He was not blaming educationists on the other side; but he had not heard a speech with a real grasp of the interest of the children since the days of Mr. Acland and Sir John Gorst. In this House every Education Minister had been crippled owing to the fact of these controversial issues between Anglicans, Catholics, and Nonconformists. Personally he had always been a believer in religious education. He was not for secularism. He had been in some places in England and Wales where Catholics and Anglicans had united to frame a syllabus based on the Christian faith, suitable to meet the desires of the parents, and to be taught to the children. He could never see the possibility of the Catholic schools coming into the great unity to obtain a fully national system of education; and for the reason that they must have, and always had had historically, a different system under which the authority of their Church was supreme. He did not blame them for that; he blamed no man, whether Anglican, broad Churchman, low Church-man, or Catholic for believing in the authority of his Church. His regret was that the Catholics could not enter into the national system, because they believed that their Church must be the dominant factor in the whole education of their children. He respected them for their convictions, and he admired them for the sacrifices they had made for these convictions. He was delighted to find the development they had made in the training of their teachers, and the facilities they granted some of their teachers to attend lectures in Universities and University Colleges.

799
In spite of some progress like this the nation had still those ecclesiatical difficulties between it and the highest training of the teacher and the development of the continuation schools. The most of the time of the permanent officials at the Board of Education was taken up with these ecclesiastical difficulties. Combatants on both sides who had fought furiously, each looking at the question from their own point of view, now desired to call a truce. He know it would be said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had fought so valiantly in these educational struggles could not possibly be a good conciliator. But had the right hon. Gentleman not shown himself to be a wise and tactful conciliator in various disputes? More than that, two or three years ago the right hon. Gentleman was in treaty with a Welsh bishop and they would have come to a pacific compromise which would have settled the education question for a whole generation but for outside interference. What had happened now? His right hon. friend the Minister for Education, as representative of the Government, had entered into communication with the Nonconformists and with the Primate of all England; and was met in a spirit of conciliation. He heartily congratulated both the representatives of the Anglicans and the Nonconformists. The Primate ought to know what the majority of his Church wanted. He knew there was a small minority of High Anglicans who were against compromise and they might contract-out, but there were thousands more who would come into this great unity in order to secure a national system. He looked upon this arrangement as a step forward towards getting more education for our children along the right line. He would deal generously with his Catholics friends. He had discussed the question with members of their Hiearchy, but had failed to get anything like a true understanding with them that they could ever in England and Wales, as things were, enter into a truly national system. Well, apart from these Catholic friends, the combatants on either side had come to the point of forgetting to intensify their difficulties in way of a settlement. They had come to acknowledge that there was another standpoint than their own. They had sufficient
800
imagination to see that their enemy might become their friend. The Nonconformists had seen that there was a Church case, and the Church had seen that there was a Nonconformist case, and by doing that they helped to clear the way and open a broad avenue for educational development —a development which seemed so close now, but which before stood so far off. He meant educational development, not only in the elementary schools, but in the continuation schools similar to that which had taken place in the schools of Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and America. He wanted more power given to the Education Department. There were some of the most expert educationists in the country in the Department who knew everything that was best with regard to education in other countries as well as at home; and he hoped, when the religious controversies had been settled by this compromise, that his right hon. friend, who was young, capable, and enthusiastic, would be able to turn his attention in the future to the development of those great educational problems. There were several practical problems before us before we could compare with Germany, Switzerland or Denmark. For thoroughness of method he thought we were in advance of many of them, and he had seen some of the best schools in America as well as in Germany and other Continental countries. He had examined them pretty studiously, and had come into close contact with the directors and teachers. American and Continental experts all agreed that for thoroughness of method we were equal to anybody, but the average was not raised. The continuation period was cut short, and we wanted to deal with the most critical period in the child's life between fourteen and seventeen or fourteen and eighteen. What were we doing for our children during that period of adolescence? It appeared to him that our education system was crippled in its endeavour, to those needs. It was important, for the sake of all, that this religious difficulty should be settled. This proposal would settle the teachers problem, because the overwhelming majority would come into the same category, and would derive the same advantages and

801
the contracting-out schools would grow less and less. In the course of every year it was an alarming fact that more than 500,000 children in England and Wales left the public elementary schools at thirteen or fourteen years of age, and not more than one out of three of those children received in point of general or technical education any further systematic course of instruction. That was the most critical period in a child's life, and, instead of taking the great question in hand, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had been, squabbling about their ecclesiastical differences. They forgot the great period of adolescence, but he thought they ought to put their minds and their hearts together to settle this question in the interests of citizenship. Let them certainly give a child religious education, and he should like some of his English friends to come to gallant little Wales and see how they gave religious education to the children there and how they continued that religious education throughout life. Religious education was not merely given in schools, and sometimes it was not given there at all. In three or four counties at one time it was not given at all in the schools, but those counties were the most crimeless counties in Wales, and sacrificed more for education, elementary, secondary and University, than any others that one could see throughout the whole realm. The quarrymen and peasants of Carnarvonshire, Cardiganshire and Merionethshire had fine Sunday schools, and their scholars never left them. He wished some friends of his in the House would come to their schools and see children, parents, and grandparents all taught together, and at night in their homes they would see sometimes the father writing an essay on some scriptural subject in competition with his own son. That was what happened constantly, and that was the way to look to the religious education of the children, not to leave them when they were thirteen years of age to become hobbledehoys and irreverent corner boys. Therefore, in the interest of peace and of education, some basis should be secured under which progress could be made with this problem. They had helped Scotland to get it, and nobody was more
802
glad than he was, as he said in the Grand Committee, than to see continuity of education being made compulsory under the Bill for Scotland. We also wanted it for England, and Wales. He did not mean that they should have a system of evening classes just for certain boys and girls of thirteen or fourteen, but they should have a continuous course of education. To work them by day and then suppose that they could get something into their minds at night was not, however, the way to conduct education in this country. Some employers had opened continuation schools for their apprentices, not after an irksome day's toil, but on some afternoon in the week. They had sent them to these schools without reducing their wages, and the result was that the lads became better labourers, better citizens, and more manly men. If they could only got this sectarian issue out of the way as he hoped they would by this compromise, and that was why he believed in it, if they could get hon. Gentlemen from all sides of the House to join together to help to complete the ladder of real education for real citizenship, for science and for the best equipment of the nation, then they would have better training of teachers, a better method of joining the elementary schools with the secondary and higher and technical schools, as well as build up a. system of continuation schools. That was why he wanted the Labour Members to join. Let them look at the half-time system in the textile industries in Yorkshire and Lancashire. Could anybody there defend it? The work was irksome and the task in the school became drudgery. What happened? It whittled away the best of human nature. Let them think of the children and of the nation, and use this compromise as a bridge and solve this question once for all. Let them quench this ecclesiastical brand in order that the educationist and the schoolmaster might bring their best and highest influences to bear upon the children of our schools.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid the House was always pleased to welcome the eloquence of the hon. Member who had just addressed it, and if he could agree with

803
him that under this Bill they had an absolute safeguard of a real settlement, as he hoped, and if he could also believe as the hon. Member seemed to, that there would be an opportunity of better secondary and higher education and of better training of teachers, that would be a very great inducement to him to give it his support. He would like, however, to remind the hon. Gentleman that those subjects, which were, perhaps, the most urgent portions of our educational system, were not touched in any sense by this Bill.
MR. WILLIAM JONESpointed out that this Bill might be used as a bridge to them. That was all he said.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid he wished to call attention to the fact that the question of secondary and higher education was not touched by this Bill. The hon. Member for Louth in a most illuminating speech complained that he had not been brought into negotiation in connection with this settlement, and one wished very much that he had been, because if he had made his speech to the Archbishops and Bishops, he thought they would have received much more charity than they had done, the result of the negotiations. He did not wish to suggest that anything that had been done by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side had been actuated by anything but the most absolute sincerity and a desire to solve this question. He gave them full credit for that. Nobody could pretend that they were doing any good in the constituencies or winning votes. Nobody could suppose that they were wishing to gain electoral advantages, and he learned that already one Member had been burned in effigy in his constituency. He gave them all credit for trying to meet and settle this very difficult question, but there was, he thought, less absolute urgency in regard to it than hon. Members assumed. The hon. Member for Camberwell spoke of the great advance which Germany had made for years past in this matter of education. It was true that advances had been made in technical and higher education, but it was elementary education to which alone this Bill applied, and it was in elementary education alone that the
804
Church of England had done such a great work. The hon. Member who seconded the rejection of the Bill, and also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, an ex-member of the Government, laid stress on the fact that this religious difficulty was not a serious question in the school itself. As the hon. Member who seconded the Motion said, it was a matter for parties and for the platform, but it was not a matter which had entered largely into our schools. He thought that when they were asked to accept this compromise because it was supposed to be one which was satisfactory to the Church of England, they should look at the last letter written by the Archbishop of Canterbury on this subject, in which he said that although the bishops of the Church assented to it, one limb of the body was paralysed. Supposing he was engaged in selling the President of the Board of Education a horse—which he should never try to do, because the right hon. Gentleman was much cleverer than he was, and would have the better of it— but supposing for the sake of argument that was the case. Supposing he sold the horse and the very next day he wrote and told him that one limb of the animal was paralysed, he supposed in the ordinary practice of horse dealing the right hon. Gentleman could refuse to carry out the bargain. Until the Government were able to show that the bargain had been absolutely carried out they must abide by that declaration that one limb of the body was paralysed. That was one of the grounds upon which he was going to vote against the Bill. Several Members were going to vote in favour of it, not because they believed in it, but because they believed in the ideal behind it. If the Government improved the Bill, as he hoped they would, on the Committee stage, he would on the Third Reading have an opportunity of voting for it if he desired to do so. The Bishop of London in his letter had dwelt upon the advantages which the Church of England would gain by the Bill. As to the right of entry, the whole thing depended upon whether it was going to be real. It was not quite so much a matter of what use the Church would make of the right of entry, as what the local authority

805
would allow that right of entry to be. Upon that depended the question of whether this was really a valuable set off to the undoubted loss which the Church must suffer in her control and prestige and in her power. In the whole of the rural districts they lost the inestimable advantage, from the point of view of those who valued denominational teaching, of having that instruction given by the head teacher, and there was also the loss of the appointment of teachers. It seemed to him obvious that this was a very serious loss indeed for the Church. He was the last person in the world to say a word against the clergyman of this country, but a man might be most excellently qualified to be a parish priest, but he might not be able to take a class of unruly boys; and if, under the right of entry, the teaching was to be given by outside teachers, it was not going to be of any serious or real value to those who received it. It was also not going to be good for the conduct of the school, but bad for discipline, and all the objections which had been so strongly emphasised by the teachers of the country were, he thought, likely to be found to be true. By what possible right did the Government deny the same right of contracting-out to the rural districts that they gave to the urban? The rural schools would lose every considerably from the Church point of view by this Bill, and hon. Gentlemen did not realise how much that loss appealed to those who believed in denominationalism. The Bill undoubtedly established a new form of State religion, and he wanted to know why the bishops and archbishops had ventured to put such a strong argument in favour of disestablishment in the mouths of those who would use it. But the most important question of all was what did right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite really mean. He gave them absolute credit for wanting to settle this question in the best interests of everybody, but he wanted to know what was at the back of the mind of the hon. Gentlemen behind the Government who were going to vote for this Bill. Were they voting for it as what was called an instalment or what Dr. Clifford had called quite a definite approach
806
to his ideal, or were they going to carry out this compromise in a genuine, honest, and uncompromising spirit? They had only had one Member for Wales speaking. Were the whole of the council schools in Wales really going to be thrown open? Was the Church teacher to be welcomed in those schools and equal opportunities to be given to all the children in the Welsh schools, and were the children of one denomination to be treated on an equality with the children of another? They had not heard that stated by representatives from either Wales or Yorkshire. Was it intended to carry out this compromise in a generous and full spirit? Was any hon. Gentleman prepared to get up and stake his faith that if this Bill came into law there would be absolute equality of opportunity for the Church in every school? The right of entry would be absolutely what the local authority made it. The local authorities might say that the teacher was required for the general conduct of the school; that there was no accommodation available; that they had not proved their desires in accordance with the regulations. Although the House was told these regulations were necessary nobody knew what might happen. Experience in the past had taught them that the appeal to the Board of Education would be worthless, because the Board of Education would find themselves in the position of not being able to do what they would like to do. They had an illustration of that in the West Riding case. A teacher, when appointed to be manager of a school was refused the appointment by the local authority on educational grounds. The education authority had no chance to refuse to appoint except on educational grounds. Under pressure of the National Union of Teachers that man had now been appointed by the same education authority to a bigger school at a larger salary, but the Board of Education would not or could not reverse the original decision of the education authorities. There were in this Bill not one, but many, loopholes far bigger than that in the Act of 1902 through which the education authorities could drive a coach and four if they wanted to make this right of entry impossible. The assistant teacher would

807
have to volunteer. In a hostile area what teacher would dare to volunteer? What about the pressure which would be put upon him by those who did not wish him to volunteer? There would be two questions to consider when a teacher volunteered. He was not going to be paid for this teaching; the particular denomination was going to pay a fine in relief of the local rates, and that was done undoubtedly so that there should not be any advantage with the teacher who had volunteered to give the teaching. The question of the single-school areas hit the Church far harder than the Roman Catholics for the reason that there were very few Roman Catholic schools in these areas. There was one other question to which he would like to refer, and that was the question of paying the expenses of the new schools in the county areas. In the West Riding they had suffered very heavily by this. The large number of school places in excess of those required owing to the shifting of the population had hit them very greatly in the rural districts; at the present time they were paying, for this reason, twice the amount necessary for school accommodation in rural village. They were told that the Church schools were dying, and that these were the best terms that could be given. All he could say was that if these were the best terms they could get, and if the terms that were given to them were not to be a reality, they had better stick to what they had got earlier than lay down their arms, and get nothing at all. And that was the position they were prepared to take up.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONhoped the House would bear with him for a moment, because he did not speak one word through all the interminable debates on the Licensing Bill. He was very much exercised on the present Bill. On the one hand he could not bear to vote in favour of the right of entry, which he felt to be very wrong; and on the other he could not bear to vote against public control of rural schools, and the abolition of tests for teachers, whilst in the third place he did not like walking out. He hoped, however, that the right of entry would not be much used, and that it would
808
perhaps fall into disuse. He knew what sort of pressure would be brought to bear upon people, and regarded with horror the idea of a Church of England rector, and perhaps two or three Nonconformist ministers, possibly even a Roman Catholic priest or a Jewish Rabbi; going round the parish with petitions demanding denominational education. They all knew how easy signatures were obtained to petitions. Even Members sometimes signed petitions which they knew nothing about. These petitions would all be signed by every parent in the parish. It was a great gain that no public money would be allocated to denominational teaching; but he thought there should be a small rent charged for the time the schools were used for denominational education. Great as was his objection to this right of entry, he acknowledged that to get popular control in all the single school areas was a very great advantage. He should have been very pleased if it had been as in the old days of the elected school boards, when people were encouraged to take an interest in the management of the schools. He wished to say that he thought a great mistake was made as to the number of Church of England schools. He knew that in his part of the country a great many were squire schools. They were built by the squire of the parish, most of them in the fir it half of the last century. They were never intended to be denominational schools, but the Church of England in the old days was very evangelical, and there was no objection to its teaching; it was only in the last few years that, with the spread of the Romanising thought, objections had arisen. A great many of what were called Church schools now did not, therefore, really belong to the Church. Another great advantage was that there would be the abolition of tests'; and, taking all these considerations together, he had come to the conclusion that it was his duty to vote for the Bill. He owned he wished a bolder line had been taken. He would have liked to have seen a Bill which would have defined an elementary school as a school over which there was perfect, absolute control, in which simple Bible-teaching should be given, and that it should have been enacted that no other school should

809
receive public money. Such a Bill might have been thrown out by the Lords, but they might have retorted by refusing to vote the grant. Failing that, he thought they must adopt this Bill, despite its great faults. There was, of course, the alternative of the secular solution. The hon. Member for Leicester brought that forward strongly yesterday; and, when he heard that most devout Nonconformists and a great many clergy of the Church of England were all equally in favour of secular education, he must say that he felt almost shaken in his opposition of last year. He was rather afraid, however, that it would engender rivalry amongst the different denominations and make them apt to insist too much upon their own particular doctrines and not enough upon fundamental principles. The hon. Member put forward a most extraordinary plea for secular education. He asked what was the use of religious instruction three-quarters of an hour every day. He thought it was acknowledged by all experts in education that three-quarters of an hour was quite long enough in which to keep a child occupied on one subject. He did not suppose any parent gave more than half an hour or three-quarters at the most each day to the religious education of his child, and after all, that was the best instruction in religion which the child could receive.
MR. C. J. O'DONNELLsaid he hoped the House would give him an opportunity to speak. He spoke on neither of the two previous Bills; and, as the only Catholic Member for London, he claimed to voice the feelings of his community. He wished he could join in the felicitations of both sides of the House on this arrangement. He appreciated it as much as any non-Protestant could; but he felt that in this matter the Catholic schools were paying the price. He regarded it from the standpoint of educational efficiency. They were told by hon. Members on both sides of the House that they had sacrificed much, opinions and principles. The Catholics were sacrificing money, a very important thing. The Catholic school was the earthen vessel that had been smashed between these jangling Protestant pots. There were in London 30,000 pupils in the Catholic schools. At
810
present the average grant was 75s. whereas the school board grant was 123s. The Catholic pupils were therefore put in a position of extreme inferiority. It was proposed by the Bill still further to reduce that small grant from 75s. to 50s. The Catholic schools would thus receive two-fifths of what the board schools received. This Bill affected the honour of the Liberal Party. He saw that one of the Manchester Members only yesterday referred to the increased grant given to the Catholic schools. He had looked through the pledges given by Lancasshire Members, and he found that without exception they gave the pledge that in the settlement of the education question the Catholic schools should not suffer. The Catholic schools were suffering; they were being degraded by the Liberal Party from the position given them by the Leader of the Opposition It was quite true they were not as efficient as the board schools, but they had been steadily rising; and it had fallen to the Liberal Party to associate themselves with an act of religious persecution, to push down the Catholic schools into the old slough of despond, and to deprive them of the advantage which the Conservative Party had given them. There was something peculiarly unbecoming in a democratic party doing this great injury to the children of the poor. He did not wish to intrude long on the attention of the House, but he was separating himself from his party, and he did it with extreme regret. Three years ago, when he was elected a Liberal Member, he naturally thought it impossible to find the Liberal Party doing this wrong to the poor of any community. It would be very easy indeed to escape from this wrong. The Bill brought in in 1906 by the present Chief Secretary was adopted practically by every moderate man in the House. The Liberal Party thought this was an admirable solution of the question. Why did not they bring in that Education Bill again as they did with the Scottish Bills? Why had they brought in this thing, which was an agreement between a most rev. prelate and one or two gentlemen on this side? Why did not the Government bring in that measure again, or at least the fourth clause of it, instead of the present measure, which, by a back-door arrangement, would

811
force Catholics into a position of inefficiency and inferiority? Why should the children of Catholics, who had to carry out every duty of citizens, be put in a position of inferiority? The Catholic soldier fought for his country, and when he came back and settled in London or Liverpool, why should he have his children deprived of the advantages that every other citizen of the country received? Being forced by these considerations to vote against his Government, he thought it was his duty plainly and vigorously to state the reasons that influenced him.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid that though he did not often find himself in accord with the views of Gentlemen opposite, he certainly intended to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash said he believed the right of entry clauses were not strong enough and were not a reality, and he would vote against the Second Reading, but if he found in Committee that they were a reality he would vote for the Third Reading. He (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) hoped by voting for the Second Reading to find out in Committee whether the right of entry clauses were a reality or not, and if they were not he should vote against the Third Reading, which appeared to be a rather more sensible line to take up. He had never for a moment sympathised with the passive resistance movement. He had always recognised that the last Conservative Education Act was a compromise. The Church at that time made very large concessions, and equally Nonconformists did not get all they wanted. When the passive resistance movement started he considered it had very small grounds of justification, for the simple reason that owing to the fact that all the rates were paid into a common county fund, no man could possibly state that the money he paid in was paid to a particular school. For all he knew it might be spent on some council school or Nonconformist school. No man could say he was paying for a religion of which he disapproved. He had, on the other hand, always felt, especially in rural districts, that
812
there was a very real grievance among those who held strong Nonconformist views that they should be bound to send their children to a school where, according to them, the Church atmosphere prevailed. He thought this grievance was largely exaggerated on the platform, but at the same time he recognised that at the last election there undoubtedly was among the electors a very strong feeling that fairness was not being meted out all round, and that there should be some change in the system of religious instruction. He had always thought the only two possible solutions of this difficulty were right of entry or the secular solution. He believed it would be a very serious day indeed for this country when religion was banished from our schools. He should certainly support this proposal for the right of entry. If the Church of England did its duty, as it had done in the past, and really was the national Church, it would by the right of entry be able to get to the children in the schools and to teach the religion of the Church of England, which he for one was proud to have been brought up in. If on the other hand the Church was decaying and had not the same vital force, it ought no longer to hold that proud position. It must stand on its merits, and if the regular teachers could not be got to give the instruction, it would be the duty of the clergymen to go and give it if they were really anxious for denominational teaching. It had been said the teachers were opposed to this because it would not make for educational efficiency. He fully believed they ought to pay every attention to teachers' opinion in the matter. No one was more qualified to speak than they, but they spoke with a certain amount of prejudice. They had first of all to consider the schools and the children, and not the teachers. After all, the teacher existed for the school and not the school for the teacher. He therefore hoped the Bill would pass Second Reading, that the right of entry would be made a reality, and that instead of hampering the work of the Church of England it would be an incentive to all churchmen to see that denominational teaching was given in every school throughout the land.
MR. HUNTsaid it was allowed by the Liberals that this was a very difficult Bill to understand. They had made it difficult purposely because they wanted to rush it through the House before anybody understood what it meant. They did not want the country to know how bad and unjust a Bill it was. It seemed pretty clear, according to the Minister for Education, that its object was to squeeze out as soon as possible all the voluntary schools. The hon. Member for West Ham had put it very nicely before he joined the Government. He told the House of Laymen that when the Church schools had been undenomination-alised a movement would arise from the same quarter to treat the Church in a similar manner, and the Church of England Members might have a pretty good idea from that what was likely to happen if in a fit of good nature or indolence they let the Bill pass. Let them look at what it meant. The Government was setting up a religion of its own, and it compelled everybody to pay rates for it including rates for new schools for that religion, and it was a religion of which millions of people in this country did not at all approve. In fact, they very much objected to it, and people who did not believe in it were to have large numbers of their schools, with the furniture and apparatus, taken away by force and only paid a very small sum, and this was in spite of its being a compulsory sale. Then with a quite insufficient Government grant some people would have to bear extra financial burdens for their schools, and he thought that included in many cases repairs and religious teaching, whilst they had to pay rates towards the instruction in Government schools of this Government religion. The voluntary schools in the single school areas were in some cases built and endowed by people, more than anything else, so that their particular religion should be taught. What would happen was that on three days a week they would have taught in those schools a religion of which they did not approve, and there was very little chance that they would have their religion taught on the other two days. No child in Government schools need attend any religious instruction at all on any day of the week. There
814
were no religious tests to be applied to teachers at all, so that teachers with no knowledge of religion would be supposed to teach the Cowper-Temple religion or some similar system which might be invented by local authorities. It was not even certain that they would have anybody to give religious instruction at all in those schools. The teachers were not obliged to give it. If they all refused there would be no religion. They could not have religious teaching if there was no one to teach it. But there would be a test all right if a teacher declined to teach it, because teachers who refused would in many cases lose their employment. They put very severe tests on teachers as to geography and arithmetic, but on the question of religion, which was far more important, they had absolutely no test at all. They might be anything. The whole thing was an absolute farce if religious teaching was to be of the slightest value. In Government schools if children were really to have daily religious instruction, they would have an atheist teaching Roman Catholic Church of England children and a Nonconformist teaching Jews, and things might get very awkward. If a Nonconformist teacher with an uncomfortably powerful conscience, and there were such things, was appointed to a Jewish school, he might, like the rider of a certain celebrated and talkative roadster, feel compelled to teach what he believed to be the truth, and might tell his pupils that the Jews were composed mostly of Pharisees and publicans, with the order of merit very much in favour of the publicans. The religious teaching of a vast number of children was going to be sacrificed for the worldly advantage of a very small number of teachers, and he supposed hon. Members opposite called that democratic legislation, whilst it was really the very reverse. He had not been able to make out whether a child could be compelled to go to a contracting-out school or not, but schools which contracted-out were expected to be just as efficient with a very insufficient Government grant as schools which had the rates to lean on. The first Lord of the Admiralty, when he was Minister for Education, when

815
a Catholic deputation visited him, said he did not pretend that the 47s. Government grant would meet even present expenditure. How did he tell the Catholics to get out of it? He suggested that Catholics should get teachers who would come for less money than the teachers in the Government schools, and he admitted there would not only be a large loss of income from public funds, but that it would not cost the Roman Catholics more than £100,000 a year. In his opinion it would cost them a lot more. The right of entry, as he understood it, was practically useless, and apparently the local authority might institute any syllabus it liked. It might very possibly be nothing but simple Bible reading which was no good at all and would merely bore the children. Local Authorities had instituted this kind of teaching before and the probability was that they would do it again. There was a great difference between this country and Germany.' In this country Catholics built schools and the Government did its best to take them away by squeezing them out financially. In Germany the Government built schools for the Catholics wherever and whenever they were wanted. The Minister for Education told them that the only thing which would make the Bill work was the good feeling of the local authorities. It seemed to him that was expecting everybody to behave in a fair and reasonable way. He thought that was certainly not the custom of the Liberal Party generally, or of their Nonconformist supporters in particular. The right hon. Gentleman made a point of the proposal which would confer on contracting-out schools the great ad-vantage of being able to charge fees. That was not free education. The Bill was a clever cunning attempt on the part of Nonconformists to hoodwink the Church of England, and he was afraid that was what had happened to the poor Archbishop of Canterbury. If the Bill passed, the voluntary schools would be gradually wiped out of existence. That was practically admitted by the Minister for Education. He was afraid that the Nonconformist chapel was used in many places more for politics than prayers. The chief origin of Nonconformist dislike and jealousy of the Church
816
of England rested with the Nonconformist ministers. He remembered that on one occasion the Chief Secretary for Ireland told them that Nonconformists were very jealous of the ivy-mantled towers of the Church of England. The chief reason for the attitude taken up by the Nonconformists was a social one, and he was extremely sorry for it. The Church of England parson was reckoned what was called a gentleman. By reason of that he went to the squire's or the lord of the manor's dinner parties, shooting parties, and his wife went to lawn-tennis parties, tea fights, and dances. The Nonconformist minister and his wife were not asked to any of these entertainments. Dr. Guinness Rogers complained in the public Press some time ago that he had never been asked to a single decent country house.
MR. SPEAKER: May I invite the hon. Member to give his attention to the Bill?
MR. HUNTsaid he thought what he was going to say had to do with the Bill. He was stating one of the reasons for the religious difficulty. The consequence of all this was that Nonconformist ministers were jealous of Church of England parsons and preached Radicalism and Little Englandism in the pulpit and out of it, by day and night, whenever they got the chance, and this was the very worst policy for the welfare of the working people and for the prosperity of the Empire. He really could not understand how the Church of England leaders could accept anything but a really fair settlement. This Bill certainly was not one. If Church of England people would go on taking everything lying down, they might depend upon it that the Nonconformists would go on kicking them. The members of the Church of England and of the Catholic Church built their schools and gave education long before the State undertook the work of education. That being so, surely they ought to be as well and as fairly treated as Nonconformists. Nonconformists had not done anything like so much for education as the Church of England and the Catholic Church. When the Nonconformists found that they could get their

817
teaching for nothing, they gave up a great number of their schools, and they never had any of the terrible trouble with their consciences until they had to pay rates; The Church of England ought to stand out for fair terms. This Government's driving power was fairly gone. They certainly could not force this Bill into law if it was as resolutely opposed by the Church of England as it would be by Catholics. If it did pass, it would, unless the law was altered by the next Government, undoubtedly mean the destruction of the voluntary schools of the country. That was what the Government meant, and that would most certainly gradually lower the religious instruction in the schools till it was barely worth having. He did not think there was any doubt about it. Nothing could be worse for the country or more likely to lead to the destruction of the nation than to have its children brought up without any real religion. He hoped that none of his hon. friends would either vote for the Bill or abstain from voting against it from any craven fear that it would be a difficult subject for the Unionists when they came into power.
MR. NIELD, who was received with cries of "Divide," said he did not intend to emulate his hon. friend the Member for Ludlow, but he intended to avail himself of the privilege to which he was entitled of speaking on behalf of nearly 25,000 electors. Even if the Government were in such a hurry to push the Bill through, hon. Members opposite might afford him the few moments necessary to enable him to put his views before
818
them. He confessed he approached this measure with very great diffidence, because he might seem to be opposing the Bishop of London. But before he was acquainted with the subsequent views of the right rev. Prelate he felt he was in a very difficult position as to how he should deal with this Bill. [Cries of "Divide."] He was not speaking from a party point of view, but dealing with the Bill from the point of view of practical politics. [Cries of "Divide."] He would stand there until he got a hearing. [Continued cries of "Divide."] He had been interviewed by a most important deputation —a deputation representing all the teachers in his constituency—[Cries of "Divide."]—who pointed out to him that chaos would result in the schools if once this Bill came into operation in their district. "Just imagine the condition the schools would be in," said the deputation, "in our district, assuming that there was a right of entry to all denominations, if the denominational teachers were late in their arrival at the school! It would be impossible to keep order amongst the children." Then the members of the deputation pointed out the enormous difficulties that would arise in the administration of the schools, and they asked what would happen if, in a sudden emergency, the appointed person to give the denominational instruction was unable to come at the appointed time. And they asked him, in the interest of the children and in the interest of education itself, to support any Motion moved in the House that this Bill should be rejected. In the case of schools where mixed religious views were represented, the deputation asked if they

819
as teachers were to scour the neighbourhood to get possession of a certain number of children to make up a sufficiently large number to make a class to whom a particular religious instruction was to be given. He listened to the criticisms of the members of the deputation, who, he was assured, differed very widely in their religious and political opinions, for a very long time, and he said to them: "Well, gentlemen, what is it you propose?" and their reply was "Leave things alone," for the existing
condition of things was working admirably. He ventured to think that in view of that opinion by persons who were certainly interested in the education of the young, he was entitled to ask the House to pause before they gave a Second Reading to this Bill.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 323; Noes, 157. (Division List No. 417.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

Dobson, Thomas W.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T (Cheshire)

Duckworth, Sir James

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Bryce, J. Annan

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

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

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Armitage, R.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Essex, R. W.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Byles, William Pollard

Everett, R. Lacey

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Cameron, Robert

Fenwick, Charles

Atherley-Jones, L.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Ferens, T. R.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Chance, Frederick William

Findlay, Alexander

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Forster, Henry William

Barker, Sir John

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Clough, William

Fuller, John Michael F.

Barnard, E. B.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Beale, W. P.

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

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

Beauchamp, E.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Glendinning, R. G.

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Beck, A. Cecil

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gordon, J.

Bell, Richard

Cowan, W. H.

Grant, Corrie

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cox, Harold

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

Griffith, Ellis J.

Benn, W. (T'wer Hamlets, S. Geo

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Bennett, E. N.

Crooks, William

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

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cross, Alexander

Gulland, John W.

Bertram, Julius

Crossley, William J.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Black, Arthur W.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Bramsdon, T. A.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Branch, James

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Bright, J. A.

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Brooke, Stopford

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hart-Davies, T.

Marnham, F. J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Massie, J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Menzies, Walter

Snowden, P.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Spicer, Sir Albert

Heaton, John Henniker

Middlebrook, William

Stanger, H. Y.

Hedges, A. Paget

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Molteno, Percy Alport

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Hemmerde, Edward George

Mond, A.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

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

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Starkey, John R.

Henry, Charles S.

Montgomery, H. G.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

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

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morrell, Philip

Strachey, Sir Edward

Higham, John Sharp

Morse, L. L.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

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

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Myer, Horatio

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hooper, A. G.

Napier, T. B.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Horniman, Emslie John

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Thomasson, Franklin

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Nicholls, George

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Idris, T. H. W.

Norman, Sir Henry

Tillett, Louis John

Illingworth, Percy H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Tomkinson, James

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Toulmin, George

Jackson, R. S.

Nuttall, Harry

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Ure, Alexander

Jardine, Sir J.

Partington, Oswald

Verney, F. W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Paul, Herbert

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Paulton, James Mellor

Vivian, Henry

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Perks, Sir Robert William

Walters, John Tudor

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Walton, Joseph

Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir John H.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wardle, George J.

Kerry, Earl of

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Kimber, Sir Henry

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

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Waterlow, D. S.

Laidlaw, Robert

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Watt, Henry A.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Weir, James Galloway

Lamont, Norman

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Whitbread, Howard

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Rees, J. D.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Rendall, Athelstan

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Renton, Leslie

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Richardson, A.

Whitehead, Rowland

Lewis, John Herbert

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Wiles, Thomas

Lupton, Arnold

Robinson, S.

Wilkie, Alexander

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Lynch, H. B.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Rowlands, J.

Williamson, A.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

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

Wills, Arthur Walters

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Maclean, Donald

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

M'Callum, John M.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

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

M'Crae, Sir George

Sears, J. E.

Wodehouse, Lord

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Seaverns, J. H.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

M'Laren, Rt Hn Sir C. B. (Leices.)

Seely, Colonel

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford

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

M'Micking, Major G.

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

Magnus, Sir Philip

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

Mallet, Charles E.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

822

823

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hills, J. W.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Ambrose, Robert

Hodge, John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Ashley, W. W.

Hogan, Michael

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

Balcarres, Lord

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

O'Dowd, John

Baldwin, Stanley

Hudson, Walter

O'Grady, J.

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

Hunt, Rowland

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Jenkins, J.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Barnes, G. N.

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Jowett, F. W.

O'Shee, James John

Boland, John

Joyce, Michael

Parker, James (Halifax)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Joynson-Hicks, William

Percy, Earl

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Kekewich, Sir George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Power, Patrick Joseph

Castlereagh, Viscount

Keswick, William

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Kilbride, Denis

Reddy, M.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Remnant, James Farquharson

Crean, Eugene

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Renwick, George

Cullinan, J.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Delany, William

Lundon, W.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Dillon, John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Macpherson, J. T.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Donelan, Captain A.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Doughty, Sir George

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Arthur, Charles

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Duffy, William J.

M'Kean, John

Sheehy, David

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

M'Killop, W.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Maddison, Frederick

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Farrell, James Patrick

Markham, Arthur Basil

Summerbell, T.

Fell, Arthur

Meagher, Michael

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Ffrench, Peter

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Meehan, Patrick A.(Queen's Co

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Fletcher, J. S.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Flynn, James Christopher

Mooney, J. J.

Thornton, Percy M.

Gilhooly, James

Muldoon, John

Valentia, Viscount

Ginnell, L.

Murnaghan, George

Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)

Glover, Thomas

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Walsh, Stephen

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nield, Herbert

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

Gretton, John

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Guinness, Hon. R.(Haggerston)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Winterton, Earl

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Halpin, J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Yoxall, James Henry

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

O'Connor, John (Kildare. N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hutton and Mr. Clement Edwards.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Hayden, John Patrick

Oddy, John James

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Doherty, Philip

Bill read a second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—(Mr. Runciman.)
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twelve minutes before Twelve o'clock.

PETITIONS.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour of: of Primitive Methodist Churches at Shipley, Harrow, Wealdstone, Barnsley (5), Thurgoland, Garboldsham, Hopton, Hepworth, Worelwood, Foulden, Feltwell, Wilton, Mellwold, Brandon (2), Binbrook, Nettleton, Castletown, Port Erin, Port St. Mary, Colby, Ballasalla, Peel, Foxdale, Knocksharry, Glenmaye, Liverpool (4), Queen's Road, Bootle, Preston (7), Walmer Bridge, Leyland, Freckleton, Runcorn, Blackburn (3), Boughton, Huxley, Clotton, Tarporley, Ashton, Tarven, Chorley (4), Wigan (4), Sherington Vale, Standish, Aspull, Birkenhead, Seacombe, West Kirby, Billenge, Sutton, Southport (5), Banks, Hesketh Bank, Mere Brow, Oswaldtwistle (2), Accrington (2), Lancaster (3), Brookhouse, Caton, Barrow-in-Furness (3), Wrexham (5), Rhosadu, Warrington (2), Skelmensdale, Hall Green, Digmoor, Roley Mill, Clitheroe, Dalton-in-Furness, Millom, Askham-in-Furness, Swarthmoor, Haverigg, Elverston, Ellesmere Port, Whitby, Pooltown, Morecambe (2), Carnforth, Middleton, Orrel Post, Hindley, Lower Ince, Ince, Widnes (2); Sunday Schools at Orrell, Ellesmere Port, Liverpool; Pleasant Sunday Afternoon, Whitby; Worker's Band of Hope and Temperance Society, Liverpool, 106 Tents of the Independent Order of Rechabites; International Order of Good Templars at Cardiff, Moneyrea, Rothley; Sons of Temperance, Middlesborough; Temperance Councils at Gillingham, Tunbridge Wells, Dun-stable, Batley; Pilley Wesleyan, Barnsley; United Kingdom Alliance, London; Meetings at Thame, Liverpool (2), Berry Narbor, Portisham, Minchinhampton; Inhabitants of Shipley; Independent Labour Party, Shipley, Congregational Churches at Newbury, Folkestone, Rochester, Marsh Green; United Methodists of Steeple Aston, Woodstock, Kidlington, Coombe; Holy Trinity Church, Leicester; Wesleyans of Esholt; District Free Church Council,
  534
  Crosshills; Westcliff Road Chapel, Shipley; Women's Adult School, Wellingboro'; Baptist Senior Band of Hope, Ashford; Pleasant Sunday Afternoon Societies at Derby, Newbury, Shipley, Liverpool; Congregational Church, Foots Cray; Bands of Hope at Maidstone, Coxheath; Wesleyan Sunday School, Maidstone; Sons of Phoenix Centenary Lodge, Walworth; South Metropolitan Teetotal Society, Blackfriars; Meetings at Tythegstone Llangennech, Blaenavon, Cwmdare, Beaufort, Cymbach, Pentybont, St. Brides Major, Pentyrch, Llantwit, Llanddansant, Hirwain, Tonyrefail; Congregational Churches at Abertillery, Rhos, Ynysmudu, Portadawe, Trecynon, Ynysddu, Newbridge (Mon.), Llanhilleth, Brynmawr; Presbyterian Church, Abertillery; Calvanistic Methodist Churches at Llangathen, Rheuccilog, Pencoed, New Quay; Baptist Churches at Pen ell, Grand Llanbister, Portadawe, Blaenau Gwent, Abertillery, Brymbo, Abercarn; Methodist Churches at Ynysddu, Blaenau Gwent; Wesleyans, Brymbo; Primitive Methodist Mission, Llwynypia; Thirty-one Lodges of the Independent Order of Good Templars; Temperance Associations at Portadawe, Llandilo, Carmarthen; Baptist Band of Hope, Portadawe; British Women's Temperance, Swansea; Sunday Schools at Portadawe (2), Ynysmuddu, Llanhilleth; Congregational Churches at Maesteg (2), Ruabon, Pwllheli, Gwereyllt, Beddgelert, Moss, Penygelli, Llithfaen, Abererch, Cardiff (5); Baptist Churches at New Tredegar, Maesteg (2), Cardiff (5); Presbyterian Churches at Cardiff (2); Primitive Methodist Churches at Ebbw Vale (2), Beaufort, Victoria, Cwm, Llanthewey, Aberdare, Rhondda (6), Trealand, Tonypandy, Gilfach Goch, Pontycwmmer; Carmel Independent, Llangynwyd; Church Societies and Bethel Church, Maesteg; Memorial Hall Church, Christian Endeavour Societies (2), and Heath Wesleyan Mission, Cardiff; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Maesteg (2), Cardiff (3), Brookland; P. S. A. Society and British Women's Temperance Association (2), Cardiff; Sons of Temperance, Mon-mouth; Women's Total Abstinence Society, Folkestone; International Order of Good Templars, Maesteg; Meetings

  535
  at Tideswell, Pencoed, Llanwrda; Congregational Churches at Gowerton, Guelsfield, Pennel, Pontrobert, Penllys, Sarnam; Wesleyan Methodist Churches at Llanfyllen, Cymdu, Brew, Llynelys, Oswestry, Cefnblodwel, Llangynog; Calvanistic Methodist Churches at Llanfyllen, Arddlien, Llandinam, Berriew; Meetings in Shetland (7), Devon (3), Leicester, Ashton-on-Trent, Leicester; Sunday School Teachers, Long Watton; Local Preachers, Redruth; Teachers, Guilds, Churches, and Meetings at Melbourne (3), New Sawley, (2); Meeting at West Pelton, Beamish, Leek, Waltham-stow, Knighton, Leawick, Dunrossness (2), Levenwick; the following Lodges of International Order of Good Templars: John Halcro, Pride of the Wear, Hope of Bootle, Temple of Peace, Central, The Dalton Castle, Kings Heath, Home; Mission, Hope of Hurst, Hope of Sidmouth, Wincombe Conqueror, Burgess Hill, Standard of Freedom, City of Refuge, National, Pride of Dulverton, Star of Bethlehem, Peaceful, Canklow, Ingleborough, Hope of Darlington, Nechells, Bedfordshire District, North Devon District, Hampshire District; Congregation of the Ashburton Memorial Church, Custom House; Teachers and Scholars of the Emmanuel Baptist Mission Sunday School; Members of the Emmanuel Baptist Mission Church, Levenshulme; Manchester and Salford Women and Girls Institute, Levenshulme Branch; Members of the Baptist Church, Devonport; Inhabitants of the City of Leeds; Citizens of Hackney, Bethnal Green, etc.; of following Lodges of International Order of Good Templars: Eliott, Cotterell, Perseverance, New Century, Jubilee Excelsior, Henry Whitfield, Press Forward, Bright Water, Wincobank Happy Home, Charles Brook, John Wesley, Vale of Severn, South Metropolitan, Lily of Askam, The St. George's Rosebud, James Thornton, Staveleigh, Patricroft, Sparton, City of Birmingham, Northampton Meanwood, Margaret McCurrey, We are Winning, Welcome, Amity, Amethyst, Pride of Walton, Pride of Fulham, Harringay, New Ferry Welcome, Stanley Family Circle, Spurgeon, Deal, Orwell, City of Westminster, Chancton, Borough, Exeter P.S.A., Per Mare Per Terrain; Executive Officers of the Cheshire East and Mid
  536
  District Lodge; United Meeting of Good Templars held in the Town of Atherstan,, representing Lodges at Wigan, Leigh, Earlestown, Atherton; United Meeting of Good Templars, held in the City of Leeds; Inhabitants of Oldham, in public meeting assembled; Churches, Schools, Meetings, etc.: At Castle Howard, Toddington, Birmingham, Croydon, Bootle, Newton Heath, Spring View, Dunstable, Grimsby, Walthamstow; Calvinist Methodist Churches: At Givespyr, Stockport, Weston Rhyn, Pendenlwn, Pantydwr, Rhayader, Talybont, Talsarn, Llangefin, Paran Rhosneigr, Llangaffo, Brynsiencyn, Rhosygell, Liangwyry, Rhydlwyd, Taliesin, Rhyl, Rhosesmor, Gwernymynydd, Meliden, Caerwys, Maesydre, Lewisham, Buckley, Llynypandy, Ystrad, Mynach, Cwgglas, Pencoed, Resolven, Pontlotten, Dowlais, Maesteg, Trealan, Bethania, Treharris, Mountain Ash, Barry, Pontycymmer, Llansamlet, New Mill, Cardiff, Aberdare, Llanddausant, Myddfai, Carmel, Llansadwrn, Manordilo, Nantgaredig, Closygraig, Waen, Garregddu, Pennal, Dolgelley, Maentwrog, Aberllevein, Tyldesley, Bald, Caersalem, Rhosygwalian, L'anltyd, Barmouth, Cromyglo, Rhyd Dhu, drillo, Cefnddwysarn, Bontddu, Llanel Hyfrydle, Nevin, Carnarvon, Bodvean, Padoc, Pentir, Llanllyfi, Llandudno, Maestrafn, Ruabon, Ceiriog, Cerigydruidoin, Cefnberain, Ogosen, Trefnant, New Brighton, Bomere, Shrewsbury, Cefn Coed, Beaufort Hill, Crickhowell, Blackwood, Rhymney, Beaumaris, Ponkey, Rhosddu, Rutkin, Colwyn Bay, Turgwyn, Pydew, Dolgelly, Towyn, Aberdovey, Capel Neuadd, Penygarn, Penmorfa, Cenarth, Lanybryn, Penial, Tobythy Hwyth; Churches, Meetings, etc., at Whitegrave, Reading (2), Castlethorpe, Poppleton, Stretford, Leicester (2), Ebbw Vale, Frome, Thame, York, Birmingham, Easingwold, Sheffield, Hockley, Reigate, Tarporley (2), Bristol, Fulham, Chorley, Barnoldswick, Tilehurst, Glasgow, Edmonton, Seven Kings, Honiton, Pontnewydd, Abercynon, Dunoon, Tunbridge Wells, Barlestone, Aylesbury, Leeds, Sheffield, Cwmfelmfach, London, Finsbury Park, Bethania; Society of Friends: At King's Lynn, Norwich; Guilds, Meetings, etc.: At Tarporley, Southsea, Castlethorpe, Marlow, Whitegate, Bradford, Burgh-le-March, Rechabites (8),

  537
  Leicester, Dolgelley, Creswell, Worksop, Windermere, Barnoldswick, Halifax, Cyssgr, Sons of Temperance, London, Houghton-le-Spring, Fulham, Rechabites (51), Oldham Temperance Society, Good Templars. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Petitions against: Of persons signing (6); Bridge End; Rhondda Valley; County of Glamorgan; Licensed Victuallers Association of Newmarket; Gloucestershire. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY.
  War Office Report on the steps taken during 1907 to provide technical instructions to soldiers to fit them for civil life. Presented (by command), and pursuant to Address of the 16th instant.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 4172. Austria-Hungary (Trieste). Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (URBAN DISTRICT OF HINDLEY.
  Order made by the urban district council of Hindley, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for a certain class of shops within the urban district.

  PUBLIC RECORDS, COLONIAL OFFICE (NEW ZEALAND COMPANY).
  Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents which have been removed from the office of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State having the Department of the Colonies and deposited in the Public Record Office, but are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906.
  Rules made by the Board of Trade, CLXII.—CLXXXV. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. [No. 232.]

  LICENSING BILL.
  Order of the day read for resuming the adjourned debate on the Amendment moved by the Marquess of Lansdowne to the Motion that the Bill be now read 2a, viz., to leave out all the words after "That" for the purpose of inserting the following 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 LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I desire to support the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill was opposed yesterday by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition and by others on account of what the noble Marquess called his rooted objection to its principles. I, on the other hand, believe its main principles to be right and sound, and though I should suggest modifications of detail, sometimes in one direction and sometimes in the other, to its main principles I unhesitatingly adhere.
  I listened to the debate last night with a sense of the great, perhaps the unbridgable, difference between the way in which such a question as the reduction of public-houses is viewed by noble Lords—statesmen, central administrators of public affairs, students of abstract principles, practical men in the largest sense, who are able historically, socially, politically, and, I suppose, constitutionally, for privilege Amendments fall under that head, to regard such a question— the difference between the way in which they look at it, and the way in which it is looked at by men and women throughout the country who are engaged in facing day by day, and hour by hour, as their ordinary work, the problems of human sorrow, human weakness, human disease, and human sin, and who know them to be in a large measure the result of the multiplied temptations offered to the

  539
  weak—temptations which this Bill sets itself in some measure to diminish if it can.
  There will be, my Lords, heavy hearts and weary disappointment to-day among workers such as these, in whatever field their labour lies. I know that many of them had been looking for some cheering word of hope. They were expecting to hear that those whom they would, perhaps, describe as "the central people in London" would be able to do something to help them in what they feel to be a real need; and they will read that this House at least is not prepared for the present to do anything of the kind. I am referring to quite simple people who perseveringly work in the back streets of our great towns, or in hospitals, prisons, and asylums, and not least in our elementary schools, where the teachers and parents are in such close touch—people to whom such phrases as "privilege Amendments" would have no meaning whatever, but who are daily in touch and contact with the facts and needs and difficulties that your Lordships too, from a greater distance, and in a more general way, are trying to look at. These are the kind of people whom all of us, without distinction of opinion, would be sorry to sadden just now.
  My Lords, I draw the contrast with no kind of idea of implying thereby a censure upon your Lordships' House. It is, of course, absolutely the duty of those who sit here to consider this and every other question in the largest and moat far-reaching way. None the less the contrast is significant and it is an unhappy one to a good many of us The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition spoke yesterday of the pleasure which would be given by the passing of a Bill such as this to "people who are passionately devoted to the cause of temperance." It is, in my view, less those enthusiasts whom it would please—some of them are very much disappointed with the details of this Bill—than other workers who may or may not have given themselves specially to temperance work, but who do know the everyday life of the tempted and troubled people whom legislation like this is meant to help. Petitions, memorials, and resolutions have flooded in upon all of us at this time.
  540
  Put temperance organisations entirely aside—cut them all out from these resolutions and memorials—and look at the other signatories. See the schoolmasters, schoolmistresses, the nurses in parishes or hospitals, the rescue workers, the men or women who are associated with prison or asylum work, or with workhouse infirmaries and the like—eliminate all those who are directly and specifically temperance workers or temperance enthusiasts and look at the other people who know—and judge who are those whom the decision which this House seems likely to come to will distress. I have referred to those who want such a Bill and who support this Bill. A word about those who in the country are its chief opponents. The Prime Minister in his speech on the Third Reading of this Bill, spoke of the strength of the opposition, which had been shown to it. My Lords, if by that strength, or vigour—I think that was his word—of opposition you mean its extensiveness, I am inclined to doubt its extensiveness through the population as a whole. The opposition to the Bill has been, and is, in some cases, very strong—it is red hot—and those who have lighted or fanned the flame have used a gigantic influence. Sometimes the influence has been used in a way absolutely fair and perfectly reasonable, and with weighty, forcible arguments which those who feel as they do are not only justified in using, but, I think, are practically bound to use as honourable business men so that their case may be set forward as straightly and rightly as it can be; and there can be no doubt whatever—it is almost an impertinence to say it—that the ranks of those who are sometimes covered by the denomination of "the Trade" contain men as upright and as high principled, as kindly and as philanthropic, as any of their countrymen. Any one who denies that seems to me to miss a great deal of the importance of, and to be likely to lose a great deal of what might be effected in, the arguments which should be used upon this subject.
  But, my Lords, the opposition to this measure, and to legislation of this kind, has of late taken a form sometimes which is less worthy of respect—perhaps less worthy of attention. I refer to the kind of

  541
  representations which have reached some of us—at all events, some of us who sit on the episcopal bench—threatening either directly or indirectly, the withdrawal of support from religious or philanthropic work because Churchmen or ecclesiastics connected therewith are supporting a measure of this kind. Now, that seems to me a very unwise course of action on the part of those who follow it, because, in the first place, it must, in the case of any honourable man, stiffen his back and make him, perhaps, somewhat tempted to look less fairly upon the cause his correspondents advocate; and, in the next place, because it must undoubtedly lead one to look in a somewhat different way at the motives of those who hitherto have been subscribers to those particular objects. We believed they regarded those objects as wholesome and health-giving, and, therefore, worthy of support. If a man subscribes to a school, or hospital, or charity, or an institution of whatever kind, one likes to think he does so because he thinks it is a good sort of institution, and it does not become a bad sort of institution because some of those connected with it are supporting a piece of legislation of which that man disapproves.
  This kind of reason seems to me to be unfortunate. It is, of course, totally different from the appeal made to us from many quarters, that owing to what are believed to be the disastrous consequences of this Bill, people will not be in a position to afford to continue their help; and a very large amount of correspondence has reached some of us of a simple and genuine and even touching kind from people who are under the belief that they will suffer so much by this Bill as to be unable to help forward causes which they have helped before, and that they will, perhaps, find themselves actually in penury and want. For such appeals and remonstrances I have the most cordial sympathy and the deepest possible respect. I have asked, not infrequently, on receiving such letters—Why is it that you think this will be the result?—and with commendable frankness I have received in several instances a draft letter which had been sent to my correspondent by the secretary of the association or
  542
  company to which he or she belonged as an appropriate letter to be written. That may be quite right. The Secretary may be merely trying to help some person whom he believes to be placed in a difficult position, to express himself or, more often, herself in the kind of way which it is thought will be most effective, but at least it gives a slightly different character to the appeal which has reached us. I believe that opposition has been intense, is intense, and is genuine on the part of a very large number of people, but if I am asked whether I think it is very widespread among those who are not personally financially interested in these matters, either directly or indirectly, I say I have not seen anything to convince me that it is.
  I pass to the provisions of the measure itself. It contains two great principles; it advocates the speedier redaction of facilities for excessive drinking and it advocates the securing for public authority of closer control over this particular trade. On the first it may be said, as a matter of course, that I and those who share my opinions are not speaking as though we thought there was something in itself wicked or wrong in the trade or in the consumption of alcoholic liquor. I hold no such opinion, and I take every opportunity of saying so. Then I would say I make no pretension that you can statistically show any absolute correspondence between the number of public-houses in a district and the amount of drunkenness. Prom the nature of the case I think it is practically impossible to compile such statistics with any probability of accuracy, because a great many other considerations besides those on the surface have, in every single case, to be taken into account. I can speak only of the general tendency in that way.
  Does any one who knows the history of the last 200 years in England doubt that whenever there has been a large increase in facilities for procuring alcoholic liquor, a mischief has arisen which has, before many years have passed, called for some remedy? Look at the story how the drinking of spirits became common in England in the early part

  543
  of the eighteenth century. Let any one read Mr. Lecky's "History of the Eighteenth Century" and notice what he says on that subject. In a century which contains the greatest exploits of some of the foremost statesmen and soldiers of our country, no incident was, in his opinion, of so great importance as the introduction of the drinking of spirits as a portion of the ordinary habits of the English people; and everybody knows how it was found before very long that measures had to be taken for dealing with that particular difficulty. Then, again, founded, I believe, on motives inclining to temperance, there was the legislation of 1830 promoting or advocating the universal spread of beerhouses; but it was found before many years had passed that the mischief was so great that it was absolutely necessary to revert to the earlier system, and to deal sharply and sternly with what had grown up.
  But apart from that, does anyone doubt, speaking generally, that a great increase of facilities for the consumption of liquor is disadvantageous to the public good? Practically everyone agrees that a diminution is required, and the question is as to the degree of such diminution. The promoters of the Act of 1904 would be the last to say that they did not regard a steady and very large diminution in the facilities for the procuring of liquor as being eminently desirable. Your Lordships will remember that in August, 1906, Lord Salisbury speaking on behalf of the Government said—
  "Under this Bill we propose to change the possible' and occasional 200 licences [suppressed each year] into a constant number of nearly 25,000 which is an enormous change in the direction of suppressing those licensed houses that ought to be suppressed."
  I never shared the fears of those who thought that under the Act of 1904 the suppression of licences would be insignificant; but, anyhow, it is very much less than was anticipated by the spokesman of the Government at that time. I think that I am right in saying that the suppression which has taken place under the Act is 1,096 a year in contrast with the expectation of 2,500. Anyone who knows financially what can be done under the new interpretation
  544
  which has been given to the words of the Act will be of opinion that the reduction figures will be much smaller than 1,096 in the coming year.
  The need of drastic reduction, moreover, can be justified for another reason. The argument is usually made to turn on the increase or otherwise of actual drunkenness; but the statistics take note only of those who reach the certain stage of helplessness. Excessive drinking is not the same thing as drunkenness. Let any one inquire of the doctors in the out-patients' departments of great hospitals, the police magistrates, the philanthropic workers, and the authorities of hospitals and asylums, and he will find that for one person who is there regarded as having rendered himself diseased or helpless by complete drunkenness, there are fifty who have never gone, perhaps, or rarely gone, so far as that, but who are from the excessive drinking in which they indulge day by day and week by week, impairing their powers to a fatal degree and rendering themselves practically unfit to be considered responsible citizens. It may be said, and probably will be said, in answer to me: How can Parliament help that? You cannot forbid a man to judge for himself. Certainly not, and I make no claim on Parliament of such a kind. But indirectly Parliament can do a very great deal.
  Excessive drinking comes from excessive temptation to weak men and women, who are practically unable to resist it. This arises from the constant competition of one public-house with another, and from the desire of the tenant to push forward his trade and to stand well with his employers. We are told that the drunkard is the worst enemy of the publican. It is true, but the man who stops just short of actual reeling drunkenness is his best friend. How can Parliament help that, it may be asked. I say quite frankly, not at all by direct action, but it can help by lessening the temptation. We try, for example, to meet excessive gambling by legislation enacted with almost universal consent; we endeavour to repress impurity and other wrong-doing by making it more difficult, as far as legislation can help,

  545
  for people to go wrong in this particular way. What the Bill is trying to do is not simply to meet the case of actual drunkards, but by indirect pressure, and without unfair limitation of the legitimate demands of the public, to diminish temptations which grow until they are practically irresistible to the weakest class of the population.
  Therefore it is that I welcome the restraints and the restrictions which the Bill contains, provisions diminishing the number of public-houses, restrictions on Sunday hours of opening, the closing on election days, the checking of the absurdity of the bona fide traveller, and, above all, the restrictions imposed in Respect of the supply of liquor to children. I welcome also, as far as they go, the rules laid down for the regulation of clubs. I realise the extraordinary difficulty of that particular problem. But I was a little surprised last night to hear the Leader of the Opposition referring with some reproach to the Bill because it did not go further in respect of clubs. That feeling of surprise is natural when I recall the arguments put forward in 1902, telling us to be very careful not to go too far, otherwise we should do harm. The Bill will render impossible at least the substitution of the tied club for the tied house. That, to my mind, is one of the very best clauses in the Bill. I should like to see those clauses go farther; and if the Bill had gone into Committee I should have been prepared to suggest further Amendments which would be neither unfair nor unreasonable.
  The second great principle of value in the Bill is the securing fuller public control over the whole licensing system. I care comparatively little about the details relating to the mode of reckoning compensation or the actual length of the time-limit. I care comparatively little for these things, important as they, are, provided we can secure that some day before very long public authorities shall have complete control, unhampered by permanent vested interests, in dealing with this matter; and, secondly, that in doing that they should act with real fairness and justice to those interests, of whatever kind, that are thereby affected. I have no
  546
  sort of wish that we should act unreasonably, but I claim and prize the restoration of magisterial control. Up to 1904 the magistrates had, under certain restrictions, a fairly free hand, but now their power of control is virtually destroyed. That power of control this Bill would restore, and I am absolutely certain that in the public interest some Bill or other must before very long be passed to restore the powers of the licensing magistrates.
  But I hope for a great deal more than that. I look forward in the coming years to developments and experiments of all sorts in our licensing system and in the management and character of public-houses; but the moment we endeavour to start to bring about changes of that kind we are met by the permanent vested interest which stands across our path, the vested interest of those who want things to remain as they are. It is because I desire above all things to see reasonable liberty of action restored that I welcome the endeavour which this Bill makes in that direction. It is surely beyond question that some day a reasonable date must be fixed after which the community at large, the State, should be able to act freely in this matter, to enforce its own conditions, to impose its own price for the monopoly which its own licence confers. But the moment you say this, the question arises: On what principle can you get rid of existing rights and interests in this matter? I suppose it is true that in strict law, prior to 1904, a bench of magistrates could terminate an existing licence without cause assigned, or any compensation whatever being given. I have always said, however, that the reasonable expectation of renewal had become a species of property the owner of which must in some way be compensated if you take it away. I regard it as fundamental that we should recognise that principle and act with fairness. But that the State should in some way or other get back into its own hands the power of acting with freedom seems almost too plain to require argument.
  People talk as though for the first time in legislation we should be lowering the value of investments. It is quite a novel doctrine that, because that result

  547
  might inevitably, however regretfully, follow, that because investments made in recent years, in perfect good faith, might be diminished in value in consequence of legislation which for the public good Parliament enacted, such legislation ought not to be passed. We talk as though this were quite a novel bit of legislation. On the contrary it has been happening continuously throughout the modern history of Parliament. Take one great example—the abolition of the slave trade. Not a penny of compensation was given when the slave trade was abolished. Noble Lords seem to think otherwise. Is that disputed?
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Indeed it is.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I must, then, point out to the noble and learned Lord that my statement is absolutely true. No one supposes that the noble Lord would confuse the abolition of the slave trade with the emancipation of the slaves. The emancipation of slaves cost some £20,000,000, but the slave trade was abolished twenty-five years before, and not a penny of compensation was paid. Just one hundred and one years have passed since a memorable debate took place in this House upon that question. A Bill was moved in this House for the abolition of the slave trade, for rendering it illegal that ships should be used for that purpose, and rendering the slave trade practically impossible, at all events in British ships. The Bishops of London and Durham were the principal advocates of the Bill in this House. The Bill went to the House of Commons, and petitions were sent in against it from citizens of Glasgow and elsewhere, and counsel, in support of these petitions, were heard at the bar of the House. And what was the nature of their petitions? The petitioners said that they had invested a great deal of money in those ships, that widows and orphans all over England had invested money in those ships and in buildings for the embarkation and debarkation of slaves, and that they Would be terribly injured by the loss which would fall upon them by the proposed legislation. They further said
  548
  they had invested their money in the confidence that Parliament had time after time recognised the existence of the slave trade by the regulations it had made, as well as by Royal Charters, and that, therefore, they had an absolute right to expect that if the slave trade were abolished, and the ships and buildings rendered useless, they should have compensation. I am not going to say whether they were right or wrong, but Parliament gave not one penny of compensation, because the proposed legislation was said to be for the common good. It was not denied that the property of all those shareholders would be diminished in value, but it was pointed out that there was no direct taking away of property which belonged to individuals. When, some thirty years later, the Legislature said they were going to take away property—the slaves—which absolutely belonged to individuals, live goods and chattels, the conditions were different. There was an actual purchase of these slaves who were to be set at liberty by the State, and for that compensation was paid up to £20,000,000, notwithstanding the admitted grossness of the evil which was to be set right. Happily there is no close analogy between what we are now doing and what it was then necessary to do. The slave traders got no compensation. Here, in the case of the liquor traffic the case is different; and we desire to act in a generous spirit. We desire to give compensation in the form of a time-limit, and to do it much more generously than has been the case in America and elsewhere when licensing legislation of a corresponding kind has taken place. I understood the noble Viscount opposite (Lord St. Aldwyn) to say last night that by the 1904 Act we made the present licence-holder pay something like a monopoly value by a compensation levy for the benefit of those who were losing their licences. In my opinion that must be something to which a limit must ultimately be set. The question is one of degree and not of principle. I desire to do it with absolute fairness, not only because that is reasonable and right, but also for an indirect reason. It is desirable that we should act with absolute fairness in order not to bring about disastrous consequences on the general

  549
  sense of security of commercial investment. I am going a little out of my depth in touching on such a subject, but the general financial security of investment ought not to be shaken in the slightest degree by any action taken in this matter.
  Now, my Lords, I have tried to show why I believe in the two great principles of the Bill, the reduction of licences and the restoration of genuine and effective public control. I have alluded also to what the Bill contains of a directly effective temperance kind, the promotion of the better conduct of public-houses and the lessening of facilities for the consumption of drink in different ways; and I was specially struck by what was said last night by Lord St. Aldwyn, that it is possible that even yet a Bill containing these clauses might be rescued from the wreck. I should be very grateful to the Government if, before we close the debate to-night, or tomorrow, they would say how they would regard such action taken by myself or any body else in the endeavour to do something of that kind. I feel we ought to have some assurance upon the subject, if we are invited to make such an attempt.
  I ask your Lordships once more to look round the country as a whole and to consider the trend of public opinion in this matter. I ask you to consider gravely and carefully who they are who are in favour of such legislation as this— workers of all sorts among the weak, the sick, the tempted, the needy, ministers of religion of all sorts and of all denominations; then there is the practical unanimity—and to this noble Lords may give greater or less weight— of the Labour Members who are in the closest touch with that part of the population which is supposed to be most directly affected. What organised forces do you show on the other side? Are they or are they not forces that are in touch with the country's needs and are trying day by day to remedy its troubles and its evils? I think they are not. My own wish is to be absolutely fair and just. I am not in the least bound to particular figures, to particular processes or to particular dates; but I do profoundly regret that we are to be given no opportunity of discussing these matters
  550
  in detail, and I deplore the fact that the House of Lords should, on an occasion such as this, place itself in the position of taking what I believe thinking men hereafter will unite in regarding as the wrong side.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I con-fess I had hoped when the rev. Prelate began his speech that we should have had something in the nature of a disclosure, which has not yet been vouchsafed to us, of the mode in which the Bill which he recommends for your Lordships' adoption would operate to effect the objects which he, in common I think, with every member of your Lordships' House, is anxious to secure. I confess that in one respect I am very much disappointed. The most rev. Prelate described the disappointment which would be felt all through the country— and I have no doubt truly described, because he spoke of what I will venture to call the uninstructed multitude who have not seen the Bill and who, as he himself very candidly admitted, would not have understood it if they had, but who are nevertheless deeply impressed by the evils which he has described—if your Lordships rejected an amending Bill, because they were in some way concerned in the interests which certainly were not those to which the most rev. Prelate referred. I want to make a little protest at first. The most rev. Prelate himself is the very last person to have suggested that his antagonists, because they disagreed with him, were not actuated by motives as pure as his own, and he has disclaimed on his own behalf the extreme view which treats the dealing in this traffic as itself wicked and wrong. But he will forgive me for saying that those who speak so candidly and kindly as he did, and with so unprejudiced a mind upon the subject, are a decided minority of those who are insisting upon this Bill.
  I must protest against its being supposed that on this side, either this side in politics or this side in the House, we are less anxious for the temperate and proper distribution of what is, in a great measure, one of the important foods of the people. We have a right, I think, to have our views considered as impartially as those of the most rev.

  551
  Prelate, and our view has been throughout in regard to this Bill that it was not a Bill for temperance at all—and, indeed, the most rev. Prelate has to some extent admitted its two-fold character—but a Bill which was intended to enlarge the area of taxation and to take from one very large portion of the population property which belongs to it and to vest it in the State. If it is possible for such a Bill as the most rev. Prelate has foreshadowed to be brought in and to be the proper subject of discussion, my impression is that it would be received with open arms on both sides of the House; but it is because the cause of temperance has been weighted, and deliberately weighted, with the other sections of the Bill which bring with them the confiscation of property that we are unable to discuss the question of temperance by itself or to say in what way we would, if it were possible, interfere with the freedom of action on one side and the proper repression of excess on the other.
  One proposition laid down by the most Rev. Prelate is a proposition which gives me very great cause to think what sort of Bill he contemplates. He has pointed out with force that great mischief is done by excessive drinking, but drinking which does not proceed to drunkenness. Does he suppose that there is any mode by which you can curb the approach of vice in that way by law? Except there is some outward and visible sign of what has made a man a nuisance, what mode does the most rev. Prelate suppose he can adopt for preventing people drinking too much? I will Come in a moment to what we are dealing with, viz., the public sale of liquor; but upon the abstract proposition, how does he suggest we are to deal with the point I have referred to? The law can only apply the outward test, because you cannot prevent a man being vicious in this sense, if he has either eaten or drunk too much, and I believe it is a very prevalent opinion among persons who have studied that subject that more disease is engendered by overeating than by overdrinking. If you are going to legislate against vice, simple vice, that which does not disclose itself in public or is not made the subject of observation in public, you are
  552
  undertaking a task which is beyond the reach of human legislation altogether.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: That is almost exactly what I tried to say. Legislation cannot do it directly. It can only be done indirectly by the diminution of temptation.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am not quite sure that I quite follow the relevancy of the topic. Does the most rev. Prelate intend to suggest that you can only proceed by indirect means, and that the indirect means are to be applied to the public sale of liquor, and its distribution and manufacture? I thought that what the most rev. Prelate was referring to, but I am quite prepared to be corrected, was that he could not be expected to give evidence of the mischief done by the public-houses, because the best friend of the public-house was the man who stopped short of being drunk, and that he was in that way accounting for the inability to prove by evidence that the public-houses were encouraging drunkenness. I understand the relevancy of the argument completely, but I am afraid I cannot follow it now, because the only way by which we know of the mischief done by the public-house, the only way by which the law can take hold of it, is that people get drunk there. If they do not get drunk there what is the difference between the public-house and the private house where people, whether they get drunk or not, have no right to be interfered with? The most rev. Prelate has taken the Bill under his protection, not because he has established any usefulness in that direction, beyond the broad proposition, which, I admit, he laid down, that the diminution of public-houses is to the advantage of temperance. That, from the beginning to the end of his most interesting speech, was the sole observation he made to establish the fact that this was a Bill promoting temperance. My Lords, I can only say that I am an absolute disbeliever in the connection that is supposed to exist between the number of public-houses and intemperance, and I am encouraged in that belief by the Home Office Report of 1907 on that subject. If there is this supposed connection between them one would

  553
  have expected something would be demanded by the operation of the new Bill which would apply itself to that connection. So far as the diminution of public-houses and its operation is concerned, in 1904, at all events, there was this connection, that there was a power of selection, and the power of selection was carefully confided to those who would be most likely to be able to form an opinion on the subject. But this Bill destroys entirely that power of selection. It takes it away from those who are able to exercise it, and substitutes what might be indeed described as a mathematical or arithmetical procedure, which may have no reference whatever to the particular circumstances of a particular case. I have myself had reason to know what has been the care of magistrates in such matters. I believe, speaking generally, they exercise their discretion with great propriety. But unfortunately, I think at one time they got a notion that there was a policy to be adopted, and a policy which was, I think, somewhat irregularly exercised. The Bill of 1904, I think, became a necessity inconsequence, and accordingly it was passed. In dealing with a question of this sort, when you bring in a Bill Reversing in a great measure the Act of 1904 and establishing a new system, I think it is incumbent that you should show where the Act of 1904, which you are practically repealing, has failed. It has indeed been asserted broadly that that Act was a failure, but I do not believe that that has been established. It appears not by the evidence of its authors only, but by the evidence of chief constables and others, that the Act has worked very well and that the results have been very good, and I have not been able up to the present to understand what it is that has rendered it necessary for a new Act to be brought in to remedy the alleged defects of 1904, which, to my mind, have never been proved.
  Now, my Lords, I want to express my deep sympathy with the great number of persons who have written to me on the subject of this Bill, and I have no doubt there will be mourners amongst those whom the most reverend Prelate described. But that which they have assumed as one of the cardinal pro-
  554
  positions upon which they have urged me to support this Bill, is the fact that it will greatly diminish intemperance. But how? I have over and over again asked that question, and beyond the broad proposition which we have heard about the diminution of public-houses, no one has ventured to explain. The noble Earl who spoke last night, was good enough to say that he would not go into all that. That is one of the difficulties. We have not heard what the proposition is. But the noble Earl was good enough to say that the working man spent a sixth of his wages in drink. In the first place, I should like to say that, in my view, beer is part, and an important part, of the food of the working man, and I believe most people who are familiar with working men, particularly those engaged in certain forms of work, know that that is the fact. I see The Times this morning works out the sum spent in drink at 6d. a day, if a man is earning a guinea a week. Well, I do not know, if a working man requires it, that that is a very extravagant part of his wages to spend. At all events, I should like to know who was the wage earner referred to, what his form of work was, and whether he had any calls upon him which rendered that extravagant. But there again you are to go into the question of a man's family. Apparently the ideal worker is the man to whom the State will dictate how much of his wages he may spend in drink, how much in other things, and, if he is a married man, with a family, how much he must distribute to them. But the noble Earl will forgive me for suggesting that when he says one-sixth of a man's wages are spent in drink, that does not answer my question at all as to how you are going to make the working man abstain from so consuming a sixth part of his income, and in what way this Bill does that. My Lords, I really am reluctant to leave the question of how much this Bill will promote temperance, because I believe that that is the cardinal question upon it, and the question that should be considered by those people who are going to mourn over your Lordships' decision.
  But the question we have to consider is not only that which, as I have said,

  555
  has been allowed to pass without discussion, without proof, and without one single fact being laid before us to show that the passing of this Bill would diminish the intemperance of any human creature, but the question which the most reverend Prelate has described as the resumption by the State of that to which the State has a right. I have not the least notion what that refers to. I have seen it written and I have heard it said, but I do not know to what it refers. What is the right of the State? Is it the right to carry on a trade? Is it suggested that in this country we must ask the permission of the State to carry on a trade; because a right to regulate a trade, a right to prevent its being a public nuisance, to prevent its being in any way injurious to the State, is one thing, and the right to carry on the trade is another, and a very different thing. I should have thought it was part of the liberty of every one of His Majesty's subjects to carry on a trade, and I think that would become a cardinal question when we consider the question of what is called the time-limit. My Lords, I deny any such right. I am not at all aware that it has ever been claimed. There are some monopolies which the Government claimed and has retained. But what right has ever been suggested in the manufacture of the beer by the brewer, or by the growing of the barley by the farmer? All those go to form a great manufacture, and once upon a time, indeed within the memory of many of us, it was a most common thing for a great number of people to brew their own beer, not to sell at all. A great many of the colleges and other institutions and private farmers had breweries. Gradually it was found that both better and cheaper beer could be obtained by a company setting up a brewery. And so it became a great trade, which has been established by an enormous capital. Some of the fanatics to whom the most reverend Prelate referred I take it must include in their virulent denunciations both the farmer and the hop-grower. But the rev. Prelate has admitted that it is a lawful trade, and it would be impossible to deny it. There is a reference in the Statute-book, going back
  556
  to 1660, showing that it has been a lawful trade for centuries, and treated as a trade belonging to the people who have created it, and not to the State.
  What is now proposed to be done? What is it that is to happen at the end of this period of fourteen or twenty-one years, or whatever the period is? To my mind it matters very little whether the period is one or the other. The principle is the thing that one has the right to complain of, and that principle is, as it appears to me, that the State is going to resume what it is pleased to describe as what it has given away. It has done no such thing. As I have pointed out, the trade has grown up like any other trade, under the sanction of the State, in the recognition of the fact of its being a lawful trade, and now it is supposed that you can cure the injustice of taking it away by saying: "We will give you notice that after a certain time we are going to take it; up to that time you can make what you can by the proper exercise of your trade, and at the end of that time we will resume it." As a practical question I should like to know what is going to happen, not only with reference to the injustice to those from whom it has been taken away, but in regard to what you are going to do. Is the State going to carry on the business of brewers or publicans? No one has answered that question. It has been asked a great many times but nobody has told us; at present, so far as I can see, it is left for exposition. In the first place, this is an example of a trade being taken away from different members of the State, and absorbed by the existing Government. That is not a popular view. But if you are not going to do that, what tenure are you going to give your tenants? Are they to be allowed only a year's tenancy; and if so, are they going to be allowed a proportionate portion of this, that, or the other district, within which to exercise what, in that event, may be a monopoly? My view of what has been described as a monopoly is a very different thing. The duty of the magistrates in licensing was to see that there was a due supply in the neighbourhood for the convenience of

  557
  the public. That is not a monopoly at all, because if the neighbourhood increased the proper course for the magistrates was to increase the public-houses in proportion as the public convenience required. It is the oddest notion of monopoly I ever heard. I protest against the notion of the resumption by the State of what they have never parted with. They have only done that which it was their duty to do, viz.: to regulate in respect to the convenience of the neighbourhood, the needs of the neighbourhood, the health of the neighbourhood, and I quite agree, the morality of the neighbourhood. But that power of regulation gave them no right of property that can be imagined. I am reluctant to say anything which may seem to refer to what I have said as a Judge. I have seen myself quoted over and over again, and I will only make this observation. I have nothing to retract or qualify in what I have said. I adhere to every word of the judgment which is so constantly referred to. But I must say this: that it is neither right nor just to take a piece out of a Judge's judgment and to refer to that as if it were the whole of it, and that is what I have seen constantly done.
  My Lords, I confess I heard with very great admiration Lord St. Aldwyn's exposition last night. I desire to add nothing to it. I believe that what he said was both sound law and good sense, and I would make my own every word he said on that subject. But it appears to me that the attempt now is to take away property and to take it away in such a fashion as will prevent its proper valuation being obtained. That seems to me to be grossly and scandalously unjust. It is no light matter with which one is dealing. We are here, certainly, for the purpose, as the most reverend Prelate says, of doing what we can for temperance and for morality. It is a bad start in dealing with the question of morality to take away what does not belong to you, and to treat with such absolute indifference the rights of others. I have nothing to say about what the most reverend Prelate said in respect of the ownership of these different places. But he will allow me to say that he is singular in the fair treatment he has given to that ques-
  558
  tion. It is talked of as if there had been a sort of gambling speculation in entering into this trade, and that now people were only disappointed that they had not got the complete result of their gambling. That is absolutely untrue. In what I am about to say I will not give names, although any Member may have them privately if he wishes to verify my statement. I have taken three London breweries and examined the capital consisting of the debentures and the preference shares. The capital, taking the three of them, is £6,750,000, and what I want to draw your Lordships' attention to is the mode in which that capital has been supplied. It is the capital of three breweries in London only, and I need not say what the inference derivable from this is, if you consider what really is the capital employed over the whole country. The sources from which that capital of £6,750,000 is derived are:—Trustees of various settlements, £3,559,545; clergy, £66,322; women, £819,421; others not included in either of those classes, £2,804,000. We hear a great deal about the brewers and the persons who have made great fortunes in brewing and so on. Is that capital, typical of the trade all over the country, to be seized on? Is the effect of your legislation to be such that you are to disregard the ruin that you will cause many of the persons in those trusts and other classes? It appears to me that dealing with such capital is a, very serious responsibility; but I do not think that is the most serious side of it. What do you think the effect upon the credit of the country will be? That is a matter which affects everybody, not only the persons immediately concerned, not only those who will have been turned from reasonably well-off persons into persons of a different class and condition. But what very seriously affects the question is the mode in which this is regarded by others, the mode in which you can invest in anything. One has heard of the enormous fortunes established by brewers and so on. These figures seem to me to show, and I think it would be shown in the same way whatever area you took, that what has been done has not been violent, mad speculation, but that trustees and clergy and

  559
  women who had no other provision, applied to get a safe investment, not one which returned enormous profits but which offered a safe investment; and where would they be when this termination (it is a delicate word) of their interests is determined on in 1923 or 1930? I cannot help thinking that those who devised this Bill had not only something in the nature of temperance theories, but had to pay off an old grudge against what they suppose to be the extremely Conservative side of the trade in this country. And I cannot help saying that I remember that in speeches on that subject in Birmingham, it was pointed out that the trade was throwing itself into one side of politics, which might at no very great interval be in power; and that they would find out that they had made an enemy of the most powerful party in the country. That threat has been held over for some time, but now it has reached its fulfilment. For myself, I cannot do better, I think, when we are dealing with the compensation which is supposed to be shared out, than apply myself to a quotation from one whose name will be received, at all events, with respect on that side of the House. The quotation I refer to is—
  "We ought not to allow a prejudice with regard to this particular claim or our sense of the enormous evil associated with its working, to cause us to deviate by one hair's breadth from the principle on which Parliament has always acted in analogous circumstances, that is to say, where there is a vested interest allowed to grow up, the question of compensation is to be considered whenever that interest is interfered with by Parliament."
  The words are those of Mr. Gladstone.
  I should like to say one word about the supposed analogy to which the most rev. Prelate treated us. I misunderstood him at first. The loose use of the word "slave-trade" may lead to misapprehension. The "slave-trade" was abolished without compensation, but slavery did not exist in this country. It had been held to be illegal, and when the property in slaves was being dealt with, it was compensated for by a very large sum of money. I do not think the analogy is a very forcible one. It was an illegal thing to hold a slave in England, but in the Colonies it had
  560
  been allowed to grow up, and this country was willing at immense sacrifiec to render it illegal in the Colones. But although people had detained these slaves by means which certainly could hardly be defended, even in the extreme case, this country would not abolish the property in slaves without granting ample compensation. I have only to say that what seems to me to be the vice of this attempted legislation is that it disregards the rights which have grown up, that it attempts to take possession of and to claim property in a trade to which the State has never laid claim before, and to do that in defiance of rights which have grown up and which everybody has regarded as what the State itself was bound to respect; and it seeks to do this in order to increase the area of taxation as well as nominally to assist temperance in this country.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I shall not attempt to follow the noble and learned Earl in the arguments which he has addressed to the House, partly because they have been essentially legal, and in any polemic with regard to a legal question I feel how entirely I should be at a disadvantage with the illustrious Judge who has just sat down. My object is a much simpler and a much narrower one. It is, in the limited time at my disposal, to express as clearly and as succinctly as I can my individual reasons for giving a vote for the Second Reading of this Bill—a vote which I give without the slightest hesitation and without the slightest doubt, a vote, not for all the details of the Bill, but certainly for the fundamental principle that underlies the Bill. I do not think there is any one who, in so vast a measure as this—too vast, if I may humbly offer a criticism upon it—would be prepared to give unhesitating approval to all its details. I very much doubt if any member of His Majesty's Government would be able, in foro conscientiœ, to give full approval to every detail of this enormous measure.
  There has been one or two points to which exception has been taken in this House, and with that exception I feel considerable sympathy. There has been

  561
  the point raised by the Bishop of Bristol in the interesting speech which he made last night as to the question of clubs— whether they have been sufficiently dealt with where public-houses have been so strictly dealt with. There has been the question of boards. There, I confess, I thought the remarks of my noble friend the noble Marquess were not unjust and were not ill-applied. It has been too much the practice of this Government to place in the centre of their Bill, whatever Bill it may be, a well-paid board which is to fulfil the functions that we hoped local bodies were competent to discharge. That is the flaw from the Liberal point of view, and I think a grave flaw, and I wish that my noble friends would, in their measures which I wish to support, avoid imposing on us any more of this bureaucratic regime.
  Then there is the question of the sparseness of the public-houses in rural districts. There, again, I was in agreement with the noble Marquess. I do think that would be a great grievance. No one in this House, I hope, no one except a fanatic outside this House, wishes to deprive the poor man of his beer. The labourer in the country has, after all, but few enjoyments and few solaces in his dreary life. The one great advantage that he does enjoy, the purity of the country air, he does not in the least appreciate, and I, at any rate, should feel very sorry if I was going to vote for a measure which tended in any way to narrow and to stint the legitimate enjoyment of the working man. And, again, I do not think that the introduction of local veto was either necessary or advisable in this measure. But all these were points, if not for dealing with in Committee, at any rate for negotiation, and I confess I do regret, and I think that everybody who has the interests of temperance at heart, to whatever party he may belong, will, in his heart of hearts, regret that this great opportunity for settling this question is, apparently, about to be lost, and that no opportunity will be given either for revision in Committee or for negotiation.
  The great principle, after all, that we who vote for the Second Reading are voting for and emphasising emphatic-
  562
  ally is the principle of the time-limit. My noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, in his speech last night, which, as usual, displayed that masterly grasp of principle and detail which distinguishes him— in the last sentence of that speech, which he will excuse me for imagining, up to the last few sentences, was a speech in advocacy of the Second Reading of. this Bill, jibbed suddenly and in a startling manner at the time-limit. The time-limit is the principle in this Bill. It is the principle which all who vote for the Second Reading have at heart, and, if the noble Viscount cannot swallow that principle, it is quite clear that His Majesty's Government cannot claim his vote.
  There is something in this discussion which we have gained, and that is, I think, a certain amount of common ground in discussing this question. No speaker has alleged, and no Member of this House has even thought of desiring, anything but what he in his heart believes to be the interests of temperance. Temperance is on every tongue. It is, I believe, at the back of every mind, and that admission which lurks behind and below our discussion is, after all, a great admission. As against the Bill as an instrument of temperance we have heard a great deal. Everyone on this side of the House appears to think that it is not likely to promote temperance. The Bishop of Bristol, I confess, astonished me by the original position he took up. He confessed himself an almost fanatical teetotaller. No drop of alcohol ever crosses his threshold; no member of his family or household ever touches it. And yet he cannot vote for this Bill. Why? Not because there are not an enormous number of provisions and clauses in the Bill of which he approves, but because it does not deal sufficiently drastically with clubs. I ask, with all reverence, was there ever such a case of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel as a right rev. Prelate voting against a Bill on such a narrow issue as that?
  As regards this question of temperance, I myself do not profess to be so versed in the great populations of our cities as to be able to say whether this Bill will in reality promote temperance or

  563
  not. It is not easy to say of any Bill what it will promote or what it will not, whatever its aim may be. But I do look to the great body of expert opinion which is ranged in favour of this Bill. I do not profess, on every secular subject, to accept the guidance of the right rev. bench, but I do say that their practically unanimous support of this Bill, not merely because they are bishops sitting in lawn sleeves on red benches, but because they are men who have worked in the great parishes of our towns, does weigh with undoubted authority.
  I think the noble Marquess discounted a little the temperance addresses and votes that are sent up from every quarter of the country in favour of this Bill as an instrument of temperance. He said they were apt to be mechanically produced. I do not deny that political resolutions have been and are and will he mechanically produced, but I do say that, by every feeling of the pulse of the country that we can obtain, we are convinced that that great section of the country which has temperance as its main object is profoundly stirred in its enthusiasm by the provisions of this Bill, and that is a fact which none of us can lose sight of.
  But I will give my noble friend the temperance associations, the temperance party. I will admit, if he chooses, for the purposes of argument that they are engaged in a strife to the death with what is called "the trade," and that they dislike the party opposed to them, which they think is wrapped up in the trade. I will give the noble Marquess that body of public opinion, though I myself attach the greatest importance to it. But you cannot say that the bishops have any sinister motive in advocating this Bill. You cannot say that the whole body of the clergy of the Free Churches, who are, I believe, practically unanimous in favour of this Bill, can have any sinister motive and interest in promoting it? You cannot say that of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood, who also, I believe, give a disinterested and solid support to the measure, or of the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland and of Ireland, who also give a United voice in favour of this Bill. And, therefore, though I admit I am
  564
  not able by experience to forecast what the temperance effect of this Bill will be, I cannot overlook the enormous strength of the spiritual, disinterested, unselfish mass of opinion which backs it as a temperance measure.
  While I feel that, I do not deny that I rather share the view that was frequently expressed by the late Lord Salisbury that you cannot look for an improvement of intemperate habits merely to legislation or even mainly to legislation. It must come from the moral elevation and improvement of the people. It does not follow from that that we should neglect the mere mechanical and legislative methods. I believe it is common ground that a licence in strict law—I emphasise the words in strict law—confers only a twelvemonth's interest, and that it can be terminated by a ruthless and intolerant State at the end of that twelvemonth. From that, however, I deduce the conclusion that it is madness and suicidal to identify the cause of property at large with this annual licence as if it constituted a freehold licence. If I were a Socialist— which, thank God, I am not — and wanted to attack property, there is nothing in which I should rejoice so much as identification of the cause of property with the cause of the annual licence in drink.
  And here I come to ground on which I shall find more sympathy with noble Lords behind me. We all admit that by the negligence or the policy of successive Governments—and the negligence rather than the policy—an equitable or a traditional interest has grown up beyond the strict law, which may be called the expectation of renewal in the case of good conduct, which cannot be ignored. The State itself has not only not ignored it, but has made a pretty good thing out of it at times. I am at issue with the Government as to the inferences to be drawn from the imposition of death duties. It was argued last night that the State only levied death duties on the present value of objects which might decline or increase in value. It might be a share or a racehorse, and no one knows better than I the varying value of a racehorse as it passes from a position of unrivalled triumph

  565
  to one of complete decrepitude. But there is a fundamental difference which has been missed by all who have argued this question of the death duties. It is that the property on which the State is levying the death duties it might take away and be actually intending to take away within a few months. The State, even in its most impassioned robbing of hen-roosts, will not expect to find a racehorse in them. It is impossible to say that in every case the State can intervene in any possible contemplation of removing all value from the share or from the racehorse within a few months of its levying full duties on its highest possible value. If you wanted any establishment of the fact —which, perhaps, you do not—that there is a real traditional value beyond the strict legal value of a licence, you have it in the case of the death duties.
  Let me take an analogy which, I think, holds good. Just before the great Reform Bill Sir Mark Wood sold Gatton Park to Lord Monson for an enormous sum of money. The value of the park was relatively a small part of the price, but it had, as an essential part of it, what the auctioneer used to call the elegant contingency of the power of returning two Members to the House of Commons. I rather think the Reform Bill was in sight, but it was less than two years before the passing of the Reform Bill. Supposing the State had sold Gatton Park to Lord Monson and had at the same time both the will and the power to take away the principal part of its value, surely his Lordship would have had some right of recovery from the State, and it would have been felt that the State, in the language of slang, had been playing it rather low down. I think we cannot deny that when the State levies duties on the full, though transient, value of a public-house, it has acknowledged an interest which has accrued to it which is far beyond the legal interest, and, indeed, if it did not do so we should not have had this Bill, or the Bill would be of a totally different nature, excluding all allusion to compensation and not requiring a time-limit.
  My Lords, the State by its negligence or apathy has allowed this interest to
  566
  grow up, and in strict logic it should pay the compensation, or most of the compensation. It has allowed and tolerated this understanding—it has almost encouraged it—and why should the burden be laid on others which is due only to that amorphous being which is called the State? But that is outside the region of practical politics. In the first place, the State could not afford to do it. We had a lurid picture from a noble Lord from Wales last night as to the state of our national finance, but it struck me as pale compared to the reality; and with £180,000,000 ear-marked to Ireland—that highly blessed country— and with a deficit of £25,000,000 or so in sight, it would be ridiculous to propose to any practical Assembly the purchase of public-houses by the State. Nor would it be permitted. No one can deny that at present the great temperance party, which was so powerful as to prevent Lord Goschen's object being; carried into effect in 1889 or 1890, would be equally strong enough to prevent any such proposal as that being carried into effect now. I only mentioned it as showing what, in my opinion, is the logical deduction from the facts I have mentioned, and I, therefore, dismiss it.
  We must seek another way, and we fall back on the principle of the time limit. It is not a very new principle. Lord Peel and his minority recommended a very much shorter limit than is laid down in this Bill, and it was brought forward, though without a clause relating to compensation, in this House in 1904 by Archbishop Temple, who received substantial and valuable support. I think myself that there is much—everything—to be said as apart from a money compensation, though in this Bill they are coupled, for an exhausture of the interest by efflux of time. I do not much trust analogies, but if I had to offer an analogy to the position of the licence-holder it would be that of the squatters on an estate who have been tolerated by the owner—who have been told they might remain for another twelve months, but who are without a legitimate or prolonged tenure. And surely in a position such as that you would be dealing very liberally with the squatter if you said: You must

  567
  go in twenty-one years, and for twenty-one years you shall remain free and undisturbed. I entirely agreed with my noble friend, Lord Ribblesdale, when he said last night that the trade had had fair warning. My noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn extracted from that speech many other admissions which were concealed from me by the golden haze of autobiographical reminiscences. But I do think that my noble friend was right in what he advanced on that point. The action of the Liberal Party before, at the time, and after the passing of the Act of 1904 must have shown the trade that there was a great party in the State, sooner or later certain to come into power, which did mean to deal drastically with the trade.
  My Lords, I come to the question of why should the State resume these rights. I venture to say that there is a most overwhelming ground for more than one reason for resuming those rights, as I must continue to call them. In the first place, it is the first and the necessary step in any real policy of temperance reform in this country. Until the State resumes the rights which it has allowed to be weakened and almost to expire in its hands, there can be no effective reform having temperance for its object in this country. And remember this, that every year that passes with the present state of things undisturbed and unremedied strengthens that interest as against the interest of the State. The second reason is this. The State has lost, is losing, and must lose until it resumes its control of the vast monopoly value in licences in the United Kingdom. Here I must observe that my noble and learned predecessor in this debate was unable to understand what rights the State had and what was meant by a monopoly, and what there was to resume. He said that it was like any other trade, like the grocer's trade, for instance, and that the Stale had no right to interfere. I never thought to live to hear such a doctrine as that announced from so responsible a quarter.
  What is the foundation of all this property? It is the annual licence. What would the property be worth without it? Its value as a dwelling-house or as a warehouse, or whatever else for
  568
  which the building is fitted. The difference between these two values—the value of the house as a place of resort for drinking purposes, and the value for any other purpose—is the value which is given by the State annually when it confers that licence. My noble friend asked: "What is this value?" I will give him an illustration. There was a licence granted in London, and the man who received it was offered £18,000 for it before he left the hall. The State, for no consideration, practically presented that man with £18,000. He wisely refused the offer, and sold the premises for something nearer £80,000. That is the sort of interest which the State has been allowing to run to waste during all these years, and which my noble friends in the Government are attempting to stay and to resume. You may say that the man who got the licence had to pay duty on the liquor which he sold; he had to pay a licence duty; he did not get it for nothing. Of course he did not; but he knew that he would have to pay duties on liquor, and that he would have to pay for a licence; so what he was anxious to pay £18,000 for was the privilege of selling these duty-paying liquors, and he was also paying for this annual licence. When you consider the financial position of this country, as described by Lord St. David's last night, and to which I might add a few touches if I had leisure, it does seem a most unfortunate circumstance that successive Governments should have contrived to allow so vast an increment and so huge a property to escape.
  Then there is the third point on which I hold it to be necessary that the State should recover its interest in these licences. It is, to my mind, the gravest of all, and it goes the deepest of all. It is only by that means you can reduce to its proper position that vast influence which grows and is growing, has been and is growing, and will soon be far too powerful for the State. My noble friend did me the honour to quote words of mine uttered many years ago, and to which I adhere in their fullest extent. If the State does not control the trade, the trade will control the State. What is that power? Eighty per cent. of the houses in England are tied houses

  569
  under the influence and at the disposal of a certain number of great members of this trade. When you realise that every public-house is a centre of social life and action in its neighbourhood, as well as of great political influence, you can conceive what this power is which in the interests of the State requires to be limited and controlled. One portion of its interest is entirely opposed to the interests of the State. I do not believe the trade wants drunkenness. Drunkenness injures the trade. But the trade naturally wants drinking —drinking short of excess; and in that respect, and as far as it goes, the interest of the trade is opposed to the interest of the State.
  That is the smallest part. It interferes at every point and in every fibre with your political and your municipal life. I do not care with which party it is identified. It seems to me to be a matter of comparative indifference; but the trade is generally supposed, and I believe rightly supposed, to support the Conservative Party. I say that this trade, from my own observation, and not with a desire to reflect on my excellent friends engaged in it, poisons the very sources of your political and municipal life. It poisons your political life, because the persons engaged in it, when it comes to a general election or any particular election, ask themselves, not what is the best for the Empire, not what is the best for the public, but what is the best for the trade. In municipal life: no one can have been engaged in municipal work for any time or almost in any community without seeing that candidates are chosen not with reference to their character, not with reference to their purity, but entirely in deference to their subserviency to the trade. I do not believe that any one who has been intermixed with the public life of this country will dispute that grave allegation; and I venture to say that it is in the public interest, in the highest public interest, that this drinking should be brought within measurable size, and brought within the control of the State.
  These are the broad and deep grounds on which I should cordially vote for
  570
  the Second Reading of the Bill. But there are some main purposes of this measure on which I ask leave to say a few words. It may be said—and I think it was said by the Bishop of London last night—that the rejection of this Bill will close the era of temperance legislation, and that it will be long years to come before anything will be effected in this direction. I do not share that view. I think it is almost in some ways a view less pessimistic which I take. I believe that we are only at the beginning of a long vista of years of legislation on this subject, legislation on the part of those who promote temperance, and legislation on behalf of those who protect what they believe to be property. It will also have an embittering effect on the cause of temperance, and on the trade itself it must have a most disturbing influence. Sometimes it will find itself in a state of dejection because it will not know what party is coming into power and what it may effect in legislation. Though I for one am no champion, as will be seen, of the trade as a whole, and though I respect many of the individuals engaged in it, I do regret that any great commercial interests should exist subject to the constant alternatives of competing and warring legislation.
  This may go on, but I think that I know what will happen. The nation will grow impatient, and will say: "We are weary of this fooling; come to an understanding; we must have this settled by the co-operation of both parties in the State; a settlement we must have." That has happened, or is likely to happen, with regard to education. How many Bills have each side introduced with regard to education in the last few years; how much time have they wasted of both parties? The State will not tolerate these interminable polemics, and it demands that the question should be settled on the basis of the common-sense view of the community at large.
  If you review the course of social legislation you will see that that social legislation only endures which is founded on a compromise. Political legislation and political laws which are placed on the Statute-book, irreversible and irremovable, and indeed the whole history of

  571
  social legislation, are the result of compromise, That is why I look with a favourable eye upon this measure. When I was the Chairman of the London County Council there were some gentlemen of moderate opinion on the body. One of the stoutest and most stalwart once rose to his feet and said: "Mr. Chairman, I 'ates compromises." That is, I believe, the feeling of stalwarts on both sides, perhaps more grammatically expressed. I myself, sitting on the cross benches, do not view compromise with that aversion or with such horror as my friend of the London County Council. I hoped that we might have passed the Second Reading with a view to a possible compromise.
  I know the noble Marquess said the other day that the interpretation of privilege in another place had rendered the task of amending the Bill in Committee extremely difficult for this House. In the history of compromises which I can recollect in this House it was not always necessary to be barred by privilege. There were such things as Overtures between the two sides of the House, intercommunications, negotiations. Those were most fruitful during the controversy in relation to the Irish Church, when Her late Majesty did not disdain to intervene and when the father-in-law of the most rev. Primate played so distinguished a part. I confess I hoped from the speech of the noble Viscount last night that there might be some idea of compromise in the air. Have my noble friends (pointing to the front Opposition bench) approached the Government in any way to find out what they are ready to yield, what they are willing to concede, what they regard as vital, and what in the opinion of all may be preserved in the Bill? If they have not done that they have not exhausted the political resources of which they are the masters. I deeply regret it. I think you are missing an opportunity of settling this question on broad lines which may not easily return.
  After all, we in this House all want practically the same thing; all sensible men in this country want the same thing. We do not wish to deprive anybody of necessary comfort, solace, or enjoyment. We do wish to do away with degrading
  572
  drunkenness which is the curse of our nation, and the curse not merely of themselves but of their posterity on whom will devolve in time the burden of Empire. If I may borrow the phrase of Archbishop Magee, we wish to see England not merely free, but sober also; not merely sober, but free, because the drunkard is the greatest slave of all If you miss this opportunity of settling this question, the time will come, I hope not long hence, when the nation itself will insist on your factions coming to an agreement, will insist on the waters of politics not being disturbed by this noxious and troubling; question. Whatever may be the Government under whose régime this reconciliation may take place, sure I am that in God's own. good time it will come. When it does come it will of course redound to the honour and glory of the transient Government in power, but it will redound infinitely more to the glory of both the great historical parties which shall have condescended to drop their issues and come to an agreement on a subject so far-reaching and so vital.
  LORD ROBERTSON: The noble Earl has told us that in his judgment the principle of this Bill is the time-limit. It is that which fascinates him in this measure, and apparently his devotion to the time-limit is such that he is ready to support it with or without compensation, that he regarded it merely as an accident that in this measure there was compensation. Now, I commend to the attention of the many who regard the noble Earl as a rallying point of moderation on the Liberal side this most recent exposition of his principles of social economy. I must own that I heard with great surprise various of his developments. Apparently his object is, whether this measure be one really to promote temperance or not, to pounce upon the liquor trade profits, and he singularly enough gave an instance of the enormous mistake the State is making in not getting hold of those profits by telling us that in one case in London £18,000 was the price of an off-licence. I could not help wondering if the noble Earl realised in his own mind that the reason why that £18,000 should be offered was that the offerer relied upon a renewal, and yet this is the class of

  573
  man whom the noble Earl considers it appropriate to call squatters, and of whom he says they have no right whatever, except mere tolerance, to enjoy the possession.
  I have heard with great interest, and, I must own, some surprise the cavalier way in which the noble Earl disposed of the case of his friends on the matter of temperance, because he tells you that he, for his part, regards it as an open question whether this Bill will promote temperance at all. He is convinced it will, only because the clerical element tells him so, and he says: "They know much more about it than I do, and no doubt they are right." I believe he overrates the concurrence of the clerical element in that opinion, and I am well informed that throughout the country there is a very strong feeling to the opposite. But I want to point out to the House that in this very eminent supporter of this temperance measure there is a complete scepticism on the subject of its curative power, and what is more he, like many of your speakers last night, is content with merely the title of the Bill—that it is a Bill about temperance—and then he proceeds to invoke all sorts of sacred interests to warn us of the terrible danger we are running in going against the temperance interest. We heard something like that during the course of the debate last night. What we are always told is: "You must do something; it does not very much matter what, but do something, and at all events avoid the grave responsibility of rejecting what is called a temperance measure."
  Last night we had a most distinguished instance of that process of reasoning. In naming the Bishop of London I name an old friend, and speak of him with the utmost reverence and affection, but is it not the case that I accurately describe his speech when I say that in the exordium there was a blaze of statistics about the drink till, but that when it became necessary to prove by experience and fact the main proposition about this Bill, that it would reduce the amount of excessive drinking, he had recourse to tropes and anecdotes and that statistics vanished. The Bill is said to be one to diminish excessive drinking and drunkenness. Does the closing of a
  574
  public-house, of one public-house, stop that drinking which has taken place in that public-house, or does it divert it? When questions of that kind are put a most engaging spirit of courtesy and tolerance comes over the speakers on the other side. They say: "We do not dogmatise upon that subject." I have looked into such statistics as are at hand upon this subject, and I will do no more than say this, that the statistics are equivocal; in some places the result is favourable, in others it is neutral. I am confirmed in my suspicion about this being a foregone conclusion, and not the result of experience, by the entire absence of any material placed before either House of Parliament, and also by the scepticism expressed by the noble Earl who has just sat down, although on this, as on other subjects, I should prefer a more stable guide.
  And now I am going to speak from a point of view which I am afraid will not commend universal assent in one part of the House. I want to ask the authors of this Bill what is their theory of the proper place of the public-house in the social economy of this country. Do they desire to wipe out all public-houses, or do they desire to improve and regulate them? Now it is a very remarkable fact that not once in the speech of the most rev. Prelate, not once in the speech of the noble Earl who introduced the Bill, was there the smallest reference to what I may call sober drinkers. The public house, as sensible people must allow, has its use as a club for poor people, A great many men, far the greater proportion of men in the country, go there for their sober glass and for English jollity, and it leaves no bad taste behind, and I am amazed that men who profess to study the interests of the working classes take no notice of that vast class, of the community.
  I put it to the Government: "What are your views upon this subject? Do you consider it right that there should be a progressive annihilation of the public-house, or do you consider that the public-house has its proper place in the social life of the country?" I am quite sure that at all events some Member of the Government, remembering the serried ranks of teetotalism in the other

  575
  House, would be a little afraid to tell me that they intended to preserve the public-houses. But this problem, which is ignored in this Bill, is one of the most salient problems in the temperance question, not merely in relation to clubs and off-licences, but in relation to the general enjoyment of the people of this country; and whether it is popular or not, my position is that I will consent to no legislation which spoils the jollity of English life, and prevents the poor people having the same rights as we have.
  May I put it in this way? I know there are exceptions, but most of us meet together at dinner parties or what not, and enjoy our wine and our spirits. Could we face the poor people in the country and say: "That is very good and right for us, but we will shut the doors of houses where you can enjoy similar pleasure?" I go further. Unless you mean to abolish public-houses altogether, you have a duty, not merely to the publicans, but to their customers, to secure that the publicans are decent and reputable, and how can you expect a decent, irreproachable man to engage in that trade if he is liable to have his property taken from him at six months notice? You cannot evade this question. I know what is said, for popularity's sake, about the immense importance of reducing the number of public-houses, and up to a certain point I agree. Redundant public-houses are a nuisance to everybody. But the duty of the State is never to lose sight of the fact that publicans are the ministers and agents of social pleasure throughout the country. You will pounce upon them if you like—you do it at your peril—but your duty is to see that they are treated on such terms as will ensure their living reputable and respectable lives. For that reason I am dead against creating an insecurity in the tenure of those people. The commonsense of Englishmen has put that question upon the, I admit, somewhat illogical, but very intelligible, footing upon which it now stands. The Legislature has shown by enactments that the man who holds a licence and has presumably proved that he is well qualified to hold it, shall continue to hold it; and the practical result is that there has
  576
  grown up that expectation of renewal which, observe, is founded upon good conduct, for good conduct is a necessary condition of renewal. That expectation has grown up and is one of the assets of the man's life. I am not going to join issue with the lawyers, amateur and otherwise, who like talking about "freeholds," and this being no property. In every relation of life every person who has to deal with the man who held such a position recognises that he has a commercial interest in it, and I need hardly say that in transactions to which the Government have been party they have recognised that, as in the case of the "Coach and Horses" at Portsmouth. But I am not going to indulge in personalities or tu quoques on a subject so grave.
  I hope I have made it clear that whatever other people may say I am in favour of giving these men such expectation of tenure and security as will ensure that the right men are attracted to the business. May I say one word upon the Act of 1904? I think that Act has been very greatly misunderstood, and has led to a good deal of confusion in debate. The Act of 1904 did not enable justices to do what was unlawful, but reminded them that in the course of lawful administration they could put down houses on account of redundancy. At the same time there was made a compulsory insurance among those who were likely to profit by the cessation of one of the houses, and the person who lost his licence should be compensated, if you choose to use the word, out of that fund. Now, observe, the essential difference between the proposal in this Bill and the Act of 1904 is this, you are legalising what would be illegal without this Bill, It is illegal for magistrates to draw up a fine schedule about a proportion of population to area and say "We will act upon this; it is desperately clever, it is a very fine scheme and we will act upon it." They could not have done that and that is the essential difference between the two cases. In this case you are taking from these men that asset which I have described, a commercially valuable asset in their property. You are taking that from him, and I say the logical result is not that you should also take part of his

  577
  brother's, but that the State should pay for it. It is one of the merest commonplaces of legislation that the State, if it takes a man's interest, property, or anything you like from him that is worth money, it shall pay for it, and accordingly I denounce this measure as one which does wrong to persons having valuable pecuniary interest and takes their property from them for nothing.
  Now I am going to say something which is, perhaps, very bold, but the most rev. Prelate has almost challenged it. The most rev. Prelate mentioned in his speech—a matter of which I had never heard and of which I entirely disapprove—about people writing to the clergy and saying that if the bishops support this measure they will withdraw their subscriptions. I hate and detest anything of the kind, but I am aware of this, that there is a deep feeling of disappointment that in what seems to many people a clear case of right and wrong, the course is being taken by the bishops that is being taken at present. I think many honest people who make no profession of being better than their neighbours but are sound, good men, are shocked that it should be considered the height of Christian heroism to take joyfully the spoiling of the goods of other people.
  I have spoken of the direct attack upon these men and I need hardly do more than incidentally remind you of the gratuitous insertion of a double-barrelled scheme of local option. Here, again we are on matters of principle. I will never consent to a majority of ratepayers deciding upon whether a man shall have his drink or not, and it is peculiarly odious that the teetotalers amongst the middle class should determine the diet of the poorer classes. I hope that a strict account will be taken between political parties, and between Minister and Opposition, upon questions like this, and I say to your Lordships you need never fear if you interfere on this occasion to prevent not merely spoliation but an indirect attack upon the liberty of poor people to enjoy themselves as they like. I have assumed that people have a right to convivial enjoyment, and not the less because they are poor.
  578
  I am quite certain that any measure of temperance reform will find warm support on this side of the House; any measure which takes the publican by the hand, recognises his responsibility, supports him in his responsibility and induces him and his proprietors to better the houses, and make them more attractive, to introduce more amusements, and more amusements will divert from drink. But I am not going to make the pretence of associating myself with the fulsome flattery of teetotalers which has been too much in the air during the last few months. The worst of this Bill is that when one examines the clauses he finds not the hand of the philanthropist at work, the hand of him who will consider the needs of men, their propensities, their tastes and their traditions, but through every clause you see the scowl of the teetotal lecturer. Your Lordships have had various exhortations addressed to you as to your duty on this occasion. I think that converging towards my noble friend's Amendment are various streams of tendency in modern politics which are irresistible. I will never believe that we shall be wrong when we stand up to resist direct spoliation, I believe we shall not be wrong when we stand up to resist the tyranny of a majority especially over poor people, and I will rejoice when the time comes when we can go to the country and ask them which of the two Houses best represents their views.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I rise because I wish to correct what might otherwise go forth as a grave misapprehension. The noble Earl who spoke just now seemed to imply that the whole of the clergy of the Church of England were of one mind in support of this Bill. My Lords, that is not the case, and I will appeal to the most rev. Prelate, and I will ask him whether it is not the case that at the Representative Church Council which met in London last year, there was not a very profound and grave division of opinion in regard to the support of this Bill, and whether the gravest apprehensions were not expressed, both by clergy and laity, as to the effect of this Bill in regard to temperance. I think the most rev. Prelate will not deny that fact. There is one other point I wish

  579
  to mention, because it comes within my own personal experience. I have had some experience of the mining population in the north of England. Close to my home at the present there is about to be opened one of the very largest coal-pits and a model village has been built for the convenience of those who will work in that pit; there are thousands of persons now inhabitating this village. Do your Lordships know what is the most earnest desire of the best part of the population in that village? It is that a respectable public-house may be opened in that village in order that something may be done to neutralise the effect of the clubs which are the very curse of the population. I am acquainted with a man who has given his whole life to working among the mining populations in the North. He is a man of great ability, he is a man who does not agree with me upon many things, but it is impossible to know his work without knowing how admirable it is, how entirely he has devoted himself to the working classes and also how much confidence they repose in him. He said to me only the other day when I happened to meet him: "What are you going to do in regard to this Licensing Bill, because I am most sincerely anxious that that Bill shall not pass. Among those with whom I work, a well-managed public-house is distinctly to the advantage of the population. It is the clubs that are the curse of my people and these clubs are largely increasing. The trail of the serpent is over most of them and I am quite satisfied that the effect of this Bill will not be to promote temperance, but it will be to promote those clubs which are the source of every sort of evil-drinking and every kind of mischief to the population." My Lords, I know that man is right.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: I wish to associate myself, speaking with the knowledge I have of the feeling of Birmingham, with what was said by the most rev. Prelate when he spoke of those large classes who have the best and most intimate acquaintance with the habits and needs of the people who will be deeply disappointed if your Lordships did not give this measure a Second Reading. I had the honour of
  580
  presenting yesterday, at the Table of this House, an immense petition of many thousands of signatures got up in Birmingham by the Citizens' Council for promoting the passing of this Bill; I hold in my hand an analysis of the classes in that petition, and there is one fact to which I want to draw your Lordships attention. It is that among the signatures to that petition are the names of 1,176 school masters and school mistresses. That testimony is, I think, a very important witness coming from those who have the most intimate acquaintance with the habits and the needs of the people, of the children and of the parents.
  I should like leave to say a few words, first of all, with regard to what was said by Lord Robertson as to the motive which underlies this Bill. We desire, he said, to wipe out all public-houses. We have no regard for the needs of the sober drinkers. He said that the most rev. Primate had said nothing about the needs of the sober drinkers. If the most rev. Primate did not enlarge upon that it was, I suppose, because he could not conceive that anyone would suppose that he had not in view the needs of the sober drinker. Indeed, he explicitly said that he desired to make room for the better provision for the needs of all those who might want to indulge in moderation in the liquors which are the subject of this special legislation. A great deal has been said in this House about local option. I am not able myself to conceive what principle there can be which justifies a landlord in excluding all public-houses from his estate, which justifies a trust like that which controls the great area close to Birmingham, the Bournville Trust, in excluding all public-houses from its estate, and then goes on to say that it is a serious infringement of human liberty that you should allow the vast majority of the inhabitants to do the same. But that is not, I must admit, the line along which I desire myself to see the country moving. If I may use a phrase which has not infrequently been used with regard to another subject, I wish to see public-houses mended and not ended. In Germany and also in other foreign countries I have been in the public-houses, and I have seen great numbers of

  581
  the working classes with their wives and families, engaged in what appears to me to be purely innocent merriment and conversation, drinking their beer or coffee or those curious substances which children drink, the constituents of which I have never been able exactly to discover. At any rate there you see a delightful scene, and again and again I have asked myself why have we not public-houses like that in England. It is the reform and not the ending of public-houses that I desire. But if we then ask what is the need for a Bill of this kind I reply it is because it is the existence of the present system which renders any such great and vital change in the whole idea of the management of public-houses impossible, and I am quite sure that if there is to be in the future any such desirable change it is only because the country has been able to give notice that after a definite interval of time it is going to institute a quite different system of running this necessary but also most dangerous trade.
  There is another subject upon which I want to say a word. It has been said very often that you cannot make people moral by mechanical rules. It is only two nights ago that I heard a very remarkable testimony from one of the ablest of the evangelical clergy in the East End of London, the Rev. Watts Ditchfield, who related a very interesting and remarkable experience showing a reason why those who hold the evangelical faith should take deep and profound interest in social conditions and social life. He said he had gone to the East End of London desiring to preach the evangelical faith, and he had found by an experience which he could not possibly resist, that the way to those moral and spiritual changes he desired to promote was barred by the social conditions. Having gone there with the desire to preach the evangelical faith and not having ceased from that desire for a moment, he had come to the conclusion that the way to open up the road for that faith was to be found in pressing forward those kinds of social reforms of which a change in our licensing system was the first.
  This is not a perfect Bill, no doubt, and yet I venture to think that a good
  582
  many speakers in your Lordships' House have greatly underrated the number of points in which this Bill does very greatly promote temperance. These are some of the minor points. One of the greatest evils in the diocese of Worcester, over which I used to preside, was in the traffic in spirituous liquors on passenger steamers on the Severn. There is a clause in this Bill which deals with that traffic. There are others which deal with the distribution of liquor from vans, with the closing of public-houses on election days, and with the diminishing of the number of public-houses. I feel a profound conviction that your Lordships can only give a true impression of your attitude towards this Bill if you give it a Second Reading, and then proceed to amend it on those points in which it is faulty, whether it be as to the scale of compensation or as to the grocers' licences or as to the dealings with clubs. I am sure that the attitude of your Lordships if this Second Reading is refused will be very gravely and seriously misunderstood by that part of the English people with which I have opportunity of being acquainted.
  There are two chief points in this Bill; one is the reduction in the number of public-houses and the other is the time-limit. In regard to the former it has been questioned whether there is any need for such a reduction or whether it would be any good. I am inclined to reply that, if there is no need for the reduction of public-houses, what in the world could have been the meaning of an Act that was passed by His Majesty's late Government which had for its main purpose and end a reduction of the number of public-houses? In regard to the time-limit I am certain that, at least in that part of the country with which I am acquainted, your Lordships' action, if you do not give this Bill a Second Reading, will be interpreted as meaning that you assent to the claim of the licensed victualler to regard any time-limit of any number of years as an act of confiscation, and I really can conceive no more serious disaster than that your Lordships should give your adhesion to this tremendous extension of a claim beyond all law and equity. There has been a great deal said about death duties, but there is one thing which,

  583
  in my audacity, I sometimes feel a desire to press upon the attention of those who use that argument. It seems so often to be supposed that the Government, in regard to death duties, does something in particular in regard to a particular trade, whereas I suggest it acts only on a general principle, and I have observed that in dealing with any class of the community the action of the Inland Revenue is nothing else than to demand as much as they think they will be able to get, and to leave it to those on whom the demand is made to resist it if they think more is asked than they ought to be required to pay. I am informed that there are very-large numbers of business men who pay a great deal more than they need pay simply because they do not choose to reveal the actual state of their business, the fact that their returns are diminishing; so that the Inland Revenue goes on demanding and they go on paying. I often wonder, supposing those who are interested in the business of the trade had united in representing that it realty was a monstrous thing to deal with a licence as if it were more than an annual licence, if they had united in representing that they were being dealt with as having a freehold when, in fact, they hold only an annual licence, is it not very probable that that united representation would, if not directly then indirectly, have brought about a reduction of the amount of the claim which the Inland Revenue could have made. But it does not appear to me on inquiry that they have ever made any kind of resistance to the Inland Revenue dealing with their property on the basis on which they have done, and is there any reason at all why they should suppose that they should be dealt with differently from any other class of the community in this respect?
  But the matter which seems to me to be of chief importance from this point of view is that here those who are interested in the trade have made a claim in which is an unwarrantable extension of the rights of property beyond strict law and equity, and it seems to me to be of the deepest importance that we should not sanction that claim. I cannot understand how it can be denied that a property for one
  584
  year, plus the expectation which has been allowed to grow up, is exactly what can be met by due and sufficiently long notice of an intention to terminate the present arrangement. It seems to me that, if the claim of the trade is to be justified, the State ought to have given some sort of assurance that it never intended to alter its licensing system. Instead of any such assurance the trade has had repeated warnings from the days of Mr. Bruce's Bill that it was in the highest degree probable that after a certain time the State would bring to a termination the expectation that had been allowed to arise on this annual licence.
  The noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, said something about there being no one who would have occasion to rejoice if your Lordships assented to the claim of the trade in this respect except the Socialists. My Lords, there are two kinds of Socialism. There is the Socialism prescribing a specific economic theory as to the abolition of private capital, and in that sense, as an economic theory, I do not suppose it has any very considerable hold on this country, and I sometimes wonder whether it is advancing. But there is another kind of Socialism. The word is often used to describe the state of mind of those who feel that the industrial developments of our country in the last-fifty years have represented, individualism run mad to the detriment of the interests of the whole community, and that we have got to re-assert the claim of the interests of the community under which alone property has been allowed to grow up and consolidate itself; that we have got to re-assert the interests of the whole community over the claim of individual property, and I am sure there is a vast body of moderate reformers in this country, moderate social reformers, who are deeply concerned, not to defend the theory of economic Socialism, but to guard against the unwarrantable extension of the rights of property.
  It seems to me that if in a special way this House stands for the rights of property it is of the greatest possible importance that your Lordships should not sanction, and confuse with the legal and equitable rights of

  585
  property, an extension of the right s which is neither legal nor equitable. I am persuaded that there will be a profound and wide-spread sense of disappointment and distrust if your Lordships do what you will be understood to do if you fail to give this Bill a Second Reading— sanction against the interests of the whole community an unwarrantable claim for the extension of the rights of private property beyond their strict limit.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, having taken some little part in the guidance of the Bill of 1904 through the House and followed that up by having considerable experience of the administration of that Act as chairman of the licensing committee of my county, may I ask your attention for a few moments? I am one of those who have had grave hesitation about the course that is to be pursued with regard to the Second Reading of this Bill, and I confess that I should like to have had the Bill discussed in Committee, where we could have tested how far those statements which have been made with regard to the injustice of the principal clauses of the Bill are true. More than that, I should have liked to have seen some chance of the latter clauses of the Bill being discussed, because I believe that those clauses, if they were made more effective than they are, would perhaps have done more to promote the cause of temperance than any of the heroic clauses in the first part of the Bill. In the first place there has been very much said in this House to prove that a stringent amending of the Act of 1904 is necessary. When I ventured to interrupt my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn when he alluded to the fact that he did not think the expectations of the promoters of the Bill had been fully carried out, it was because I had seen a circular sent around by some temperance society which stated in categorical terms that I had, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, stated that the number of licences which would be done away with under that Bill would be about 2,240 in the course of the year. As I pointed out to my noble friend. I made no statement of that sort. I expressly avoided,
  586
  representing the Home Office as I did, attempting to prophesy with regard to the numbers which would be done away with by that Bill, but I did say that if the compensation was an average of £500 per house, that would be 2,240 done away with, and I went on to add further that if the average was £800, then there would be 1,500 houses done away with in the course of a year. If I am charged with having made a false prophecy of the Bill, at all events I can claim that the latter part of my statement was very near what has actually taken place under the Bill, 1,500 having been done away in the year and the amount I named as compensation, £800, is certainly somewhat the average of those houses that have been done away with in my own county.
  With regard to the administration of the Act, I do not think anybody who has watched it, at all events, in the cities, would be able to bring the charge that it had been administered unfairly in any way. There was an organised attack made on the provisions of the Act on the ground that they were going to take away from the discretion of the local magistrates, and the Quarter Sessions were to have the power of revising the decisions of those magistrates. Let me give my experience in my own county. In dealing with all the houses that have been done away with, I cannot recall more than one instance in which the decision of the local magistrates was over-ridden by the Committee of Quarter Sessions, and in the particular case, it was obvious that the first decision had been come to on imperfect knowledge and the chairman of the local bench was present at the meeting of the magistrates, and asked that that decision should not be confirmed. I think if an alteration is desired to be made in the law of such a stringent character as is now proposed, at all events some evidence should be given that the Act has not worked fairly or in the interests of the locality by those who had to work it.
  Is it not almost an irony of fate that the Members of the Government who principally attacked the clause of the Bill that gave a discretion of Quarter Sessions over magistrates, should come to this House and propose that a

  587
  Commission of strangers to the county should have an absolute power of over-Tiding those on the spot who have a full knowledge of the circumstances of the cases of which these Commissioners cannot possibly know anything? I know that there is a very small modicum of discretion given to the local magistrates, because they are informed that they may select the particular houses which are to be done away with; but I have some little knowledge of local government, and if there is anything I have learned, it is that there is hardly any question which can come forward in which it is not generally desirable that those who know the locality should have the discretion as to the manner as to which they should deal with it and administer the law. If this is true of all sorts of things that come before county councils, surely it is true in a much greater degree with regard to the question of licensing, where the manner in which the public-houses should be dealt with must depend on the local circumstances, on the population, on the position of the houses, on the class of house, and on the areas which they have to serve. I venture to say that no man without knowledge of the 1ocal circumstances could possibly come to a satisfactory conclusion in such cases.
  Nothing that has caused more dissatisfaction among those who have the management of local government than this new idea that their powers should be overridden by a Commission appointed by the Government. We had some experience of that with regard to the Small Holdings Act. I admit that we have not heard so much about that Commission since the county councils have got to work, because county councils are doing the best they can to administer the Act in a reasonable and fair manner, and therefore the Commissioners have not been called in; but in this case the Commissioners are actually to administer this law, and I venture to think that the Government should trust the localities. If their motto is "Trust the people" it is, at all events, an extraordinary course to pursue to give some discretion to the people to do away with more licences than are required under the Schedule, but not to trust them to carry out the Schedule, and to do away with a sufficient number of licences.
  588
  I would like to pass to another point, and that is the question of the time-limit. Let me say for myself that I have not the slightest objection in the world. I think it very desirable that the State should, if possible, get control so that they can deal with licences in the way they like in the future. But the whole test of what you ought to do in this matter is how is it to be done with perfect justice to those whose monopoly value you are going to resume? Let me say, however, that a time-limit is absolutely incompatible with a system of compulsory insurance and compensation, for the reason that the object of a time-limit is to give the licensee security for a specified period, long or short, in which he may be able to recoup himself for the money that he has invested in his business. If all the time he has to be paying very considerable compensation, how can he possibly recoup himself during that time, with the prospect that the moment the time-limit comes to an end his licence may be taken away altogether without any compensation at all? And as was pointed out by a previous speaker, he is now to be shot at from two barrels, because, if the magistrates do not take away his licence, then the enthusiasm of the ratepayers, exercising for the first time their powers under local option, may do away with it. I venture to think that for these reasons it has to be proved that you can fairly attach a time-limit to a system of compensation. It also seems to me to lie with the Government to prove that, a certain amount of compensation being given and a certain number of licences being done away with under the Act of 1904, to do away with the same amount of money with a much larger number of houses is also fair and reasonable to the licensees whose property is going to be taken away.
  I venture to say we have had no answer to the arguments which have been used with regard to these matters in the first part of the Bill. No one could listen to the speech of Lord St. Aldwyn without feeling that the questions and arguments he used ought to receive full answer, and until that answer is given, and until the Government show, as they have not shown at present, that they appreciate what we believe to be a grave injustice of the Bill, and give an assurance that they

  589
  are going to give consideration to the arguments that are used, I certainly cannot vote for the Second Reading. Then with regard to clubs we have learned in the last few years how important that matter has become, because the more licences that are done away with the more clubs are opened in their places. In my own county we have had representations from the police authorities stating in the strongest terms that they could not be answerable for keeping a hold over drunkenness so long as there was no provision for these clubs in regard to which they are perfectly helpless. In accordance with that the licensing committee over which I preside passed a unanimous resolution asking the Government to pass more stringent regulations in regard to clubs. If we could have gone into Committee I should have liked to have seen that part of the Bill made much more stringent and effective than it is, because I believe if those provisions were amended and improved they would have more to do with putting down drunkenness than the former part of the Bill.
  I certainly imagined when I took up the Bill that Clause 22 was not necessary, because powers were already given to magistrates, but it appears a legal decision was given which makes it very desirable that that clause should be inserted; but if we had any power of discussing it in Committee, I should have liked to move some Amendments to it, which I think would make it much more effective. I should like to see the magistrates given power in granting a licence to compel any public-house they liked to select to provide reasonable refreshments of a nonalcoholic character. I think one of the great causes of drunkenness at the present moment is that if a man wants some refreshment and is tired, having had a hard day's work, he has nowhere to go except into a drinking-shop, and that if he goes into an ordinary public-house he cannot get ordinary temperance drinks, or ordinary refreshments. I think a very great improvement would be made in the condition of those houses, and that it would be in entire conformity with the growing wish of the people of this country, if some legislation were passed which would insure that there
  590
  should be in every district a considerable number of houses for the recreation and refreshment of the people where nonalcoholic liquors were provided.
  If any of the clauses in the latter part of the Bill were embodied in a separate Bill I should be inclined, in common, I think, with many members on this side of the House, to give them most cordial consideration, because although not what I might call the heroic clauses of the Bill, I think they would really do more to promote the welfare of the people and improve the general conditions under which the liquor laws are now carried on than any other part of the measure. I cannot help expressing my regret that these matters are not able to be discussed in Committee. I feel deeply the objections to the first part of the Bill, but I hope that on some future occasion at all events, this House may be able to voice what I believe is the general feeling of moderate men of all parties who desire to promote legislation for the purpose of improving our public-houses without doing any injustice to those who hold the licences.
  LORD FABER: My Lords, there is one very important matter connected with this Licensing Bill that has hardly been touched upon in the debates in this House so far. It is a very important matter, both on account of the money that is represented by it, going into many millions Sterling, and also because of the class of investor who is interested in it: I refer to the debenture stock-holders and the preference Stock-holders of the big brewery companies. Perhaps I am particularly interested in this subject because I had the advantage of heading a deputation last spring, which waited upon Mr. Asquith, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and put before him the claims of upwards of £1,00,000,000 sterling debenture holders. We tried to show to Mr. Asquith, and I hope with some success, that the debenture-holder was an honest investor of a good class who had invested in brewery debentures, because he thought that he was getting a safe investment, and he had nothing at the back of his mind with regard to the ordinary profits said to

  591
  be earned by brewers; he was quite satisfied with the 4 per cent. that the ordinary shareholders promised to pay him in consideration for his debentures. Mr. Asquith listened with great courtesy and attention, and at the end of our interview assured us that there was nothing like confiscation in his mind. We were very well satisfied with that, and I must say it astonished me somewhat when this Licensing Bill was introduced to find as regards debenture-holders and preference shareholders that, if there was not confiscation, there was a great measure of hardship, and I should like, if your Lordships would kindly permit me for a few minutes, to explain to you what I conceive to be the position of the debenture-holder in these great companies.
  Let me give you the case of a brewery company, a very common case, I know many like it, whose capital is divided in this way; £400,000 in 4 per cent. debenture stock, £100,000 in 5 per cent. preference stock, and £100,000 of ordinary stock. The debenture stock is covered in the first instance by £400,000 worth of public-houses. I conceive that under this new Act the company will go on for twenty-one years, at any rate, and will continue to pay to the debenture-holder the 4 per cent. to which he is entitled, otherwise, of course, the debenture-holder forecloses and takes the public-houses at once. Therefore they go on for twenty-one years. At the end of the twenty-one years I suppose again that, owing to the fact that the Government will resume possession of the public-houses, the brewery companies will cease to exist. What then is the position of the debenture-holder? He starts, I may remind you, with having put £400,000 cash into these debentures, for which he receives security in the shape of £400,000 worth of public-houses. During the twenty-one years, according to the most expert evidence, he has had drawn for payment under the compensation clanses one-fifth of his debentures. We will say that for that one-fifth of the £400,000 security he gets £80,000 in cash—that is considerably more than he would get, I apprehend, but I want to understate the case rather than to overstate it. Therefore, at the
  592
  end of the time the £400,000 debenture holder will be represented by £80,000 in cash and £320,000 in houses. You will notice that he no longer has £320,000 of public-houses but he has £320,000 of houses, which is a very different thing indeed. Now what is the value of this £320,000 of houses which were not originally bought as dwelling houses, but which were bought as public-houses? Fortunately we have statistics which tell us the approximate value of the £320,000 of houses. Messrs. Orgill, who are well known valuers in London, have valued 126 houses for the local authorities for compensation purposes, under sworn testimony. Those 126 houses with their licences were valued at £280,870. Without licences they were valued at only £59,071. Therefore the loss on those houses was £221,799 or 79 per cent. or four-fifths. Therefore we are reduced to this position, that with regard to the debenture-holders, their £320,000 of houses is only a fifth of the £320,000, that is £66,000. Therefore they are left with £80,000 of cash that they get under the compensation, and with £66,000 that they receive for their houses without licences. That is at the end of twenty-one years under the most favourable circumstances the debenture holders will get £144,000 for their £400,000. Of course, against them I have not taken into consideration the possibility of their being done away with altogether without any compensation at all under local option during the last seven years. In their favour, on the other hand, this may be taken, that there should be some margin of loose assets over which the debenture holders would have some claim. But I apprehend, as we are all of us only human, that the ordinary shareholder will have taken care to annex those loose assets before the end of the twenty-one years. That being so the debenture-holder is in the position of only getting £144,000 under the most favourable circumstances instead of the £400,000 that he put in.
  Now I come to the preference shareholder. He is in a much worse position, poor man, than the debenture-holder. He starts with 5 per cent. interest, which he gets I suppose for the twenty-one years. At the end of the twenty-one years where is he? He is left

  593
  without any security whatever, there are no assets, they are all absorbed by the debenture-holder, and, therefore, the preference holder is absolutely confiscated altogether; he gets nothing for his £100,000. I have looked into it as closely as I can, and have tried to state it as fairly as I can, and if this is not confiscation as regards the preference shareholder it is a case of very great hardship indeed, and I confess I cannot see any escape from it. As regards the ordinary shareholder, he has this great pull, that if trade is good during the twenty-one years he can make a very good profit, and out of that profit of course he can secure for himself a certain amount of money which will protect him from any loss he may suffer at the end of the time. That is if the brewery does well, but if it does not do well, he is as badly off as the preference shareholder and the debenture-holder. But if a debenture-holder is a man who earns only a fixed rate of interest for twenty-one years, 4 per cent., I do not see how there is any margin to set aside a reserve fund to preserve him from loss at the end of the time.
  I do not know whether it is true, but I should like to mention that if the debenture is in danger then the debenture-holder has a right of entry into the public-houses there and then, but then we have first of all to decide whether the debenture is in danger, and that is a question for the Law Courts, which might take a great deal of law to decide. If, however, he does enter into the public-house how is the debenture-holder capable of managing that public-house? Another important question to my mind is this: a debenture-holder by his deed is only entitled to 4 per cent. interest. If he entered into and got possession of the public-house and that public-house paid 8 or 9 per cent., would he be able to take what he got above the 4 per cent., and put that aside for the twenty-one years? I cannot answer that question. I think it is a very doubtful one. If the debenture-holder pursued that course, would he not be bringing a civil war, so to speak, into the brewery itself, as between the debenture-holder and the ordinary shareholder, and that in
  594
  any event would mean ruin for the brewery. Therefore, I think, with regard to the ordinary shareholder as against the debenture-holder and the preference shareholder, he is in a very parlous condition indeed. I suppose the investing public invested in these debentures in the first case relying on the well-known legal maxim, which we have heard quoted in this House already although not exactly in these words, that if a public house was conducted according to the law of this country, and properly conducted, there was a human expectation that that licence would be renewed perpetually. On the opposite benches it has been said that the debenture-holder deserves all he gets because he was a foolish investor. Are we not all foolish investors at times? Are we quite sure that we investors who have invested in Government securities during the last three years have been entirely wise? I daresay a debenture-holder would be unwise if he gave £110 for a 4 per cent. debenture for which he ought only to have given £70, but because he gave £110 for what is only worth £70 is that any reason at all why you should confiscate the £70, because that is what you are going to do, at any rate, with regard to the preference shareholder, and most likely with regard to the debenture-holder.
  I cannot think that the House intend that any such measure as that should be passed. The teetotallers contend that if this measure be passed, and a reduction of houses brought about thereby, it would add to the bone and sinew, the morale, and the general well-being of the country. If that is so, is that not a further argument in favour of the nation paying a fair price for these public-houses? The nation evidently agree to that argument, and if they are going to receive good value for their money, should they not then be in a position to pay fair value, if not full value, for these public-houses to enable the owners of them to put themselves right with the public whose property they are more or less taking away? Such a change as is proposed will do injury to thousands of His Majesty's subjects. Apparently a kind of moral atmosphere has grown

  595
  up around this Licensing Bill which people seem to think justifies confiscation. I do not think they intended in the first instance to be so unwise as regards their confiscatory measures, but, at any rate, confiscation has been in the air with regard to it; this idea of confiscation has done a great deal of harm to all our securities in this country and has shaken the faith of the investing public, and I think there is very little doubt that that is the reason why, at this moment, the share market is so depressed.
  It has been said that this is eminently a temperance measure. I do not deny that it does make for temperance, but as long as clubs are left in the nearly untouched state in which they are under this Bill, I do not think that it can make very greatly for temperance. For instance, in a big town in the North that I know very well— Leeds—you see every day, now that public-houses are well-conducted and shut up at eleven o'clock at night, the people who have been in them streaming out and going across to their club, where they can drink all night and every night, and all day and every day and all Sunday. Under this Bill the only provision with regard to clubs is that they should be registered and occasionally visited by a policeman in plain clothes. Of course that is nothing like the supervision which is given to the public-houses which are being done away with. The public-house is under the eye of the policeman, who stands close to the door most of the day; the public-house is open to the public gaze, and everything that goes on inside is known. That is not the case, however, with regard to the club. The club is a place where secret drinking can go on, and it wants more supervision than you have given to it in this Bill. I am not here to say that drink is a good thing; I do not think that it is, and I, for one, am decidedly in favour of temperance, if it can be brought about by an ordinary degree of fairness; but if you strive after temperance you must, as I say, remember the innocent holder of these debentures who is going to be confiscated in order to make the people of this country temperate all at once. I say the way to foster tem-
  596
  perance is by education and by example. It is being so fostered. We see that temperance is going ahead by leaps and bounds every day, and I am one of those people who are proud to think that, if we can go on in the course we are pursuing, it will not be so very long before England is sober as well as free. The 1904 Act, under which we are now working, is doing fairly good work; licences to the number of 1,200 to 1,500 a year are being done away with; these licences are being paid for by the trade; and I cannot help thinking that it would be more statesmanlike to give a further trial to that Act. I feel sure that it is doing good work, and it is within the knowledge of all of us that the country has become more temperate, from the higher classes downwards. I do not think coercion will do much good. We must gain, surely, the mastery of ourselves. I remember when one was younger, talking about the mischief of want of self-control, some lines that run very much like this, that illustrate the case very well—
  "There is a little public-house
  That everybody knows,
  It is the little public-house
  Just underneath the nose.
  It is a little public-house
  That anyone can close "
  and so on.
  I think that shows very well the idea that it is more by mastery of ourselves that we shall attain to temperance than by this oppressive measure. There is a clause in the Bill, which I think is a good one, about Sunday-closing, making the hours for being open in London much shorter, reducing them to four instead of the seven or eight at present allowed. That, in my opinion, is good, but I should like to be assured, if I can be so assured, that that alteration in hours would not lead to any possibility of London becoming a secret drinking town. I allude to that, because we all know a very large and prosperous town in the North which, owing to repressive measures of a very harsh sort with regard to drinking facilities, has grown into a town of secret drinking. It would be a lamentable thing indeed if this London of ours were to be turned into a town of that description. We are at any rate fairly temperate at the

  597
  present day. I do not think that the country wants this Bill; I do not think at the moment that they want legislation by the extremist in any sense or shape, but I do think that the country wants legislation by moderate men for moderate men. Therefore, my Lords, on these grounds I am against the Second Beading of this Bill.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, I do not want to waste your Lordships' time unduly by flogging the dead horse of the Licensing Bill. I think I should be right in saying that the news of the death of this animal will be received with very great relief in all parts of the country, and I am not all at sure that the owners of him will not also share in that relief to a very great extent. I only rise for a moment or two for the purpose of saying how very glad I am that I have been able to listen to this debate; because although I have listened most attentively and have read very carefully in the newspapers the speeches to which I have not had the opportunity of listening, I have not really, with very great respect to noble Lords opposite, heard a single argument except arguments which would only strengthen my resolve to vote for the rejection of this measure. I do not think that it ought to go down to the country, as so many of our opponents try to make out, that this House is not in favour of temperance and that we have ruthlessly cast aside the opportunity now given to us of saying that we are in favour of the temperance cause. There is nobody on this side of the House or in any other part of it who would not gladly favour a good temperance measure provided that it was not accompanied by injustice. But I have not heard in favour of this Bill any real arguments to prove that it is a temperance measure. All the arguments that we have heard proceeded entirely on the assumption that shutting up public-houses is going to make working men more sober. You cannot advance this argument in any direction unless you take into account the other and much more vicious means of obtaining drink of which working men are sure to avail themselves, and indeed have already done so, supposing public-houses are all shut down. No doubt in considering
  598
  a question of this sort there is something to be said for the doctrine of diminished opportunity. But I submit with great respect that if there is anything in the doctrine of diminished opportunity that doctrine is already on a fair way to being satisfied by the Act of 1904. But personally, as far as I can ascertain for myself, I am not at all sure that the Act of 1904 is going to be such a tremendous success as a temperance measure. Am I not right in saying that the closing of the public-houses which has been effected by that measure has been followed by a rapid opening of clubs, where, as we have heard in the able speech which was delivered just now, drink can be obtained at all hours of the day and night?
  I do not know whether noble Lords opposite have ever seen a paper, which I expect is circulated in several of the London districts at any rate, called Club Life, and stated to be "Written by a Club-Man for Club-Men." I was looking at that paper this morning. It is a paper with a great many pages in it, and it contains nothing but advertisements of the various forms of entertainments at different working men's clubs on Sundays and so on. I will not say to which political shade of opinion these clubs belong, but most of them belong to one particular grade of political thought. This paper reveals a state of things which I am quite sure the bishops would not care to see taking place generally: that is that on Sundays at twelve o'clock music-hall artistes come in and give performances, and these performances are continued intermittently all the afternoon and evening, and probably most of the night. There is another thing about club life which has not yet been mentioned in this debate, and that is that working men can, by becoming a member of one club, and by the payment; of, I think, 5s., become affiliated to all the other clubs in the country, so that a London working man can go to any of these other clubs if he happens to be in Liverpool, or in Manchester, or anywhere else, and straightway avail himself of all the privileges of membership. So you have on foot in this way what is really tantamount to a vast system of public-houses all over the country; but where the restrictions placed on public-houses

  599
  are entirely evaded. This discloses to my mind a state of affairs for which, that school of thought which has always tried to make the public-house unattractive to working men is largely responsible, and it is a state of things that I should like to see altered very much. I was much struck with the eloquent speech delivered by such a very ardent and sincere reformer as the right rev. Bishop of Birmingham, who described the innocent pleasures of the foreign restaurant. In order to avoid a charge of having no remedy on our own account I venture to think that that must be the eventual direction in which we must look for a solution of this problem, and I do not think that it ought to be difficult for the Government, let us say, to attach as a condition to a licence that the public-house must be something more than the mere institution that it is at the present, and that we must realise that we shall have to give to the working man something corresponding to the excellent and luxurious club life of which we are always able to avail ourselves. That is a possible solution by means of legislation. It has been said over and over again in this debate, and in other places, that men must be made sober not by Act of Parliament, but by the force of example. I thought the noble Earl in introducing this Bill was a little bit hard on those who favour the doctrine of the force of example. He said that those who talked about the force of example were not usually those who conducted the moral agencies of the country. With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, I venture to suggest that there is no greater agency in this or any other country than the force of example. It is not so many years ago in the history of this country that all the influence and most of the wealth was in the hands of Members of your Lordships' House; probably a Peer was the only person who had sufficient money to get drunk with; the possession, consequently, of a title used to be regarded as a synonym for a perfectly legitimate, praiseworthy, and enviable over-indulgence in the pleasures of the table, and it was considered quite a correct expression if a man was noticed to be in a particular state to accuse him of being "as drunk as a lord." But we have changed all that, and I
  600
  do not think you can look to a better example of the changed times in which we live than by going into any mess of Yeomanry officers when you will see them all drinking barley-water. That is the sort of enormous change that has been going on amongst the upper classes. The noble Earl who introduced this Bill said a thing which, I must say, made me feel rather uncomfortable. He said that the public good must over-ride private interests. I suppose to a certain extent that is true, but I hope that the Government to which the noble Earl belongs will guard themselves against the ruthless, cruel, and thoughtless application of that doctrine. It has been said by another noble Lord who favoured the Second Reading of the Bill that the vast body of clergy in this country were in favour of the measure. With regard to the public good over-riding private interest, I should very much like to quote to your Lordships what the Bishop of Worcester said the other day in answer to a correspondent. I will stand corrected if needs be, because I do not say that these are the actual words, but it is the substance of what he said. I think they are almost the exact words. "While in favour of a measure of temperance, no morality or philanthropy or religion could possibly thrive if it was based upon spoliation or injustice."
  That, my Lords, I think, is a very important opinion, coming from a very high authority. I will not make too great a point of the word "spoliation." It may be an ugly word, but at the same time those of us who had the good fortune to be here have just listened to a very masterly and lucid exposition of the position of the innocent investors in breweries, who have invested their money in brewery shares in perfect good faith. I know quite well from what has happened this afternoon that if I were to mention the widows and the orphans noble Lords opposite would probably laugh, but it is no laughing matter for the investors in breweries, whether they be widows and orphans or not, and I think all these small investors will heave a very great sigh of relief when they know that this Bill

  601
  is once and for all killed. Their circumstances are such that they will think that they are peculiarly inappropriate to the exercise of that spirit of sacrifice which the noble Earl who introduced the Bill considers so essentially a portion of the measure. There are so many of these people to whom to cross the very narrow margin between poverty and penury would be a very serious matter indeed. A great many of them have only a sufficient income to enable them to buy the very smallest comforts, even only the necessities of life, and to indulge in the very small acts of charity which their previous bringing-up and good breeding would legitimately entitle them to indulge in; and for those people the passing of this Bill would be a very serious matter, invested as their money has been by their trustees in an investment which has been sanctioned, and, indeed, encouraged, by the Legislature. It has been said that it is no use talking any more about the Licensing Bill, because the result is a foregone conclusion. I think with great respect, on the contrary, that the debate—I am not referring to my own contribution to it, but to the contribution of the noble Lords opposite—will have a very good effect indeed on the country, because I think that anybody who carefully studies this debate will not be able to find any cogent or forcible arguments in favour of the passing of this Bill as a temperance measure; and I do not hesitate to say, on behalf of those whom I have had the opportunity of meeting in the country districts, that the action of the House of Lords will be thoroughly applauded by all who value the good faith of the State and the credit and integrity of the country.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down said in the earlier part of his speech that he had heard no argument from this side of the House which in any way convinced him that this Bill was a Bill which ought to be read a second time. I understood him to speak to that effect. If that is so I can hardly hope that I can say anything which would be likely in any way to influence
  602
  his judgment. If he has not been persuaded by the arguments of the noble Earl who introduced the Bill, or let us say the arguments of the most rev. Prelate who spoke this afternoon, or of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, I am quite sure that nothing that I could say would have any influence on him. But there is one remark of the noble Lord with which I do most thoroughly agree if I understood it aright, and that is that he said it was alleged that this debate was practically a debate on a foregone conclusion. Many of us feel that, and it is a fact which makes debating very difficult in this House. We feel that our attendance here during these three days of long hours of listening is a work of supererogation, that we are not engaged in an attempt to persuade or convince each other, but that we are engaged in a solemn make-believe, and that the speeches that are being made are in fact little more than funeral orations on this measure. That is, at any rate, the impression which has gone abroad in the country, if I may venture to say so. It is felt that the noble Marquess has come down to the House with his mandate from the meeting in another famous house, and for my part I profoundly regret that that mandate is so directly contradictory to what I. hold to be the mandate that really comes from the country and the people. That mandate ought surely to be plain enough to most of us Members of this House. We have the mandate which has come in the various petitions which have been presented to the House, and those who are outside the House hardly know, I venture to think, the enormous amount of public feeling which has been poured into this House on this occasion in the shape of petitions from all sorts of organisations who are working up and down the country in every quarter for the benefit of the people. We had on our Notice Paper yesterday, I think something like ten folio pages taken up with the names of the various beneficent and other societies, Churches, Chapels, congregations, engaged, all of them, in working for the good of the people—something like ten pages covered by the names of these associations sending petitions in favour

  603
  of this Bill, and on the other side we had only about ten lines enumerating the petitions sent up in favour of the trade. In this morning's Notice Paper, if I counted aright, we had fourteen pages covered with the names of the various societies in the country petitioning for this Bill, and we had, on the other hand, four lines only filled by those petitioning against it. Therefore, we have the mandate, I think I am justified in saying, of the great majority of the people in this country who are working for the good of their fellow countrymen—twenty-four pages covered by names on one side in favour of the Bill, and fourteen lines on the other side. That is the sort of mandate which I really thought would have made some impression on the noble Lords who met in that famous house the other day. Then again, we have the majority of 237 from the representatives of the people of England in another place. That, I take it, should have had some influence with noble Lords in waiting for the discussion in this House rather than in virtually condemning the Bill before they had heard arguments in favour of it. I say nothing of the gigantic evil which everywhere pervades our English life, and must be to some extent familiar to every Member of this House. It has been described here in these debates in eloquent terms, and I will not detain you with any attempt at further description of it, but from every quarter we have received the unanimous declaration that this evil of excessive drinking is the one which meets every reformer first of all, and is the greatest of all obstacles in the way of social reform. Under these circumstances I venture to think it would have been at any rate more Respectful if the country had not been flooded with the accounts of that remarkable meeting before we came to discuss the matter in this House.
  Turning to the Bill, surely we have had many admissions from the other side of the House that this Bill deserved discussion with something more like an open mind. We have heard a great deal, especially about the financial aspect of the question, but in spite of all the argument we have heard many of us still believe that this Bill on its
  604
  financial side is not only a just Bill, but a generous one. Some noble Lords seem to think that a statement which is in itself ludicrous, but, my Lords, if a Bill which gives to the licence-holders fourteen years respite with an additional halcyon seven years is not just and generous what are we to say of the decisions which such men as Lord Peel and Archbishop Temple came to after a long and serious and dispassionate investigation of the whole question? As all the world knows, they said that the conclusion to which they came, and Lord Peel entered that investigation with a thoroughly open mind, and if I may venture to say so, with a mind trained beyond that of most of us, was that they considered a seven years notice would be just. What has happened in the meantime to make a fourteen or twenty-one or practically a twenty-two years' time-limit unjust? I do not think that any Member on the Opposition side of this House can explain to us how it is there should be such a difference in the estimates of honourable men on that point. Then again we have here in this Bill, putting aside these clauses with regard to finance, many clauses which all acknowledge to be full of great and beneficent reforms, and reforms not only beneficent but long overdue, overdue because of the infinite mischief that has been done year after year for the want of these reforms, and which mischief will go on working and extending itself during all the years which, follow from your rejection of this Bill.
  I was glad to hear the noble Viscount St. Aldwyn say last night in effect that he hoped what he call the temperance measures in this Bill, as apart from the financial portion of it, might be reintroduced as a new Bill. I was glad to think that he with his great influence would be ready to facilitate the passing of such a Bill. We thank him for that expression, and I think my noble friends on this side will be ready to take advantage of it. This Bill strikes many of us as deserving of support not only for these reasons but because it gives back to the people freedom to improve the conditions of their own lives, and that I take it is one of the best elements of the

  605
  Bill. Then again it is a Bill, as all of us, wherever we may live, must know, that removes manifold temptations out of the way of the weaker and more tempted members of the community. We have had some attempt at brushing aside the value of this diminishing of temptation. I do not know why the authors of the 1904 Act should now stand up and say that the lessening of the number of public-houses and the decreasing accordingly of the number of temptations is not a temperance measure. If they say that, why did they introduce their 1904 Bill and why, when they introduced their Bill, did they say, "This is the greatest temperance measure that has ever been brought into Parliament"? But it is really an amazing statement, when you think of it, that the shutting up of these houses is not to be a benefit to the temperance of the country, is not to save people from the dangers of falling into the sin of drunkenness. Why, indeed, it is a new and amazing and alarming doctrine which is really involved in this argument which we have heard more than once in the course of this debate—this new doctrine that temptation does not lead to fall. It is difficult for anyone who is familiar with all the details of the life of many of the weaker members of society to listen patiently to those arguments. Are there those among us who really held that the multiplying of temptation does not lead to fall? If so, I ask them with what sort of thought do they use their Lord's Prayer?
  I deeply regret the determination with which apparently so many noble Lords have come down to this House to reject the Second Reading of this Bill. But while saying so much I have also to confess that there are parts of the Bill with which I am not very much enamoured. I confess to a certain sense of disappointment in regard to the part that deals with clubs, like the noble Lord who has just sat down and other speakers from the other side. I feel that that portion of the Bill, though good as far as it goes, might be materially strengthened, and I had hoped that if your Lordships had read the Bill a second time, you would have joined hands with us in attempting to strengthen the Bill. That was my hope, but I confess to some surprise that this
  606
  denunciation of the existing clubs should be used as an argument against the new measure. The new Bill at any rate would make it impossible for any of the existing clubs to go on as they are now going on. It would sweep them away by the conditions of annual registration, inspection, and all the other improvements connected with it. It would sweep away the greater part of the abuses now complained of by noble Lords opposite. But may I be permitted to say that I think the authors of the 1904 Act are the very last persons who ought to have any claim to bring that argument before us. When they introduced their Bill and passed their Act with its marvellously imperfect arrangement for the reduction of houses, why did they not take the matter of clubs into consideration? Why did they leave an open field for any bogus club to be established immediately? Why did they leave it possible for a brewer whose house was shut up for some reason or another to open that house the next day as a drinking club? I imagine that they have no answer to that question, and having no answer I think that they ought to have spared us the denunciation of this Bill because of the futility of their own Act. The noble Marquess made a great deal of that point, and I was surprised that he did so. He even illustrated his argument by the case of a club—I do not know whether it was a Radical Club, but very likely it was—in which, as he said, the accounts showed the sale of a halfpennyworth of bread to an intolerable amount of sack. That was a very interesting quotation, but I wonder it did not occur to him that this was a club that had come into existence under their own Act. Coming from the other side of the House that was not a convincing argument, because some of us felt that there was even an inclination on that side to increase the cost of the bread and to make the sack more abundant.
  Besides the club question I confess also to not being very much satisfied with what has been done in regard to the off-licences. If I may venture to hark back for a moment and say one word more about the clubs, my desire and my hope would have been, with regard to the sale of drink, that all clubs, whether they be in Pall Mall or anywhere else,

  607
  should have been placed as regards the sale of drink on the same footing as the public-houses. That is perhaps an extreme temperance view which would hardly be endorsed even by noble Lords opposite. I pass to off-licences for a moment. I have to confess that although the steps taken are good so far as they go, because the Bill brings those licences under the local authority, still I consider that the arrangements of the Bill are inadequate. I venture to think, as the result of my personal experience, that off-licences should not be given to tradesmen who sell all sorts of things. A grocer ought not to be given a licence which brings him within the sphere of this dangerous trade. That is the principle on which I base my objections to the off-licences. I say the licence should be given to those who are engaged in this particular trade and not in other trades as well. I think few of us can have lived in the country without being conscious of the openings that exist for abuse which the grocer's licence gives. I have in my own mind at this moment the memory of the ruin of a young curate—this is my own experience—simply because he was served by his grocer along with his grocery with various kinds of drink. He had been in the habit of sending for this drink, and the grocer's cart brought to this curate, a poor man with a very small stipend, something like so 1arge an amount as £31 worth of drink in six months. So that he was spending more than even the working man is supposed to spend a week out of his limited income. He ruined his prospects in life, and yet the grocer who held that licence, and supplied that drink, which by the by was never paid for, was a very respectable person holding a responsible position, and I venture to say that instances of that kind, which can be multiplied, are sufficient to show that we ought to put an end to this system. There may be better ways of putting an end to it, but my own humble suggestion would be that a licence should not be given to persons who are also sending out other articles besides drink.
  But there is another reason why I am somewhat lukewarm with regard to this Bill, and that is in respect of the
  608
  time-limit. My reasons are somewhat different, probably, from those of the noble Lords opposite. I look upon the time-limit of fourteen years that this Bill has introduced, as not only a just, but a generous limit, and I have been led to that conclusion both by my own investigations in the matter, which have been considerable, and by the conclusions, as I have said, of such men as Viscount Peel and Archbishop Temple. But I have never seen or heard any reason yet why the Prime Minister should have given another period, a halcyon period of seven years. I read the Prime Minister's statement when he made that concession. I noticed the very fervent and emphatic way and the very attractive rhetoric in which he said that it was not intended to placate the enemy; but I heard no adequate reason why it should have been given, and I hold that it is an extravagant giving away of the money of the people. I imagine that many persons hardly realise how much of the public money is really being given away by this long extension of time-limit. I am prepared to give it, if we could have the settlement, but I feel that we are giving a tremendous price, and that we are not giving our own money, but the money of the taxpayer and the ratepayer.
  Allusion has already been made to a very interesting and, I venture to think, authoritative book which has lately been published and is now in its second edition, Messrs. Rowntree and Sherwell's book on the taxation of licences. I do not know whether noble Lords have studied it, but it is really a very interesting and illuminating book; and in that book it is declared that if we were to tax our liquor trade up to the average of the United States we should have an additional income from it of £7,300,000 per annum. If we raised our taxation to the level of that of the finest state of America, it would be very much larger than £7,300,000. So that, you see, if we earmark and hand over to the trade for twenty-one years, all this enhanced income, which would only bring us up to the level of the United States, what a tremendous amount of money we are handing over to this trade. I suppose I may presume that practically

  609
  this Bill is dead, and that we are only really attending here at its obsequies. But my hope is that this is by no means the end of the matter; it is really the beginning of a new period of temperance legislation perhaps on new lines, and possibly more effective ones. And my hope, to begin with, is this, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have the courage to give us something like a proper return from this trade in the shape of high licences. I think it is time that the people began to come to their own, and on that account I feel it is a consolation that we have not to wait for twenty-one years before we come to our own.
  Then, again, I have the hope that we may see established a new system of inspection of public-houses. I have for a considerable time, as the result of my experience in one city and another and in one country town and another, come to the conclusion that if we are to have the existing laws properly administered we ought to have a system of what I may call State inspectors, and that we should no longer be content to leave the oversight of these houses and this trade entirely to this or that locality, because of all the manifold influences in every locality which tend to interfere with the proper administration of the law in this respect. I have here what I may venture to say, on behalf of a new system of State or Imperial inspectors, the testimony of a very experienced justice of the peace. This gentleman has been a justice of the peace and a sheriff in Lancashire, and he has also been a justice of the peace in a southern county. He is a man of long experience, and he holds that Licensing Bills would hardly be required if we had a proper system of national inspectors, altogether independent of local influences, watch committees, and so forth. No one can read the evidence before Lord Peel's Commission without having seen what corruption, indirect or direct, you may find, in this matter, under the various watch committees. This experienced justice of the peace declares in the strongest terms that a great many of the most dangerous public-houses in the country could be shut up if we had a proper system of inspection, and this gentleman whom I
  610
  am venturing to quote is a very staunch and sound Conservative.
  May I venture another remark on behalf of this system of inspection which I advocate? It is based on what the Bishop of London told us last night. He reminded us of what was said with regard to on e of his missions in Westminster on a certain midnight march. I forget the exact number of people under the influence of drink, or drunk, whom he and his companions met in that march, but the curious thing was that there was not a single publican in that district who had seen a drunken man, and there was not a single policeman in that district who had arrested one. Why, what a curious state of things We have! Here are a number of very disinterested persons who believe that they see a great number of drunken people, and here are the people who supply the drink, who are certain that not a single drunken person was in their houses; and here are the police, who also see none of them. It seems almost as difficult to arrive at a definition of drunkenness as it is to arrive at a definition of monopoly value. But I venture to think that if We had a system of inspectors independent of local organisations we should find it much easier to agree as to when the law was broken and when it was not. So much for my hopes with regard to the future. I hope to see the high licences; I hope to see a better system of inspection; and largely a national one, and a new Bill, with all the best clauses of this Bill, again before this House, and I feel sanguine that we may see that placed upon the Statute-book.
  If I may venture to intrude a little longer, I would like to add that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about the really equitable claims for compensation in regard to this matter. For my own part, I hold that we cannot arrive at a real and right understanding of the matter without looking for a moment into the history of the tied-house system. This tied-house system does not represent the traditional system, and it has none of the claims of an old established system. It is in fact a mushroom growth, and a growth under very peculiar circumstances, and it is on account of these circumstances

  611
  that I hold these new companies have very little claim either in justice or in equity. Really the root of our trouble in this matter has been because of the system of tied houses to brewery companies. These companies have almost all come into existence since 1883. The late Lord Chancellor gave us an illustration of three companies. But for fear of interrupting him I should have liked to interpose, and ask when those companies came into existence. I am sorry he is not here, but I may say that most of these companies came into operation after the year 1883 and after the legal advisers of the trade gave decisions one after another reminding the trade that the interest created by a licence was not anything like a freehold, but was precarious, and was likely to disappear, or diminish in value and volume. At this moment, that is after 1883, the financier steps in, and he begins to float company after company. I am old enough to remember all these years, the phenomena before us were these: private breweries became limited liability companies, and owners gathered in outside investors, in these companies, many of whom, of course, were the trustees for the widows and orphans, so that these brewery companies became a sort of refuge for outside investors. But there are some curious facts connected with this flotation of Companies, as noble Lords know very well. In that interesting book by Rowntree and Sherwell, to which the noble Marquess referred, I found the other day a mention of three companies which were amalgamated; that statement has been before the public a long time, and has never been contradicted, so far as I know. Those three breweries before amalgamation and the issue of a prospectus under new conditions owned a capital of a little more than £3,000,000, but in the course of a very few months those companies had been amalgamated and floated afresh, and, by some mysterious process that capital had grown to £8,000,000. There was an increment of £5,000,000 on the capital of those companies. I suppose a good deal of that £5,000,000 was taken up in debentures and by shares by trustees, and widows and orphans. That case may be a somewhat exceptional one, but there
  612
  you have an instance which certainly shows what a hollow business this financial flotation was as regards, I will not say more, the interests of the innocent outside investing public. This capital grew in the night like Jonah's gourd, and was it surprising that it withered in the light also? You have been reminded by the Bishop of London that many of these companies were practically ruined by this overcapitalisation before this Bill was thought of and I do not think it is quite fair on us who are advocating temperance measures that we should be held responsible, or that we should be asked to compensate those who have indulged in this kind of gigantic speculation.
  Then, again on the formation of these companies there followed a competitive boom of baying up public-houses all over the country at exorbitant prices. I have cases close to my own lodge gates by which I can illustrate that. Then comes the question of low rents in connection with these tied-houses, artificial rents, and altogether inadequate valuations, and what has been the effect on the local ratepayers? Surely the effect is that the local ratepayers have had to pay an undue share if these houses are not paying their proper share. These are among the objections which I feel to the tied-house system, and they are arguments, I take it, against the very large claims which the owners of property under that system are making upon us. But I have still a greater objection than all. This tied-house system is part of what is called exclusive dealing I have been surprised again and again that this system of exclusive dealing, in connection with licences given by the public for the public interest, should have been allowed to go on as it has, because the granting of a licence under the conditions of exclusive dealing is detrimental to the public interest; it is not in the interest of the public that the man licensed should be bound, for instance, to sell possibly the worst beer of the neighbourhood, and possibly the worst articles of the neighbourhood. It is altogether against the public interest, and it is entirely against the interests of the publican, and still more it is contrary, if

  613
  I understand the matter aright, to the principles of the Truck Acts which led your fathers to pass those beneficent Acts a generation ago. On these grounds I am entirely opposed to the tied-house system, or to any compensation beyond what is just and reasonable and generous. I have a still greater objection and that is the moral objection. I do not think that many of the investors in these tied houses really know the nature of the trade out of which they make their profits; they would not, I believe, continue to take them if they realised that it is a trade which they would be ashamed to conduit in their own person.
  In conclusion, I desire with all respect to say that I think that in the somewhat—I hardly like to use the word cynical—but in the manner in which this Bill has been practically destroyed, before it has been discussed in this House, your Lordships could hardly have considered the full effect of what you have done, and I am quite sure from my knowledge of the country that there will be a very general feeling that your Lordships have not considered the best interests of the country in this matter, that you have in fact subordinated the legislative freedom of the people, the modern and social well-being of the masses, and the progressive improvement of those masses, in some degree to the claims of party policy, and in some degree to the interests of a particular trade, and I am convinced that the people are not likely to forget this. As a matter of fact, if this Bill is rejected in this way, and nothing else is done, it amounts to slamming the door in the face of all social reform. Yes, we sometimes enter into these matters with a light heart, as conflicts have often been entered into with light hearts before—conflicts which have led to ultimate disaster, and I venture to say this much, that if your Lordships make it a challenge to the people I think the people will accept the challenge. For myself I am an old man, but still I hope to live to see a good many advances in popular freedom, and I rather wonder that you do not take a warning from the lessons of history. I am assuming that the people in the mass, the intelligent part of the people—and we have their representatives in another place unanimously
  614
  in favour of this Bill—will say that you have not treated this Bill with the respect which it deserves, and I venture to ask, if you come into conflict with the people on these great and fundamental social matters, was it ever seen in the conflict between a free people and the privileged classes that those classes won anything in the end but discredit and ultimate disaster; and I am afraid that we are, perhaps, precipitating that end. My last word is this. I think your Lordships have to some extent overlooked and disregarded or forgotten or under-rated what is a very important and growing factor in public life, and that is the uprising of an educated and free democracy, a democracy that has begun to feel its own strength, and to see with a clearer vision and to be more firm about its claims, I venture to think that this democracy will not be very long content to have its claims for social reform contemptuously thrown aside, and unless I am greatly mistaken, I fear that an action of this kind taken upon such a great measure may be tantamount to digging the grave of some of your Lordships' inherited privileges.
  THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, the exigencies of the course of the debate in the last few days have made it difficult for a Member of His Majesty's Government to reply earlier to the speeches which have been made from the front Opposition bench. I hope, however, that the noble Marquess whose Motion is on the Paper did not think it discourteous on the part of His Majesty's Government for them not to have been represented earlier in the debate. The reason was that we were anxious that those Members of your Lordships' House who had not had an opportunity of addressing it, should, on such an important occasion as this, have every opportunity of making their views known to your Lordships.
  However, it now falls to my lot, as the first speaker from this bench after the noble Marquess had moved the Motion which is now before your Lordships, to deal or to attempt to deal with some of the arguments which he specially addressed to His Majesty's Government. In attempting so to do, I am glad to

  615
  think that I am fortified by some of the arguments which were used by the noble Marquess himself on a previous occasion. He told us yesterday that his objections to this Bill were directed, not to points of detail, but to fundamental principles in this Bill, and he explained to your Lordships that it was mainly a Bill for the reduction of licences. In 1904, in winding up the debate on the Licensing Act of that year the noble Marquess used these words—
  "Although the Bill may not be as imposing a measure as some noble Lords opposite desire, it is, nevertheless, a substantial step towards a diminution in the number of licences which all who have given consideration to the question, from the Royal Commission presided over by the noble Viscount downwards, have regarded as an indispensable preliminary to any progress in temperance reform."
  And there is another quotation from the speech of the noble Marquess on the same occasion to the effect—
  "I gather from the speeches delivered that we all believe that a reduction in the number of licences is a step in the direction of temperance."
  Therefore, so far as this Bill deals with the question of the reduction of licences, I am glad to think that, in spite of yesterday's criticisms, the noble Marquess is persuaded that a considerable reduction is really and truly necessary.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If the noble Lord had paid attention to what I said yesterday he would have seen that I admitted that reduction of licences carried on in a discriminating fashion was undoubtedly a step in the direction of temperance reform. My complaint is that this Bill is wholly different from our Bill of 1904.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: If the noble Marquess will allow me, I will deal with that point by reading another quotation of his on the same point. It was not only the Marquess himself who spoke in favour of the reduction of licences, but the Leader of the Opposition in another place, who was then the head of His Majesty's Government, spoke to the same effect, and I think Viscount Cross spoke even more strongly in that direction. If the complaint of the noble Marquess is that this Bill dealt mainly with the question of the reduction of licences, and neglected altogether a
  616
  great part of the field of temperance reform, I do not think that he quite does justice to the full scope of this Bill. A large number of the speeches delivered in the course of this debate have dealt with the other topics contained in the Bill—monopoly value, time-limit, and the very large number of matters which are dealt with in other clauses. Let me remind the noble Marquess that of this Bill of forty-nine clauses there are twenty in Part III., which deal with miscellaneous Amendments, six in Part IV., and an equal number in Part V. Those six clauses in Part IV. deal entirely with clubs, with regard to which I think the noble Marquess complained that the Bill had not sufficiently dealt.
  One of the main points with which I think the noble Marquess dealt yesterday was that it was not yet proved that excessive drinking facilities were really conducive to drunkenness. I am glad to think that I am able to bring to the notice of the noble Marquess a very striking case which really deals with this question. There is an area in Birmingham which is known as the Floodgate Street area, a district which has attracted a great deal of attention from all those who are interested in social reform throughout the country as well as those who live near Birmingham itself. In that district, the Floodgate Street area, in Birmingham, there is an immense proportion of public-houses. The justtices unanimously decided in 1904 that there were too many licences in that area. There were no less than forty-five for a population of 7,000 persons, that is, one public-house for every eighty-nine persons over the age of eighteen years. I have here some statistics with regard to the general death and birth rates which show the condition of that area and to which I specially wish to draw the attention of your Lordship's House, not because this is a particularly exceptional case, but because I think it is fairly typical of the condition in a great many, too many, of the slums in the large cities. The general death rate in that area was 31–51 per 1,000, as against nineteen in the city; infant mortality was 252 per 1,000, as against 151 in the city. In the healthiest area the general death rate

  617
  was only twenty-one whereas in the worst it was no less than sixty-three, and in the year 1902 one out of every three deaths took place in some public institution. But that is not all. A large number of hospital cases coming entirely from the Floodgate Street area have been dealt with in the Birmingham General Hospital. In one year no less than 625 were dealt with in that way; and there is constant complaint from those who are interested in the school children in that area of the condition in which they come to school. In this area, as I have said, there is a very large number of public houses. So much stirred was public opinion in Birmingham on this question that they insisted on a reduction of the licensed premises and of the facilities for drinking within that district, and I have before me the report of the medical officer of health, in which he says that the drink question is one of the greatest importance and one of real danger to the public health. What has been the result of such reduction? What has been the effect of this too small reduction which has taken place in that area? It is the unanimous testimony of every social worker concerned in that area that the evil complained of has considerably toned down since that time, that the number of violent cases are much fewer, and that there has been a very considerable improvement all round in that district. There are still in that area twenty-eight licensed houses to a population of 7,000, and I hope it will be possible to reduce that number still further, and I do not doubt that the effect of further reducing those facilities will lead to a further reduction in the number of cases of brutality and drunkenness.
  Now let me turn to some other points which have been mentioned by the noble Marquess. He said that this Bill did not touch the consumer. It is quite true that our measure does not touch the consumer directly, but I would like to ask the noble Marquess if his own Act of 1904 touched the consumer. A large number of those people who have been convicted of drunkenness in the past ought to be considered as being victims, to a large extent, of the circumstances under which
  618
  they live, and it is the express wish of the Government to remove those temptations from the people and give them fewer opportunities for drunkenness. The noble Marquess stated that this Bill did not tend to humanise the conditions of the public-house trade. In reply to this point again I rely on his own Act of 1904 in which that matter was left out altogether.
  Another criticism which has been made is in regard to our treatment of clubs. In this respect I think there is a very important correction to be made in regard to the statement which has been made by more than one noble Lord in the course of this debate. Before I touch that statement let me put this point to the noble Marquess. He said it was useless to deal with excessive drinking in public-houses unless we treat clubs in a similar manner. This indicates that there are two alternatives. Either the whole matter should be left alone, or else the noble Marquess is anxious that we should deal with clubs far more stringently than we propose to do in the Bill now before the House. I venture to ask the noble Marquess what is the policy of himself and his friends upon this point. Are they really anxious that we should put further restrictions upon clubs, and if so, will they indicate in the course of the debate what other restrictions they think should be imposed upon clubs. It is a remarkable fact that more than one of the noble Marquess's friends in another place were very anxious that some of the restrictions imposed by the present Bill upon clubs should be removed because they thought some of them went a great deal too far. We shall watch with interest the line which will be taken by the noble Marquess when the Bill dealing with this question is brought in from an independent quarter of your Lordships' House. We shall then see whether the noble Marquess in the consideration of that Bill, will propose Amendments strengthening the clauses which relate to clubs. The statement I am anxious to correct is to be found in a quotation made by Lord Midleton on 25th June, in which it was stated that wherever a public-house was closed a club was there established to swoop down on the profits

  619
  and continue the abuses, thus keeping alive for the temperance party a valuable subject matter for agitation. The noble Marquess yesterday used language almost as strong. He told us that if there was one thing which had been clearly established it was that where public houses were reduced the number of clubs increased.
  Let me turn for a moment to inquire how far that proposition is borne out by the available statistics. I turn to the licensing statistics for 1907 and compare them with those published for 1905. I shall trouble your Lordships with the actual statistics, first with regard to county boroughs, and then I will give the figures relating to municipal boroughs. The net increase in the county boroughs of England in the two years from 1905 to 1907 in clubs is thirty-three, but the decrease in public-houses is no less than 946. That shows a striking discrepancy in view of the statement that for every public-house which is shut a new club opens. In the municipal boroughs of this country during the same period there was a decrease of 216 in the number of public-houses and a net increase of only thirty-five in the total number of clubs. Therefore, I think it is rather important if that statement is going to be repeated in your Lordships' House that it should be substantiated by figures and not merely by vague assertions. It has been complained that this Bill does not deal sufficiently with clubs. I venture to draw the attention of your Lordships especially to one clause which was the subject of considerable discussion, which relate to tied clubs. That really is a very valuable clause and one which deserves a little praise at any rate from the noble Marquess. Another complaint made is that our Bill does not deal sufficiently with off-licences. It is not enough in this matter to rely merely upon the fact that the Act of 1904 did not deal with this question. I wish to point out that in regard to this matter of the off-licences there was a Parliamentary bargain made in 1902, and therefore there is very good reason for not disturbing it at the present time. But apart from this bargain there is a provision dealing with off-licences, because the monopoly value for a new licence is taken under this Bill, and at the
  620
  end of the period the monopoly value of all those off-licences is also taken.
  Let me turn to another point upon which we have heard a great deal to-night as well as last night, namely, the question of the compensation, which is to be given for these public-houses. The noble Marquess gave us last night what I venture to think was a rather curious figure. He stated that 95 per cent. of the money available for compensation had actually been, spent. I think we can go further and tell your Lordships the actual number of public-houses which have been closed in order to show how very little has been done in comparison with what was promised at the time of the passing of the Act of 1904. This is the quotation from the noble Marquess which was referred to earlier in the evening also by the noble Lord who is not now in the House, Lord Belper. The noble Marquess, speaking on the Second Reading of the Licensing Bill in 1904, said it would get rid annually of something between 1,500 and 2,000 licences. What are the facts? What has resulted in regard to this pessimistic prophecy of the noble Marquess? The Act of 1904 has been in full operation for three years. Under its compensation clauses 2,805 houses have been actually closed; the licences of 515 others have been refused and will be paid for out of the fund provided for the year 1907. That makes a total of 3,320 or only 1,107 for each year. There is this still more remarkable fact about it, that both the references and the refusals were fewer in 1907 than in 1906. It is pretty evident that, bad or inadequate as was the operation of this Act during the first years after it was passed, the rate of the compensation and reduction is decreasing year by year, and I think we may fairly say in view of those facts that the Act of 1904 has not fulfilled the expectations held out to us by the then Government, and therefore there is urgent need for a revision of the whole matter. The noble Marquess intimated that he was satisfied with the rate of reduction as it was going on at the present time.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I said just the contrary. I stated that I should welcome a measure for accelerating the rate of reduction.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I understood the noble Marquess was satisfied with the rate of reduction, but I am very glad to hear that that portion of His Majesty's Bill does not meet with his entire disapprobation. I only wish we could carry him a little further and obtain his approval of the method which the Government has adopted to accomplish this object. How badly the Act of 1901 has worked is not very difficult to prove. The Birmingham justices have passed a resolution in which they call attention to the inadequacy of the compensation clauses of the Licensing Act of 1901, and they urge upon the Government to promote such Amendments to the licensing laws as will render an increased rate of reduction possible. I should like to give your Lordships one example of the way in which the compensation clauses of the Act of 1901 have worked. I will give the case of a Leeds public-house which was closed last December. It was assessed for rates at £65 per annum. After the licence had been taken away it was assessed only at £50 per annum. That is to say, after subtracting the one from the other the annual value of the licence appears to be only £15. If you capitalise that sum at twenty years purchase you get a capital value of £300. What, my Lords, was the compensation which was claimed for this house? It was no less a sum than £10,223, although the annual value of the licence appeared to be no more than £15. The compensation which was actually received was no less a sum than £6,300. That shows, I think, very clearly indeed that there is a very urgent need for some reform. I think the noble Marquess himself went so far as to agree that there was need for reform with regard to the incidence of taxation upon public-houses. There is clearly something wrong in this matter. If the compensation in this case was not excessive, then I think it is clear that the house should have been assessed for rates at a very much larger sum than £65 a year before the licence was taken away. I am afraid this point is closely bound up with the question of the innocent investor and the widows and orphans of whom we have heard so much to-night. But there are more widows and orphans to be considered than those who have placed their investments in brewery companies. There are
  622
  the women and children whose husbands and fathers have been ruined by drink, and I do not hesitate to say that for every woman and child who may have been placed in the unfortunate position alluded to through a reduction in the value of brewery shares there are nearly 100 who suffer because their relations have taken to drink. Whether you find them in the public-house or in the workhouse there is a very large number of those un fortunate men whose unhappy position is the direct result of habits of intemperance, which has brought ruin and misery upon their families. There are other women and children who may have lost money in connection with brewery investments. There are those women and children who were induced to put their money into breweries which were over capitalised. Many brewery companies have been floated for a sum of money far exceeding their real capital value, and now those companies have reached a more stable level, and have really come down to what we may call the proper investment paying level. The result, however, of all this has been that the women and children whose money was invested in those companies have had to suffer loss. But that, my Lords, is no fault of the Government and it has no relation what ever to the Licensing Bill. All those transactions took place before the present Government took office, and it impossible to saddle His Majesty's Government with any responsibility for that.
  I will now ask your Lordships to turn to the First Schedule of the Bill, because on more than one occasion it has been said that the scheduled proportion of licences to population is based upon a cast-iron scale. It is the second modification to which I should like to call attention. This matter was specially mentioned, amongst others, by the noble Marquess. He said that in country areas, it would be a hardship upon the agricultural labourer There is, however, a provision that a modification may be made in a rural area where the strict application of the scale appears to be expedient, and that seems to meet this case. I venture to hope that this "uninstructed multitude' to which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred will not learn what this Bill proposes from the speeches

  623
  made by noble Lords opposite. Let me go a little further. This anxiety on behalf of the agricultural labourer is somewhat new on the part of noble Lords opposite. [Cries of "No, no."] When the Small Holdings and Allotments Act was before the House I do not remember any noble Lords who were anxious that the small holdings and allotments should be provided close to the cottages of the agricultural labourers. It is only on behalf of the mug of beer that there is this anxiety to provide for the comfort of the agricultural labourer. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] There is a very fair analogy which may be drawn with regard to the compensation which is offered by His Majesty's Government. There is also another analogy which might also have been taken in regard to agriculture. There are a large number of farm leases which are merely held on an annual tenancy with an expectation of renewal. When these leases are withdrawn no compensation whatever is offered. It is, however, different in regard to this Licensing Bill, under which considerable compensation is offered to the tenant. There are a large number of Committee details with which, at this late hour of the night, I shall not venture to trouble your Lordships, because I think it is really of very little use considering Committee points upon the Second Reading, and more especially upon the present occasion.
  The noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, seemed to me to base most of his opposition to this Bill upon Committee details. Like the noble Lord who spoke from the cross benches this evening —I wondered for some time upon which side in the end he intended to give his vote. But at the conclusion of his speech, the noble Viscount said it was because no compromise had been offered by His Majesty's Government that he had finally determined to vote against the Second Reading. If the noble Viscount had been present, I would have asked him at what moment he expected an offer of compromise to be made. Hardly had the Third Reading of this Bill been passed in another place, when your Lordships met in a famous house in a famous square. Are we to understand that that meeting was not the
  624
  hostile one which some of us imagined it to be? Was it really an Ark from which a new olive branch was sent forth from noble Lords opposite? If so, I have never seen a more bellicose olive branch than the Motion which the noble Marquess has placed upon the table of your Lordships' House. There was one point made in the discussion with regard to monopoly value. One noble Lord stated that the State had no right to the monopoly value, and that it had never parted with it. Under these circumstances I will turn to the Act of 1904 under which the monopoly value of all new licences is retained, and I am only sorry the noble Earl is not here, because I should have liked to have extracted from him some further explanation on that point. I will only make one reference to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord on the back benches who spoke just before dinner. He was full of consideration for the moderate drinkers of this country, and he thought that insufficient attention was given to them in the Bill proposed by His Majesty's Government. I could not help wondering if the noble Lord had considered the fact that after all these reductions have taken place under this Bill there will be no less than 60,000 public-houses left in this country, and if he thinks a reduction of 90,000 to 60,000 licences will really spoil the jollity of the people of this country I cannot help wondering what kind of jollity it is to which the noble and learned Lord refers. I think there will be ample opportunity for every kind of jollity for the people of every class under this Bill.
  LORD ROBERTSON: The noble Lord omits to notice that they are not all collected in one place.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is quite true that at present the 90,000 houses are not collected in one place; neither are the 60,000, and the reduction is not confined to one area either. The noble and learned Lord must have a somewhat ghastly idea of jollity. There is another point to which I wish to call attention, and it is one we may hear more of when some other measure comes before your Lordships' House. Complaints have been made by noble Lords opposite that the

  625
  Government do not give sufficient time to your Lordships' House to consider the measures sent from another place. Let me point out that while the Third Reading of this Bill took place on Friday last in another place, so full was the information in possession of noble Lords opposite that on Tuesday last they were sufficiently well informed that forthwith and without hearing any speeches in this House they indicated their desire and intention of rejecting this Bill. Under those circumstances I think noble Lords opposite will be somewhat embarrassed if they complain on a subsequent occasion that they are given insufficient time in this House to consider the measures brought before them by His Majesty's Government.
  It is unnecessary for me to emphasise what is perhaps after all the underlying principle of this Bill. What I allude to is the human aspect which has hardly been touched upon except by the Bishop of London, who has had special opportunities of studying that side of the question. It is well-known that the crime, lunacy, and pauperism existing to-day are largely due to the influence of drink. The hospitals are largely filled from this cause, and there is hardly any form of crime, including cruelty to children, which does not arise from the same cause. There is scarcely any form of crime which your Lordships can call to mind in which drink does not play an important and determining part. All this is well known to social reformers, who have been referred to by the most rev. Prelate to-night. I do not think that there is a single social reformer to be found outside your Lordships' House who will rejoice at the rejection of this Bill. In their view this measure was considered as a great blow struck for national righteousness. Noble Lords opposite have preferred by their rejection of the Bill rather to encourage that very influence which is at the bottom of most of the national evils which are corrupting our national life to-day. The responsibility of noble Lords opposite and of the noble Marquess is very great indeed, and after the speeches we have heard from the most rev. Primate and the right rev. Prelate I should have thought they would have found it almost impossible to justify their attitude to this Bill.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I do not propose to discuss at any length the defects of the Act of 1904, neither shall I enter into the tu quoque arguments which the noble Lord has addressed to my noble friend who moved this Resolution. I prefer to call the attention of the House to the important principles which are contained in this Bill. When the noble Earl rose to speak from the Government Bench, I felt sure he was about to address himself to that minute and detailed review of the criticism of the Bill which was offered last night by the noble Viscount. The House will recollect that the noble Viscount said that if he could obtain assurances from His Majesty's Government on certain points, he was prepared to support the Second Reading of the Bill. So far as we have gone, no single person who has spoken in favour of the Bill, with the exception of the Bishop of Hereford, has declared himself in favour of this measure as it stands. Lord Ribblesdale began his speech last night by offering a great many criticisms, and giving a great deal of valuable information to the Government with regard to the details in the Bill, which I hope the Government have marked, learned, and inwardly digested. The next speaker was the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has to-night announced himself as an active supporter of this Bill. But even the most rev. Primate admitted that with regard to the business part of the measure he did not feel himself very capable of offering criticisms, and he went so far as to suggest that he might support Amendments of one sort or another. I greatly regret that the most rev. Primate did not proceed and tell us what those Amendments were. Then the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, does not seem altogether to have pleased His Majesty's Government, although he has declared himself to be a strong supporter of the Second Reading of this Bill.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I made no such reference to the noble Earl on the cross benches.
  THE EARL of CAMPERDOWN: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I think he will recollect that he said there was a

  627
  noble Earl to-night who spoke from the cross benches, and for a long time he could not make up his mind whether he was for or against the Bill.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am sorry there has been a mistake, but I referred to the noble Viscount Lord St. Aldwyn, and the speech he made last night. [Cries of "Oh, oh."]
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to explain what my noble friend said.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would much rather take the noble Lord's own version.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I beg pardon, but my noble friend stated that, like the noble Earl, he felt uncertain whether the noble Viscount was going to vote for the Second Reading or not.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I know that the noble Lord who spoke for the Government referred to a noble Earl, but I will let it pass. The noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, said he was going to support the Second Reading, but what did he proceed to say? He said that he found fault with the Central Commission, and hoped the Government would not create any more of those Central Commissions. The noble Earl also said that while he approved of the time-limit he entirely disapproved of the mode in which the compensation was to be calculated under this Bill. I hold that I was rather puzzled by that part of his speech, because the time-limit and the mode of calculating compensation are so closely allied as to be practically indissoluble, and I could not understand how it was that the noble Earl was approving of the one and disapproving entirely of the other. Without in any way depreciating other speeches which have been made, I may say that up to the present time, in my opinion, the speech made by my noble friend Viscount St. Aldwyn has examined more closely than any other the details of the Bill; it has placed before His Majesty's Government more clearly than any other the respects in which many of us think the Bill is defective, and
  628
  with regard to which we are anxious for an explanation. We have been asked why we did not ask for a compromise, but I would like to know is this the time to compromise? I would like to know when will the time for compromise come? Is it expected that my noble friend the Marquess of Lansdowne will offer compromises to the Government? If the Government have any compromises to offer, it is for them to bring them forward in a clear and definite manner which we can all understand. A good deal has been said about this unfortunate meeting at Lansdowne House, where this bellicose olive branch, which appears so much to have disturbed the noble Earl, was grown. I am afraid this is a matter into which it is quite unnecessary for me to go at this time of the night, but I can assure the noble Lord that there was nothing mysterious about that meeting. On the contrary, I think if the noble Lord had been present he would have learned a good deal, because he would have found that there are a great many peers sitting on this side of the House who were most anxious to read this Bill a second time if there was any possibility of amending it. The difficulty is that the Amendments which are necessary to make this measure acceptable go to the very root of the Bill, and it was not until there had been a long discussion that finally the noble Marquess proposed the course which nearly all present at that meeting concluded was the only one they could follow.
  I do not know whether my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn still hopes that the Government are going to offer any compromise which will enable him to vote for the Second Reading. I doubt myself very much whether they can or whether they will offer any compromise. There is very little hope of that. What did the Government offer in the way of compromise while this Bill was before the House of Commons? Was there any tone whatever of compromise? Was there any proposal at all in the direction of mitigating the great defects which are to be found in this Bill, some of which I am bound to say the promoters of the Bill themselves seem to admit? There is one grave omission to which the noble Earl who spoke just now referred—I mean the

  629
  absence of any provision dealing with off-licences. At one time there was a provision in the Bill which included off-licences, but His Majesty's Government found that they did not know what the meaning of their own Amendment was, and as soon as they discovered that it brought existing off-licences under the Bill they declared that they meant nothing of the kind, and they hastily proceeded to withdraw it. Not only did they withdraw that clause, but they put words into the next section to say that under no circumstances was local option to apply to existing off-licences. It will be very interesting to know what was the reason for withdrawing the off-licences. Then there are the grocers' licences. The Opposition in this House have been accused of being in league with the brewers. I do not know that it will be altogether unfair if I say that it is just possible that the exclusion of off-licences from this Bill arises from some natural inclination on the part of the Government towards the grocer.
  The principles of this Bill have been examined by the noble Viscount and by others so closely that it is not necessary for me to do more than call your Lordships' attention to one or two points which I think have hardly been sufficiently noticed in the course of this debate. This Bill is a measure to promote temperance, no doubt, but it is also a Bill which relates to the Exchequer and to obtaining money for the Exchequer. From the point of view of temperance, what difference does it make whether there is a time-limit or not if all the licences have to be resumed by the State? What difference does it make if the licences remain in the hands of those who at present hold them? I suppose there are to be some public houses left. What difference does it make whether any of the remaining public-houses are in the hands of the publican or in the hands of the State from the point of view of temperance? Then there is another point. The Bill provides for a stereotyped reduction of 32,000 licences. I wonder whether any of your Lordships have really considered the amount of inconvenience which that mast necessarily cause. Let me give the House an illustration. I can speak from my own experience of
  630
  the past. In the jurisdiction of the licensing bench to which I belong there happens to be a little town with a population rather under 2,000. Four years ago in that town there were twenty or twenty-one licences in all, and now there are sixteen. That town accommodates not merely the 1,800 people who live there, but it is a market-town to which a large number of people come on market days. Under this Bill those sixteen licences will be reduced to four. I put it to your Lordships that the four houses which will be left under this Bill are pretty certain to be all of one sort, and they will be the higher class houses such as hotels and houses of that kind. It is a fact that a great number of the people who come into that town want to drink their glass of beer amongst their own class of society, and the people whom they want to meet. They do not want to come among the farmers and the grain-dealers and that sort of people. All I can say is that on the fair-day which occurs once a month, I can imagine the pandemonium which will exist if there are only four public-houses in that town. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Robertson and others that you can promote temperance far better by strong regulations applied to public-houses than by such proposals as are contained in this Bill. You can promote temperance better by regulating those houses than by abolishing them. As for the establishment of a Central Commission, which can know nothing whatsoever of the locality, I cannot conceive of any body which will be less able to produce a real improvement.
  It has been said that this Bill restores the discretion to the justices of the peace. What did the Act of 1904 do in this respect? That Act said that the justices were to suggest to Quarter Sessions the houses which were to be abolished and that Quarter Sessions should pay the compensation. The authority of Quarter Sessions is done away with by this Bill. Under these circumstances how can it be said that this Bill really restores and gives increased discretion to the justices of the peace. What authority have the justices of the peace in regard to the statutory reduction? They are ordered to do certain things by the Act of Parliament,

  631
  and they are compelled by this Central Commission to make the reduction provided for in the Act in any way that the Commission may please.
  And then, after all is said and done, there comes in. the operation of that beneficent local option. Local option is to override the magistrates, and how in the world anyone can say that this Bill, with clauses of that sort, restores liberty to the justices, I for one, cannot understand. But there is another objection to this Bill, and it is that it entirely breaks up all continuity of legislation. I am sorry that the Government, if we are to judge by their usual practice, considers this to be rather an advantage than otherwise. Unfortunately if there is a violent way of doing a thing and a quiet way, the Government almost invariably choose the violent method. This is the way in which they have dealt with all that in the past has been customary in legislation, and more especially that dealing with land, and the only misfortune is that their knowledge is not equal to their audacity in these matters. This Bill professes in some degree to proceed upon the Act of 1904, but how does it do it? It takes out of the Act of 1904 anything that happens to be convenient for the purpose of this new system. The Act of 1904 enacted that all redundant public-houses were to be reduced, and established a compensation levy for the purpose of compensating them. It also ordained that that levy was to be paid by the trade. Now what doss this Bill do? It says that after fourteen or twenty-one years all licences are to belong to the State, and that during fourteen years there is to be a compensation levy upon, this unfortunate trade from whom the whole of their property is to be taken away. Is there any conceivable reasons why members of the trade should be called upon to contribute in this way any more than your Lordships? Then there is this question of compromise. The noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, told us to-night that here was a grand opportunity for a compromise in regard to which we might make ourselves famous. Unfortunately the noble Earl's arguments appeared to me to be rather in support of the
  632
  action which your Lordships have decided to take, because after what has happened in. a mother place it is quite certain that the Government would not accede to any compromise either with regard to the Central Commission, the statutory reduction, the time-limit, or Schedule A as the basis of compensation. Unless the Government are prepared to make a compromise on those points it is utterly impossible that any of your Lordships with your present opinions can vote for the Second Reading of this Bill.
  There were two possible courses open with regard to this Bill. One was to reject it on the Second Reading and the other was to read it a second time and then proceed to amend it. Whichever of those two courses was adopted the result was certain to be the same. It was merely a difference of procedure, and that is why I tell the House frankly I made up my mind after great consideration to support the Motion which has been proposed by my noble friend the Marquess of Lansdowne. I felt certain that there was no chance whatever of compromise on any of those principles of the Bill, and that unless it could be radically and fundamentally altered the only course for me to pursue was to support its rejection. Whichever of those two courses your Lordships had adopted the result would have been the same, although perhaps the criticisms would have been slightly different. It you decide to reject the Bill on the Second Reading it will be said, as has been said, on some previous occasions, that your Lordships are enemies of temperance. On the other hand, suppose you elect to read the Bill a second time, and after amending it you find that the Government will not accept your Amendments? You will then be told that, having accepted the main principles of the Bill on the Second Reading, you have no right to propose Amendments which go to the root of those principles, and that really you are acting in a cowardly manner. You will be told that you hate this Bill, that you have always wanted to throw it out, and that you have taken an indirect and cowardly way of doing it. That is the only difference, so far as I can see, between trying to amend this

  633
  Bill and taking the course which the noble Marquess proposes. I can never assent to several of the principles in this Bill. I think you are not merely doing what is uncalled for by this measure, but you are doing what is unjust; and so far as I am concerned I shall give my vote unhesitatingly for the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
  VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I do not intend that on this occasion my vote shall be misunderstood. I wish in the first place to point out that I do not belong to any syndicate connected with the trade, nor do I own any brewery shares. I do not propose at this late hour to enter into a discussion of the time-limit proposed by this Bill. On that point I am quite satisfied with the definition which has been given by my noble friend Viscount St. Aldwyn, and my noble and learned friend Lord Robertson, and others. What I do say is that the main reason why I am not prepared to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill is that the compensation clauses are most unfair and unjust. I do not wish to put a licence on the same footing as a freehold, but if you take away a man's property he has a right to demand, to be paid the full price for it. I am afraid noble Lords opposite cannot feel well satisfied with the speeches of two of their spokesmen to-night. The noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, alluded to Gatton Park and what took place there before the Reform Bill, and he said that if property was taken by the State the person who owned it was entitled to compensation. I wonder why he did not allude to the famous "Coach and Horses" public-house connected with the War Office. I do not know whether that case has entered into the consideration of His Majesty's Ministers. Then we had the speech of the Bishop of Hereford, who talked a great deal about the crime that was caused by the trade carried on under off-licences. The noble Lord should not forget that the originator of off-licences was the late Mr. Gladstone. It is quite true that good intentions pervade all the remarks we have heard in favour of temperance from the right reverend Prelates, but they have never given us any information as to how this Bill is going to effect
  634
  temperance at all beyond reducing licences. I wish to put before your Lordships this point. If all these public-houses are automatically reduced you will absolutely prevent working men in the country districts being able to get a glass of fresh beer. It is perfectly well-known that the only result of that will be that every working man who is not a teetotaller will deliberately set to work and get a bottle of spirits, probably of a fiery quality, and take it to his own house. There is no doubt that that will be very bad indeed, not only for the present, but for future generations also. It must be a bad thing if, instead of allowing facilities for working men to drink good wholesome beer in our country districts, you compel those who desire to take intoxicating liquors to have a bottle of spirits at home. I have never yet heard any remarks made to show why those who live in agricultural districts should not be allowed the fullest opportunity of obtaining wholesome beer. I would ask those who talk so much about temperance to remember that the working men in the country villages who are not teetotallers desire to have alcoholic drink, and it is better for them to take good pure wholesome beer than fiery spirits. It is also better that they should consume their beer in a well-controlled public-house rather than in a club. If there is one thing which to me will justify the vote I am going to give on this question it is the remark made by the right rev. Prelate, who said that privilege Amendments have no meaning whatever. We know perfectly well what would happen if we sanctioned the Second Reading of this Bill. We have had a sad experience of that kind of thing before. Your Lordships are aware of previous instances where Amendments have been made in this House, and the Government in the other House have immediately proposed their rejection. We know perfectly well that anything which might be done here would be a question of privilege, and the whole thing would be lost in amazement, because the British public do not understand privilege Amendments. I prefer to go to the country with a perfectly clear record, and my vote is going to be given against the Second Reading of this Bill, because it has not been

  635
  proved by any speaker in this House that, with the solitary exception of the provision for the reduction of licences, this Bill is in any way a temperance measure. No other temperance argument has been brought forward, and this Bill is founded upon the principle of giving most unjust compensation for legitimate property, and that is simple, plain robbery.
  LORD GLANTAWE: My Lords, the attempts which have been made before the introduction of this Bill to further the cause of temperance and moderate drinking have been of very great value to the working classes. Many of your Lordships will remember the state of things which existed before the Act of 1872 was passed. At that period drunkenness was very rife and trade was prosperous. Frequently, during periods when trade is prosperous, drinking takes place in the ratio of the amount of working men s earnings. The Act I have referred to has had a good effect amongst the working classes. The Sunday Closing Act of 1881 has also been of very great benefit, not only to the working classes but also to employers, and consequently to the State as well. Before the Sunday Closing Act of 1881 was passed all employers of labour know how difficult it was to get working men to attend to their duties on a Monday morning, but the passing of that Act had almost an immediate beneficial effect, and the work done in our different manufactories on Monday is now equal to that carried on upon any other day in the week. That has had a wonderful effect upon the cost of production and of the materials used, because it is a well-known fact, especially where furnaces are employed at enormous cost, a great waste used to take place on account of the men not turning up on Monday morning, and this used to add considerably to the cost of production. Although I shall give my vote for the Second Reading of this measure, I wish to state that there may be clauses in the Bill that need amendment, and on that score I am very sorry that your Lordships have deemed it right and proper to reject the Second Reading without attempting to make it into a workable Bill. I regret your Lordships have
  636
  resolved to receive this measure in a contrary spirit to that in which it has been introduced by the Government. There are several important clauses in this Bill, and one of them is Clause 22, which gives the licensing justices the power of attaching conditions to the renewal of licences. One important part of that clause relates to Sunday closing, and it gives power to close public-houses during the whole of Sunday, or of still further limiting the hours during which public-houses may be open on Sundays. Another very important part of that clause is that no drink shall be supplied before eight o'clock in the morning. Those of us who have mixed amongst the working classes know how detrimental this habit of drinking in the early hours of the morning has been in very many places. Frequently people who work all through the night finish their work between five and six o'clock in the morning, and the fact that public-houses are open during those hours frequently gives, working men a taste for drink which keeps them in the public-house pretty well the whole of the day instead of their going home to rest. The consequence is that they are almost unfit for the work they have to perform during the following night. Another important part of this clause is subsection (g) which proposes to close partly or wholly public-houses on election days more especially in regard to local elections. We know how very detrimental drinking is upon polling days. We know also what a large amount of drink is illegally consumed on those occasions. With them it is not so much a question whether the person they vote for is better qualified for carrying on the duties of a local administrator as whether he is able to satisfy their craving for drink. Drink frequently settles the election, and guides those who vote for the different candidates placed before them. Then there are limitations as to the power of the justices, and when it is proposed that they should grant licences conditionally no conditional licence can be granted without due notice being given. There are other clauses such as the penalty clauses for the non-performance of the conditions of licence.
  I have watched this Bill very closely in its progress through the other

  637
  House, and I have read carefully many of the speeches made in another place, more especially those by the representatives of Labour. With regard to the latter speeches you will find, with scarcely a single exception, that every representative of Labour in the other House is in favour of this Bill, and they have all voted for it with the exception of a few who were unable to be present, and they took good care to pair in favour of the measure. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me when I say that no one is more qualified to decide upon what is for the benefit of the working classes than those who directly represent them in the House of Commons. I do not wish to find fault with the trade or with any of those who supply working men with drink. I know well from my long experience amongst them—having sat on the bench with them for many years—that there are some very excellent men among the licensed victuallers. There are also bad ones amongst them the same as there is in every other section of society. I do not wish to put any impediment in the way of people getting a moderate amount of drink. I know that in many cases it is absolutely necessary that they should be able to get it. I know a good many cases where working men have been teetotallers from their youth. I have heard it said in the course of this debate in your Lordships' House that it is impossible for a working man to perform his work properly without having a certain amount of drink. There are exceptions to that, and I know many worthy exceptions. But in the case of working men who cannot conduct themselves properly it is absolutely necessary that we should, as far as possible, limit the temptations offered to them to procure drink because it not only injures them physically, but it also forms a very expensive luxury. In the course of the debate one noble Lord said that many working men spend 6d. per day on beer. Another noble Lord said 6d. per day would not affect him very much, but he evidently forgets that to a working man who earns about 20s. or 25s. a week, and has a wife and family of three or four children to support, 6d. per day is a very serious item, and that money would be very much better applied to obtaining
  638
  other comforts for the family than in being spent on drink. Therefore, I think it is, necessary that we should, as far as possible limit temptations to drink because in the experience of those who have mixed with working men the less temptations they have the better and more sober they remain. Personally, I am exceedingly sorry that your Lordships have deemed it proper to throw this Bill out on the Second Reading without giving it full consideration. I feel certain that the feeling which will be let in the minds of the majority of the people will be that your Lordships' House thinks more of the interests of the trade than of leading the people of this country into more temperate habits.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: On behalf of Lord Balfour of Burleigh I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Debate adjourned till to-morrow,
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock, till to-morrow, Twelve o'clock.