Sitting of 30 November 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Hastings Harbour Bill.—As amended, considered.
Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
King's Consent signified.—Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Bill.—Read a second time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday,

PETITIONS.
  ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
  Petition from Plymouth, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition of Tilonko, a Chief of the Embo tribe of Zulus, for inquiry into his case; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NATAL.
  Copy presented, of Further Correspondence relating to the Trial of certain Natives in Natal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (SCHEMES FOR REGULATION OF HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, ETC., IN CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS).
  Copy presented, of Schemes for the Regulation of Hours of Employment, intervals, and holidays of workers in Charitable Institutions, approved by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the powers conferred on him by the Factory and Workshop Act, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
  Copy presented, of an Order, No. 7605, dated 21st November, 1908, permitting the landing at Deptford Foreign Animals Wharf of Animals carried on board the s.s. "Marquetto" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
  Copy presented, of an Order, No. 7606, dated 21st November, 1908, permitting the landing at the Deptford Foreign Animals Wharf of Animals carried on board the s.s. "Minnehaha" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd July; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 340.]
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for 1906–7. Part II. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 333.]
  IRISH LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Return giving by Counties and Provinces the area, Poor Law valuation, and purchase money of: (a) Lands sold; and (b) lands in respect of which proceedings have been instituted and are pending for sale under the Irish Land Purchase Acts; also the estimated area, Poor Law valuation, and purchase money of lands in respect of which proceedings for sale have not been instituted under the said Acts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Old-Age Pensions Regulation.
  MR. FENWICK (): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a man and his wife, whose joint income amounts to £27 3s. 2d. per annum are entitled to the full pension, the income being derived as follows: Miners' Permanent Relief Fund £12 9s. 2d., friendly society, £5 4s., interest on money invested £3, allowed for free house £6 10s., both applicants being over seventy years of age.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) If the whole income belonged to the husband he would be entitled to a pension of 2s. If less than the whole he would be entitled to from 2s. to 5s., according to the amount of his income. The wife (provided that the part, if any, of the joint income which was her exclusive property did not exceed £21 a year) would be entitled to a pension of 5s.

  Extra Police in County Galway.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how the extra police at present stationed in County Galway are distributed; and the reasons in each case for the continued retention of these men in each district.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The present distribution of the extra force in

  —

  Head Constables.

  Sergeants and Constables.

  Athenry Constabulary District

  1

  57

  Ballinasloe Constabulary District

  —

  39

  Loughrea Constabulary District

  —

  60

  Mountbellew Constabulary District

  —

  39

  Portumna Constabulary District

  —

  8

  Woodford Constabulary District

  —

  17

  Clifden Constabulary District

  —

  3

  Dumnore Constabulary District

  —

  25

  Galway Constabulary District

  —

  20

  Gort Constabulary District

  —

  45

  Oughterard Constabulary District

  —

  3

  Tuam Constabulary District

  —

  29

  Total

  1

  345

  The extra force in each of the districts with the exception of Oughterard, is required to prevent cattle-driving and forms of disorder arising therefrom, to protect certain persons who require protection, and generally to preserve the peace. The three police in Oughterard district are required for emergencies elsewhere in the West Riding, but are lodged in that district because there is no room to house them in other districts.

  Irish Land Stock.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the new Irish Land Bill, it is proposed that vendors under agreements lodged before 1st November should have the option of taking, in lieu of cash, either Two and three-quarters per cent. Guaranteed Stock at a minimum of 92, on the lines proposed by the
  the County of Galway is as follows, viz.—
  Departmental Committee of the Treasury, or the proposed new Three per cent. Stock at its face value; and whether vendors subsequent to 1st November will have any option or will be compelled to accept payment in Three per cent. Stock only.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I would refer the noble Lord to Clauses 3 (2) and 3 (3) of the Bill which has just been issued.

  Restoration of the Sigginshaggard Evicted Tenants.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Sigginshaggard evicted tenants belonging to the Carew estate, who were evicted about 1886, have not yet been restored to their homes, although the estate was sold some time ago; and whether, as neither landlord nor

  1049
  anybody else objects to their restoration, he can say what is the cause of the delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) This estate has not yet been sold to the Estates Commissioners, but the owner informed the Commissioners on the 12th instant that he was prepared to accept the prices estimated by them for the evicted farms. The evicted tenants will, it is hoped, be reinstated at an early date.

  Land for Evicted Tenants on the Douglas Estate.
  MR. J. PHILLIPS: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners are about to acquire compulsorily for the benefit of the evicted tenants about 400 acres of land on the Douglas estate, County Longford; whether, with a view to fixing the price, an inspector visited and inspected, these lands only last week; whether within the last few days a local grazier's son named Harris Martin has stepped in and become tenant of part of the lands about to be so acquired; and, if so, will he, in the interest of the peace of the district, request the Estates Commissioners to expedite the negotiations and clear out the new occupier.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am making inquiries as to the case, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Share of Bog Land on Irish Estates.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners on estates where sales are completed and the lands vested in the tenants to secure that labourers having houses and plots of their own, or labourers living in district council cottages on those estates, get portions of the common bog in each of those estates; and whether, to secure that those labourers shall in future get turf on the bog of the estate in which their houses are situate, he will request the Estates Commissioners to
  1050
  issue a new rule, insisting that all labourers shall get a share of the common bog on each estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Where an advance is made to trustees under Section 4 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, for the purchase of land containing turbary, the land is vested in the trustees subject to a scheme framed in accordance with Section 20 of the Act. Under such schemes the trustees have power, when the reasonable requirements of the purchasing tenants have been provided for, to permit other persons in the neighbourhood to cut turf on the land on such conditions as to payment as the trustees may prescribe. The case of the sale of an estate where portion of the holding consists of bog, on which the purchaser had not an exclusive right of turbary, is provided for by Section 21 of the Act of 1903, as amended by Section 24 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906. No alteration in the existing practice appears to be necessary.

  Administration of Tubrid School, County Fermanagh.
  MR. JORDAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if hi3 attention has been drawn to the alleged maladministration of the charity known as the Tubrid School, situated in County Fermanagh, Ireland, by the rector of the parish and the body known as the governors; is he aware that there exists considerable excitement in the county and neighbourhood at the treatment said to have been given to the boys under the trust; is he aware of the public desire that an efficient inquiry should be appointed to investigate the manner in which this charity has been administered; and whether he proposes to institute such an inquiry.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The institution referred to appears to be that known as Vaughan's Charitable School. I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland to a Question on the subject asked by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's division on the 23rd instant.

  Irish Land Purchase Prices.
  MR. KILBRIDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state, in the case where the selling landlord under the Land Purchase Act, 1903, has been paid his agreed price, and where the tenant purchaser, owing to delay in getting his vesting order, continues to pay the Land Commissioner 3½ per cent. on the agreed price, what becomes of the extra ¼ per cent. paid by the tenant purchaser sometimes for months; does it go to facilitate land purchase, does the Treasury benefit, or is it placed to the credit of the tenant purchaser.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I understand the hon. Member to refer to cases in which the Land Commission purchase estates under Section 6 or 7 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, for resale. In such cases Section 18 of the Act provides that the interest payable to the Land Commission under Section 35 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, shall be at the rate of not less than 3½ per cent. per annum. Estates so purchased frequently include a considerable extent of untenanted land which may have to be held by the Commissioners before distribution for some time after the vendor has been paid his agreed price. This involves expenses of management and the payment of local rates and taxes. The ¼ per cent. referred to in the Question is required for these payments, and also for a working balance to meet the claims of the National Debt Commissioners which, if not met when due, would have to be advanced out of the Guarantee Fund. The Treasury does not benefit.

  Police Protection of Mr. Lewis, of County Galway.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number and cost of the extra police employed as a protection force for Mr. Lewis, County Galway; and whether he can give any reason why such expenditure should be continued.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Five extra police are employed for the protection
  1052
  of the Messrs. Lewis and their property. Their pay amounts to £286 per annum. It is hoped that the matter which necessitated the employment of this extra force will shortly be settled, and that it will be possible to withdraw the police.

  Eviction of Mr. Walsh, of Kilmurry, County Kerry.
  MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state by whose authority a force of police accompanied, the Under-Sheriff of the County of Kerry to evict Mr. Richard J. Walsh, of Kilmurry, Castleisland, County Kerry, recently, when it was a matter of public notoriety that Mr. Walsh's mother, an old woman of eighty years, was unfit for removal, and considerable expense to the public funds thereby incurred.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police, force attended upon the requisition of the sheriff. The authorities are bound to afford sufficient protection in such cases. The sheriff declined to act on the rumour that Mrs. Walsh was ill and unable to be moved, but he took a doctor to examine the sick woman, and, upon his certificate, further proceedings were abandoned.

  Bonus on Irish Land Purchase Agreements.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the case that since the publication of the new Treasury Regulations any further purchase agreements will be subject to the fact that only a bonus of 3 per cent. will be available unless and until the new Irish Land Bill is passed into law; and can he say whether in any future agreements, pending the passing of fresh legislation, tenant purchasers will have to pay the increased interest of 3 per cent. now proposed, or will they only be liable for payment of the old rate of 2¾ per cent.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Answer to the second part is that, pending the passing of fresh legislation, there is no power to make the rate of interest 3 per cent. or any

  1053
  rate different from the old rate of 2¾ per cent.

  Kneller Hall Training for Army Musicians attached to Regiments serving Abroad.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it would be possible to make arrangements for promising musicians serving with battalions out of the United Kingdom to have the advantage of training at the Kneller Hall School of Military Music; is he aware that musicians with regiments abroad are in many cases during all or almost all their term of service deprived of this advantage where they join a corps just going or that has recently gone on foreign service or that is sent on foreign service soon after they join; and is he aware that in many cases the men would be willing to contribute to any extra cost involved in their going home for some musical training.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) In making selections of soldiers for training as bandsmen at Kneller Hall the claims of those belonging to units serving abroad are not overlooked, and, at the present time, more than one-fourth of the total number under training belong to such units. In the case of boys enlisting at home for the band of a unit serving abroad endeavours are made to have them trained at Kneller Hall before they are sent abroad. Bandsmen serving abroad, on completing six years service abroad, can, if they have nine years total service, apply to be sent to the home battalion, and their places are then filled by bandsmen from home who have probably undergone a course at the school. During the past year forty-three men belonging to units abroad have been trained at the school.

  Official Board of Arbitration.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government will take into immediate consideration the advisability of conferring with the Labour Members respecting the establishment of an official Board of Arbitration upon the principles already in operation in certain British Colonies and Continental
  1054
  countries, with a view to the amicable settlement of trade disputes.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) In view of the great variety of principles on which. Foreign and Colonial Arbitration Acts are based, I am not quite clear as to the particular principles to which the hon. Member refers, but I would remind him that I ha e recently set up a standing Court of Arbitration with a view to giving better effect to the intention of the Conciliation Act. He will find particulars of the scheme in the Memorandum which I have caused to be forwarded to him. I propose to await experience of this scheme before considering other proposals.

  Hours of Drivers and Firemen on Midland Great Western Railway.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that drivers and firemen working His Majesty's mail on the Midland Great Western lines are working twelve hours per day, and that the nine hours of duty is systematic instead of being used in cases of urgency; whether he is aware that ballast drivers, firemen, and guards are working twelve, fourteen, and sometimes sixteen hours per day for five days of the week and then get a day off to make the total number of hours for the week look small; and whether he can state what is the delay in appointing the conciliation boards on the Midland Great Western line.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) As regards hours of duty the Board have received a letter from the company, of which I am forwarding a copy to the hon. Member. The explanations given therein will be carefully examined. Details of a scheme of conciliation boards for this railway have been arranged, and the company state that circulars and nomination papers will be issued to the staff with as little delay as possible.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that several railway companies in Ireland have lodging houses or barracks for their drivers, firemen, and guards when booked away from home; whether he can state if these men get proper rest, as the nature of their duties are onerous; whether he

  1055
  will state what steps are taken to see that these lodging-houses or barracks are in proper sanitary condition; and whether he is aware that these lodging houses or barracks are sometimes situate in the precincts of busy shunting yards, where operations are carried on day and night.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The sanitary condition of the lodging-houses or barracks referred to is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade, but if the hon. Member furnishes me with specific instances in which it is affirmed that owing to the situation of the houses the men occupying them are unable to obtain proper rest, I will carefully consider whether representations on the subject can usefully be made to the railway company or companies concerned.

  American Gooseberry Mildew Fungicides.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can give a complete list of the names of the fungicides in use against American gooseberry mildew on which the Board have been consulted by local authorities, and which the Board have declared to be efficient; and whether the Board will publish regularly the names of such approved fungicides, as is done in the case of sheep-dips.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The preparations on which the Board have been consulted by local authorities are: (1) Chafer's dressing for American gooseberry-mildew; (2) Herrod's gooseberry-mildew dressing; (3) Simplex spray fluid; (4) V2K fluid. Each was stated to contain in the strength prescribed by the Order liver of sulphur which the Board regard as the effective fungicide. As the preparations did not appear to contain any ingredient which would reduce the efficiency of the liver of sulphur or injure the bushes, the Board raised no objection to their use. The Board do not think that any useful purpose would be served at the present time by undertaking the examination and approval of proprietary preparations.

  Work for Unemployed on Hackney Marshes.
  MR. BROOKE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state what are the reasons why the Central (Unemployed) Body with Hackney Marshes contiguous to the East End of London, have not long ago proposed a scheme or schemes for its reclamation, etc., which would have provided work for a large number of the unemployed during this winter of acute distress.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The subject has not been lost sight of by the Central (Unemployed) Body. There are about 160 men now employed at Hackney Marshes whose wages are defrayed by the Central Body and a further scheme of work in connection therewith is now under their consideration.

  Work for Unemployed at Poplar.
  MR. BROOKE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that since his Order removing the disqualifications of poor law relief and of two successive periods of works under the Central (Unemployed) Body, 772 men have registered themselves at the offices of the Poplar Distress Committee, making, together with those registered previous to that Order, a totals up to 21st November, of 2,932 men; and whether, considering that, up to the same date, only 202 of this total had been given work by the Central (Unemployed) Body, he proposes to take any steps to-accelerate the action of that body in providing work for more of these men.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I understand that the numbers stated in the Question are substantially correct. I believe that the Central (Unemployed) Body are making every effort to find suitable work for the unemployed of Poplar and elsewhere in London, and that they have now several schemes under consideration.

  Second Division Clerkship Examinations.
  MR. COCHRANE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to candidates who are preparing themselves for examination for clerkships in

  1057
  the second division of the Civil Service, by the intimation issued by the Civil Service Commissioners that it is not likely that a competition will be required in the spring and summer of 1909; and whether he can name any prospective date for the next competitive examination for clerkships in the second division.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) Examinations for clerkships in the Civil Service, whether in the second division or otherwise, are necessarily held to meet the requirements of public departments. While, therefore, I regret that inconvenience should be caused to candidates by the suspension of examinations, I could not regard such a reason as a justification for holding examinations when not required. As regards the immediate future I understand that the present supply of second division clerks will satisfy the public requirements for a great many months to come, and I do not think it would be possible at this stage to name even an approximate date for the next examination.

  Proposed Purchase of Disused Coastguard Station at Fethard by New Ross Board of Guardians.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the New Ross Board of Guardians made an offer to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, about eighteen months ago, to purchase one of the houses belonging to the disused Coastguard station at Fethard for £120, or to rent it at £6 a year, proposing to use it as a dispensary; and whether, as no reply has been sent to the New Ross Guardians, he will ascertain what the Commissioners propose to do with reference to the guardians' offer.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I am informed that the house in question had to be reserved for the Customs service, and that this fact was pointed out in the course of correspondence between the Board's local officer and the clerk of the union, who subsequently discussed at an interview the possibility of the guardians acquiring another of the station houses. Pending the receipt of the further views of the guardians the matter has been in abeyance. The Board are redeeming the
  1058
  head rent charged on the property, and, as soon as the legal formalities have been completed, the property will be publicly advertised for sale, and the guardians will be invited to make an offer for such portion of the premises as will not be required for public purposes.

  Civil Service Pensions—Widows and Orphans.
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the approximate number of civil servants with pensionable service who have died since the promise of early action in connection With deferred pay was made by the Treasury in February last, and whose widows and orphans have consequently been deprived of sums which are admittedly their due; whether, in view of the constantly increasing number of widows and orphans of civil servants who are thus deprived of an admitted right, he will inquire whether the introduction of legislation on the subject has already been unduly delayed; and whether the matter can be expedited so as to admit of an immediate remedy for the existing state of affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have no statistics of the number of deaths of civil servants with pensionable service since February last, nor can I say how many of them, if the proposed new scheme had been in operation, would have elected to sacrifice a part of the benefits secured them by the existing Superannuation Acts in order to secure the contemplated life assurance. There is, of course, no question of depriving the widows and orphans of such civil servants of anything due to them. The preparation of a Bill is being proceeded with as rapidly as possible, and it will, as I have already promised, be introduced next session. Regard being had to the complexity of the subject, I do not think there has been any unreasonable delay.

  Railway Companies' Contributions to Local Rates.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amounts contributed annually by the railways of the United Kingdom to the Exchequer and to local rates respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am unable to give the specific information desired by the right hon. Member in regard to contributions by British railways. I may, however, say that the amount of railway passenger duty received in 1907–8 was—

  £

  For England

  321,684

  For Scotland

  23,377

  Total

  £345,061

  Old-Age Pensions in Scotland—Issue of Regulations in Gaelic.
  MR. WEIR: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the majority of persons over seventy years of age in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland speak Gaelic only, will he consider the expediency of having the regulations in regard to old-age pensions issued in those districts in Gaelic.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I may refer my hon. friend to the Answer which I gave on the 3rd instant to my hon. friend the Member for Sutherland. If he will bring to my notice any case of hardship, I shall be glad to have it inquired into, and will see that the necessary steps are taken in the matter.

  Civil Rights of Christian Converts from the Hindu Religion.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Under-Secretary for India whether his attention has been called to an Answer given to a Question put in this House by the present Lord President of the Council, to the effect that in the case of Dasappa v. Chikkamma, dated 21st December, 1894, the chief Court of Mysore decided that a convert to Christianity, in consequence of his change of faith was ipso facto deprived of his right of guardianship over his children, and it was stated that an apostate from the Hindu religion loses his civil rights; whether his attention has been called to a judgment, dated 2nd September, 1907, delivered in the same State, of which the result has been that converts to the Christian religion suffer greater disability, by Hindu law, than one
  1060
  convicted and imprisoned for murder, inasmuch as converts are deprived of the ability to sue for their civil rights; whether he can supply a copy of the judgment referred to; whether he is aware that the Mysore Durbar appointed an influential committee, on which all castes were represented, to draft a regulation for the removal of these disabilities, but that such regulation, although prepared and published, was not adopted; and whether, in view of this draft regulation not having been brought into force, he can see his way to approach the Government of India with a view to suggesting to the Mysore Durbar the advisability of introducing the measure in question or some similar measure in order to remove the disabilities under which native converts to Christianity now suffer.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Secretary of State is aware of the Answer given in this House on 12th March, 1903, as to the disabilities attaching to converts from Hinduism in the Mysore State. His attention has been drawn to the judgment of the chief Court of Mysore, to which the hon. Members refers, but he does not possess a copy of the judgment and cannot speak as to its exact purport. He has been informed unofficially that no steps have yet been taken by the Mysore Durbar to give effect to a regulation on the subject drawn up by a committee appointed by them. The Government of India are being asked to report upon the present position of the question.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Myles Sweeney.
  MR. F. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any action in the case of Myles Sweeney, of Lisacoghel, Drumkeerin, an evicted tenant on the Montgomery estate, County Leitrim, who was reinstated in May last and has not received any portion of the free grant to enable him to rebuild his house and stock his farm.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not sanctioned any grant in this case.

  Purchase of the Deering and Quinton Sick Estate at Dunmore.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have been able to locate the whereabouts of Mr. George E. Deering; whether they have made any proposal to him for the sale of his Dunmore, County Galway, property; and whether they can give any information as to the position in which the Captain Quinton Dick (late Handcock) property, of Corrontilla, Dunmore, County Galway, now stands.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are not in a position to give any particulars in reference to these properties, which do not appear to be pending for sale before them.

  Rents on the Roderick O'Connor Estate.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board, which purchased the Roderick O'Connor estate in May, 1907, have again demanded this month from the tenants on the Galway portion of the estate the old rents without any reduction; if so, will he say why has no reduction been made as expected, and when is it to come into operation.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) A year's rent has been demanded by the Congested Districts Board, as stated in the Question. The estate has not yet been vested in the Congested Districts Board as their property, and they have therefore no power to reduce the rents. The holdings on the Galway section of the estate will be re-sold as soon as possible after the estate has been vested in the Board.

  Irish Junior Assistant Teachers Standard of Efficiency.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what standard of efficiency is being insisted upon by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland in the case of junior assistant teachers who have at least two years service, in order that they may qualify for their share of the £114,000 grant; whether he is aware that
  1062
  no stipulation whatever was made as to efficiency when the scale of payments was passed by Parliament; and what the Commissioners propose to do with moneys saved through some junior assistant teachers proving inefficient.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to the revised Supplementary Estimate of 28th July last (H.C. Paper 255) in which it is stipulated that junior assistant mistresses sharing in the grant should have two years efficient service. The Commissioners of National Education inform me that a moderate standard of efficiency is required. I am unable to reply to the concluding portion of the Question, as the Commissioners have not yet completed the payment of junior assistant mistresses.

  Purchase of Colonel Blake's Estate at Carnacon.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the negotiations between the Estates Commissioners and Colonel M. C. J. Blake for the purchase of the latter's property at Carnacon, Ballyglass, County Mayo, have been successful; and, if not, will he state the cause.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In view of pending legislation the Estates Commissioners have decided not to make any offer for the estate at present.

  Delay in Purchase of Estate at Caploughlan.
  MR. DELANYTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the cause of the delay in the completion of the sale to the tenants of the estate of the Endowed Commissioners of Education, situated at Caploughlan, Mountrath, Queen's County, whose agreements have been signed over two years; and, in view of the fact that the tenants are paying 4 per cent. on the purchase money, will he see that the vesting order is issued in this case with the least possible delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the purchase agreements in respect of this estate

  1063
  were not lodged until June, 1907. The Commissioners will deal with them in their proper order and with due regard to the priority of other estates in which the agreements were lodged earlier.

  Sentence of Patrick Sweeney.
  MR. DELANY: TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the appeal of Patrick Sweeney, Killadooley, Ballybrophy, Queen's County, fell through owing to a technical error on the part of his solicitors, who was sentenced to a term of six months imprisonment with hard labour by Messrs. Dease and Fitzgerald, resident magistrates, at the petty sessions in Rathdowney last July, for an alleged assault on the police-sergeant of Borris-in-Ossory, in connection with a cattle-drive, and after the expiration of this term ordered to find bail for twelve months or in default to go to prison for another six months, and taking into consideration that Sweeney had no time to prepare his defence, being arrested only a few hours before the Court sat, he will recommend a mitigation of the sentence.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Patrick Sweeney was convicted at Rathdowney petty sessions in July last, of having assaulted a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary while in the execution of his duty, by striking him on the head with a heavy club, and the sentence mentioned in the Question was imposed. He appealed to Quarter Sessions, but the Court decided that they had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the necessary notice had not been served. It is not within my province to advise the Lord-Lieutenant in his exercise of the clemency of the Crown, or to make any recommendation to His Excellency on the subject. I understand that the Lord-Lieutenant has already carefully considered a memorial sent to him by the prisoner, and has decided that the law must take its course.

  Payment of Salaries of Irish National School Teachers.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Board of National Education is aware of the inconveniences and often hardships
  1064
  inflicted on Irish national teachers by the present practice of the Board in returning all salary claims, when passed for payment, to the managers of the schools, instead of sending them direct to the teachers; whether, in view of the fact that the manager has countersigned the claim in the first instance, and must therefore know its nature, what reason does the Board advance for returning the claim to him; and whether, if the Board cannot see its way to reverse its practice in all cases, would it be prepared to forward the claims direct in individual cases if requested to do so by the managers concerned.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for West Clare on the 26th February, 1907.

  Sale of the Jordan Estate at Cloanmore.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Jordan estate, situate at Cloanmore, Murneen Electoral District of the Claremorris Union, has been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, whether he will state the number of years purchase asked by the landlord and offered by the Board, and when the negotiations will be completed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) This estate was offered to the Congested Districts Board in 1905; but, owing to the want of funds for improvements, they had in the following year to postpone the matter. The position remains unaltered.

  Drainage of the River Robe.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have considered the advisability of undertaking the whole of the drainage of the River Robe, County Mayo; and, if so, whether there would be any chance of having the work started early in the coming spring, with a view to saving hundreds of acres that are flooded in the spring and autumn of each year and thereby rendered almost useless to the tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have nothing to add to my reply to a Question on this subject asked by the hon. Member on the 14th April last.

  Count Blake Estate, County Mayo.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Count Blake estate, situate at Ballinafad, in the Castlebar Union, County Mayo, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners or to the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, what is the number of years purchase asked by the landlord, and the number offered, if any, by either of the bodies named.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) This estate has not been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners.

  Begley Estate, Iskerlavally.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Begley estate, Iskerlavally, in the Claremorris Union, was offered to the Congested Districts Board for sale; and if so, how many years purchase was asked by the landlord and how many was offered by the tenants; whether the estate was inspected by the Board; whether the sale was sanctioned; and, if not, will he say why.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The estate has been purchased by the Congested Districts Board.

  Acquisition of Sir Compton Domville's Estate.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have yet done anything in the way of acquiring the estate of Sir Compton Domville, situate in the parish of Aughamore, in the Claremorris Union; and, if not, whether they will Te-open negotiations with a view to a speedy sale of the grass lands thereon, and the removal of congestion in the immediate neighbourhood.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The question of purchasing this estate was brought
  1066
  before the Congested Districts Board some time ago; but, owing to the want of funds for making improvements, they were obliged to postpone the matter. The solicitors for the estate were so informed in October, 1907. The position remains unaltered.

  Sons of Head Constables and Cadetships in Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the sons of officers in the Royal Irish Constabulary and other young men who can procure nominations are eligible for examination for cadetships in that force, and that the sons of head constables, many of whom were prevented by the age limit from attaining higher rank, are debarred; and, if so, whether he will take the necessary steps to enable them to secure nomination for such examinations.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The facts are as stated. I do not propose to make any change in the existing system.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Portsmouth Government Contracts and Fair Wages.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that the firm of Messrs. Morrison and Mason, Government contractors at Portsmouth, are not observing the Fair Wage Clause in the payment of their labourers; and whether he will take action in the matter.
    MR. BRAMSDON: At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the contract with Messrs. Mason and Morrison, in connection with the construction of the new lock at Portsmouth, contains the Fair Wage Clause; if so, is he aware that the labourers employed by that firm are being paid 5d. per hour instead of 6d., the recognised rate in the neighbourhood; whether outside labourers are being engaged notwithstanding that there are still local men unemployed; and what course the Admiralty intend to adopt in the matter.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The point raised in the Question is one of considerable difficulty, and my hon. friend the Financial Secretary has gone into the whole matter with the greatest care. To summarise the conclusions come to, it would appear that 6d. an hour is the current rate for builders' labourers, but that the corporation and other employers who recognise this rate for general labourers do in fact pay less than 6d. per hour, and in some cases as little as 4½d., for labour which may be regarded as less skilled than that of the builders' labourer. The joint committee of the local railway companies pay men engaged on their permanent way 18s. per week, which, at forty-eight hours per week, would represent 4½d. an hour, and some of the unskilled labourers in the dockyard are paid at the rate of 5½d. an hour. From all the evidence, it appears to be shown conclusively that, while the current rate for builders' labourers is 6d. an hour, the rate current in the locality for less skilled labour is certainly below that figure. Having regard to the class of labour employed by Messrs. Morrison and Mason for which they pay less than 6d. per hour, it cannot be said, on a review of all the circumstances, and of the rate current in the locality, that there has been any infraction of the Fair Wages Clause.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this firm paid 27s. 6d. up to September, and then reduced wages without notice?
    MR. MCKENNA: I was not aware of that fact.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: Did not the Department three weeks ago apply to the United Trades Labour Council at Portsmouth in regard to this matter?
    MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Sir.
    MR. WATT: How is the recognised rate in the neighbour hood arrived at? Does it not vary in different trades?
    MR. MCKENNA: It varies more particularly in regard to the cost of living in the district. The Admiralty only discover it lay close inquiry among all firms.
    MR. CORRIEGRANT: When the Secretary to the Admiralty makes inquiries does he consult the leaders of the local trade unions?
    MR. MCKENNA: I will inquire.
    MR. CROOKS: Does he consult those who pay the lowest wages only?
    MR. MCKENNA: I do not think that is a suggestion which ought to be made. We consult all the employers in a neighbourhood, and those whom we have consulted in this instance recognise that though the rate referred to is a low one for builders' labourers a still lower rate obtains for less skilled labour.
    MR. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to attach a schedule rate of wages to all official contracts?
    MR. MCKENNA: No. We are acting on the rule laid down by the House of Commons in its Resolution.
    MR. W. THORNE: The results are not very satisfactory.

    Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when a definite decision may be expected on the question of issuing fresh kits to members of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve who have completed three years service, and also on the question of granting signal ratings to members of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve who have specialised in signalling; whether he is aware that the first matter has engaged the attention of the Admiralty for over two years, and the second one for more than eleven months; and whether he proposes to take steps to secure that Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve matters shall be settled in future with greater expedition.
    MR. MCKENNA: A temporary arrangement for issuing new kits to Volunteers who enrol after completing three years was approved in December last and is still in force. Details of a scheme on the basis of the new Army system are now under the consideration of the Admiralty Volunteer Committee.

    1069
    The question of the formation of a signal branch of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve involves financial consideration and correspondence with another Department, and it is hoped that a decision will be arrived at before very long. These matters have been under consideration for the time stated. In both cases there have been considerable financial difficulties, and it is not considered that any avoidable delay has taken place.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great difficulty caused to recruiting by the action of the Admiralty?
    MR. MCKENNA: I do not think we are causing any difficulty in that way. We deplore the delay quite as much as the right hon. Gentleman, and I have explained it in the best fray I can.

    Sunday Labour at Rosyth.
    MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the feeling in Scotland against Sunday labour, and seeing that the declared object of pushing on with the works at Rosyth is to give immediate employment rather than to have an early completion, he will insert a clause in the contracts forbidding Sunday labour.
    MR. LEE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that, may I ask whether he or any other authority has been committed publicly or otherwise to the statement that the object of pushing on with the works at Rosyth is to give immediate employment rather than to have an early completion?
    MR. MCKENNA: No such statement has been made expressly or implied, publicly or privately. Work such as that of pumping may have to be carried on at any time, including Sunday; but Sunday work is discouraged and is not allowed without the written permission of the superintending engineer.

    Coastguard Stations in the Isle of Wight.
    MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it had been decided to withdraw the coastguard from the Foreland, Ventnor division; and, if so, what provision will be made to man the
    1070
    Bembridge lifeboat of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution at present manned by these men.
    MR. MCKENNA: It has been decided to close the Foreland coastguard detachment, at which there are three men, on the 1st December, 1908, but three coastguard men will continue to reside at Foreland for duty at Culver Cliff signal station. All arrangements for manning Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats are made by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. The crew of the costguard station at Bembridge, and the three men above mentioned at Foreland, will be available to assist the lifeboat service as far as their other naval and revenue duties permit, provided the men themselves volunteer for the service. The coastguard men are not liable to be ordered on lifeboat service.
    LORD BALCARRES: At what date was this decision come to?
    MR. MCKENNA: I cannot say without notice.

    Distribution of Cavalry.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on what principle the present distribution of cavalry in the United Kingdom is based.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The primary consideration in the distribution of cavalry regiments in the United Kingdom is the accommodation which actually exists for them. Subject to this consideration every endeavour is made to group, in proximity to one another, the units of the various cavalry brigades of the field Army, thus rendering possible the supervision by the brigadier of the regiments under his command.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an approximate date at which the application of this provision to Scotland is likely to result in the stationing of a cavalry regiment there?
    MR. HALDANE'Sreply was under-stood to be to the effect that there was already one regiment in Scotland.

    Insanitary Barracks.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will grant a Return showing the barracks in the United Kingdom which are reported by the Army Medical Department to be in an indifferent sanitary state, as judged by modern standards.
    MR. HALDANE: It is quite obvious that, owing to the date of construction of the barracks, many of our buildings must necessarily fall short of what is considered desirable in these days; but I am not prepared to admit that any are in a dangerous condition, and I cannot agree that the Return asked for should be compiled.
    MR. ASHLEY: But as we know officially that many of the barracks are in an indifferent condition from a sanitary point of view why should not the House be told which they are?
    MR. HALDANE: The House may gather from official Reports that there is a state of things which we very much deplore and which we are getting put right as quickly as possible. But it is impossible to go into detail as to the various barracks.

    The Irish Command.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how it is proposed to train in peace the 6th Division of the Irish Command for the duties it will have to perform in war, in view of the fact that not even divisional cavalry of two squadrons is stationed in the command.
    MR. HALDANE: The divisional cavalry are formed on mobilisation from the mounted infantry, and in this respect the 6th Division does not differ from the other divisions. As regards training, the necessary mounted troops can be provided from the cavalry brigade or from the South Irish Horse.
    MR. ASHLEY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to spend a small amount of money in order that a cavalry regiment may be stationed there?
    MR. HALDANE: That is quite unnecessary, as the hon. Member will see if he looks at the organisation.

    New Field Howitzer.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State of War whether he can now give any information with reference to the recent trials of the new field howitzer, especially as to weight and range.
    MR. HALDANE: No, Sir. I am not at present in a position to give information to the hon. Member.

    Canadian Immigration Law.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he can now state whether it is still possible for a British subject to be summarily deported from the Dominion of Canada without any form of trial and on the ground of being temporarily out of employment.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel Seely,): As I stated in reply to my hon. friend's Question on the 2nd November, the Secretary of State is in communication with the Dominion Government on the question of the law to which he refers, and I am not yet in a position to give any further information on the subject.

    British Indians in Transvaal Prisons.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any official information showing that the Indians, including Mr. Gandhi, were on the 17th October working on the market square of Volksrust at road-making.
    COLONEL SEELY: It appears from a telegram from the Governor of 3rd November that Mr. Gandhi, who worked on an agricultural shows grounds digging holes for trees and weeding in a municipal plantation and the gaol garden, had never performed hard labour on the public streets. The telegram does not state whether this was true also of the other Indians.
    MR. HAROLD COX: Was not this gentleman imprisoned for a purely technical offence?
    COLONEL SEELY: I have given all the information in my possession.
    MR. BYLES: Is Mr. Gandhi the gentleman who delivered an address to Members of this House here a year ago?
    COLONEL SEELY: I do not know, and I do not see how that affects the case.
    MR. BYLES: I only wanted the information.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that white people are not allowed to work with other people in the public streets, and cannot that arrangement be extended to British Indians?
    COLONEL SEELY: I will inquire.

    The Charges against Dinizulu.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office is yet in possession of information enabling him to state upon what charges Dinizulu has been indicted and which of the charges for which he was arrested have not been proceeded with.
    COLONEL SEELY: Yes, Sir; the full text of the indictment will appear in a Parliamentary Paper which is being presented to-day and should be in the hands of Members this evening.

    Colonial Immigration Laws.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will cause to be circulated by the Immigration Office particulars of the disabilities imposed on British immigrants by certain of the Colonies.
    COLONEL SEELY: Full information as to the restrictions on immigration into the self-governing Colonies is given in the Circulars relating to those Colonies issued by the Emigrants' Information Office. The Circulars are issued free of cost. Considerably over 300,000 of them are distributed in the course of a year.

    Consular Reports on Industrial Development.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
    1074
    whether his attention has been called to a Report by Sir F. Offenheimer, Consul General at Frankfort, on the industrial development of Germany in connection with trusts and syndicates; whether any extra remuneration is granted to Consuls issuing specially elaborate Reports of this nature; and whether Reports modelled on these lines could be obtained from our Consuls in other European and American countries.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. MCKINNON WOOD,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. As regards the last part of the Question, the attention of His Majesty's Diplomatic representatives and Consular Officers at important posts abroad will be directed to the suggestion, and they will be invited to furnish from time to time such information on those lines as circumstances will permit.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Consuls in collecting statistics are defrayed?
    MR. MCKINNON WOOD: I am not aware that there have been any out-of-pocket expenses.
    MR. H. C. LEAasked if instructions would be given to Consuls in various European countries where protection obtains to get comparative prices.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    The Lado Enclave—Destruction of Elephants.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the condition of affairs existing in the Lado enclave, forming part of our Central African Possessions; if the troops of the Congo Free State have been withdrawn from the territory, and during the absence of authority the elephants are being destroyed wholesale by white adventurers.
    MR. MCKINNON WOOD: We have seen allusions in the Press to the situation to which the hon. Member refers. The

    1075
    Lado enclave is a part of the Soudan, and not of the British Central African Possessions; it is in the occupation of His Majesty King Leopold II. under the Agreement between Great Britain and the Independent State of the Congo of 9th May, 1906. We are unable to make any statement as to the movements of Congolese troops in the enclave, hut inquiries will be made as to the truth of the reports respecting the destruction of elephants there.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the lease of the Lado enclave to His Majesty the King of the Belgians is still in force; if the withdrawal of the troops of the Congo Free State from the enclave and the leaving of the enclave without responsible government is in accordance with the terms of the lease; and whether, seeing that the destruction of the herds of elephants there by the lessee or his agents will cause injury to the enclave, he will say what steps he proposes to take under the circumstances.
    MR. MCKINNON WOOD: Until the discussions between His Majesty's Government and the Belgian Government as to the conditions on which Great Britain will recognise the transfer of the Congo State to Belgium are concluded, the Agreements of May 9th, 1906, under which the Lado enclave is leased to His Majesty King Leopold II. remains effective. There is nothing in the terms of that Agreement affecting the movements of troops or other administrative questions in the Lado enclave. It may be stated that the Government of the Congo State ratified the International African Game Convention of May, 1900, though they did not undertake to be bound by its terms till the ratifications of all the other signatory Powers had been received. We are, however, confident that the Congo Government, acting in the spirit of the Convention, will arrest any wanton or wholesale destruction of elephants in the Lado enclave, should the reports as to such slaughter prove to be accurate, and we are instructing His Majesty's Minister at Brussels to make representations accordingly.
    MR. FELL: Is it a fact that, pending the discussion now going on, this is a kind of No Man's Land, and that
    1076
    adventurers are now shooting elephants by the thousand?
    MR. MCKINNON WOOD: I do not know that you can call it a No Man's Land. It is leased to the King of the Belgians, and I hope that the position to which the hon. Member refers is only a temporary one.

    Old-Age Pensions—Claimants over Seventy Years of Age.
    MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the number of persons over seventy years of age in England, Wales (including Monmouthshire), Scotland, and Ireland; whether he can give the number of such persons in receipt of poor law relief in each part of the Kingdom; the number of claims for old-age pensions up to date; and the percentage of persons claiming old-age pensions to the population over seventy years of age in each country, deducting those who are in receipt of poor law relief.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The number of persons over seventy years of age in the United Kingdom in 1908 is estimated at 898,000, in England (excluding Monmouthshire); 59,000 in Wales (including Monmouthshire); 134,000 in Scotland; and 184,000 in Ireland. Of these it is estimated that approximately 220,000 are in receipt of poor law relief in England, 16,000 in Wales (including Monmouthshire), 19,000 in Scotland, and 32,000 in Ireland. Applications for old-age pensions have been received (up to the 21st instant) from 367,197 persons in England; 23,960 in Wales, 68,785 in Scotland, and 193,138 in Ireland. The percentage of the persons claiming old-age pensions to the population over seventy years of age, after deducting those in receipt of poor law relief, is therefore, on the basis of the figures quoted above:—In England 54 per cent., in Wales 56 per cent., in Scotland 60 per cent., and Ireland 128 per cent.

    Married Women and Old-Age Pensions.
    MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of a local pensions committee deciding to grant a

    1077
    pension to a married woman whose husband is in receipt of poor law relief, the pension officer will be instructed to appeal.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In such cases, as explained by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board on the 26th instant, the wife will be disqualified only if relief is given to her direct, or to her husband for her on her account. In any case in which a married woman to whom a pension is granted appears to be subject to this disqualification, the pension officer will be instructed to appeal against the award.

    Unestablished Service and Pensions.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the number of men in the various Government offices who are promoted to the establishment for meritorious work and conduct, and who, nevertheless, are unable to count the whole unestablished service towards pension; and whether he will take steps to remove this hardship.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The proportion of previous unestablished service (if any) which a person promoted to the establishment is allowed to count for pension depends upon the terms upon which he is promoted. The permission to count any part of such service is a special privilege, refusal of which cannot in my opinion properly be described as a hardship, and I cannot undertake to extend still further the very liberal concessions which have been made in this direction of recent years.

    Old-Age Pensions Regulations.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, for the convenience of the Irish-speaking population in Ireland, he will cause copies of the Old-Age Pensions Act, and copies of the forms and regulations appertaining thereto, to be printed in Irish.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand that no difficulty has been experienced by pension officers in Ireland in regard to the language question. Should any case of hardship be brought to my notice, I should be very glad to make the necessary arrangements to deal with it.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman thinking of printing the regulations in any other language than English—Welsh, for instance?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have already explained to hon. Members for Scotland that if any grievance is brought to my notice I am ready to print the regulations in any language.

    Unredeemed Banknotes.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the total value of notes issued by the Bank of England in 1867, and the total value presented for payment; whether the £14,055 written off on account of notes issued in that year is the total value, or only part value, of those not since presented; and whether the State receives any portion of such moneys, or whether they are all annexed by the Bank from year to year.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am informed by the Bank of England that after this lapse of time it is difficult to ascertain the exact value of the notes issued to the public during 1867, but that it appears to have been about £330,000,000. Of this total, all but £14,515 have been paid. The amount of £14,055 recently written off comprises the outstanding notes for £14,515, less a sum of £460, representing notes which have been written off in previous years but have been presented and paid during the current year. The Bank remains liable, under Section 6 of the Bank Act, 1892, to pay written-off notes, if presented for payment; and the State has no claim to any portion of the value of such notes.
    MR. MACVEAGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will also get the figures of the value of notes not presented to the Bank of Scotland, the Bank of Ireland, and the other joint stock banks of the United Kingdom?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will consider that.

    Privilege Cabs at Woolwich Arsenal Station.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will inquire of the Woolwich police as to the working

    1079
    of the privilege cab system at the Arsenal Station; whether it would be in the interest of the travelling public to declare the station an open one; and whether friction is caused by the privileged cabman taking the outside stand in addition to the privilege stand.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I am making the inquiry suggested in the first part of the hon. Member's Question, and if he will permit me, I will defer my reply to the second and third part until it has been completed.

    The Treatment of Suffragist Prisoners.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details as to the prison treatment of women suffragists committed in default of providing sureties for good behaviour, under the heads: prison uniform, dietary, correspondence, visits, exercises, association, remission of sentences, and punishments.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The suffragist prisoners, like other second division female prisoners, wear a distinctive dress. Their diet is that prescribed for the second division by the rules for local prisoners made on the 2nd September, 1901, under the Prisons Act, 1898, the items of which are fully set out in the rules, with such additions or alterations as may be prescribed by the medical officer in individual cases. When the sentence exceeds one month, they may write and receive a letter and a visit once a month, and special letters and visits are allowed to all prisoners in connection with matters of urgent business. They are allowed to exercise for one hour daily, and to work in association for a time daily whenever associated labour can be arranged. In common with all prisoners, they can earn a remission of one-sixth of their sentences by good conduct and industry, if they are sentenced to more than one month's imprisonment. They are subject to the ordinary Prison Rules (number 78, and following of the Rules for local Prisons) as to punishment for misconduct.

    The Press and Coroners' Courts.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
    1080
    Home Department, whether he is aware that, at an inquest held at the coroner's Court of St. Giles's, London, on the 21st inst., the coroner's officer refused to admit the representatives of three news agencies and numerous daily papers, whilst admitting two journalists; whether he is aware that a written protest handed to the coroner's officer was not delivered to the coroner, and will he say what notice has been taken of the incident; and what steps has been or will be taken, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent its repetition in that or any other coroner's Court.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed by the coroner that the exclusion of a certain number of Press representatives, who had arrived late, was due to a misunderstanding arising from instructions given to prevent overcrowding in the court-room, which is a very small one. It appears that four journalists were present during the proceedings. The question of what persons should be admitted to the inquest was entirely in the discretion of the coroner, who informs me that the Courts over which he presides are always open to the public and to the Press, so far as the accommodation will allow. The incident does not appear to me to call for any further action.
    MR. BYLES: May the House understand that the coroner's Court is a public Court, and that no coroner has a right to pick and choose between the representatives of the Press?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Of course I am not responsible for the coroner's action, but I take it that they are admitted as long as there is room.
    MR. BYLES: Is the coroner's Court everywhere a public Court, and has any coroner a right to pick and choose?
    MR. GLADSTONE: It is a public Court under the control of the coroner, who has to make the best arrangements he can for the public interest.
    MR. BYLES: It is most important that the House should know—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. If the Question is so important the hon. Member had better give notice.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any expression of regret from the coroner, or any assurance that this will not be repeated?
    MR. GLADSTONE: As will be gathered from the Answer already given, the coroner has said that his Court was open to the public and the Press so far as the accommodation would allow. I have received no further communication.

    Chelmsford Election Disturbances.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now state the result of his inquiries into the disorderly scenes connected with the bye-election in Chelmsford and the injuries inflicted upon the Liberal agent.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed that on the evening of the 25th inst. the police sergeant stationed at Ingatestone was asked to send some constables to the working men's club the same evening to assist in keeping order. He replied that keeping order at the meeting was a matter for the stewards, and that he could not go into the hall. He was outside the hall with two constables at the time of the assault, and did not witness it, nor was he called on by anyone to assist in preventing violence. The first time Mr. Martin came outside the hall he mentioned the violence to which he had been subjected, but could not give the names of his assailants. Afterwards when Mr. Martin had returned to the the hall and fainted, the police took him to his lodgings on a stretcher. I have no reason to suppose that the police have in any way failed in their duty in respect of the disorderly and reprehensible incidents arising from the Chelmsford election.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Am I to understand from that Answer that Mr. Martin was seriously injured, or were the reports exaggerated?
    MR. GLADSTONE: It appears that Mr. Martin was seriously injured, but the last report I received on Saturday evening gave, I am glad to say, a favourable account of his condition.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the
    1082
    right hon. Gentleman whether it is within his knowledge that different police forces in the country take different views of their duties with regard to preserving order within public meetings; and whether he does not think that it might be well to appoint a committee, not necessarily a Parliamentary committee, of some kind to inquire as to the conduct of the police in general, without reflecting on any particular police force, and to lay down what should be the duty of the police with regard to keeping order in public meetings?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. The practice varies in different localities, and I will consider the suggestion he has made that an inquiry should be instituted.
    MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of drafting extra police in order to preserve order in this disturbed district?
    MR. WARDLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of the powers of watch committees with regard to the police as a whole?
    MR. GLADSTONE: That is a general question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice.
    MR. CORRIE GRANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate with the Votes a copy of the report he has received from the Home Office experts as to the state of Mr. Martin's health; there are so many different reports?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I really do not know to what my hon. friend alludes, unless it is a report in the newspapers. Obviously no Home Office expert has gone down with regard to Mr. Martin's health.
    MR. SLOAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain public meetings recently held the superintendent of police in districts where disturbances were anticipated has entered the hall and closed the meeting?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, instances of that sort do occur, and I have said that there is a variety of practice.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Why not apply to the Irish Secretary to send some of his police to this disturbed district.

    Dangerous Performances on the Stage.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the recent case of manslaughter on the stage; and if he will take into consideration the desirability of prohibiting all public performances involving danger to men, women, children, and animals.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I presume the hon. Member refers to the unfortunate accident which occurred last Monday night at the Middlesex Music Hall, and which resulted in the death of a man who was hit by a rifle bullet in the course of a stage performance. The jury brought in a verdict, not of manslaughter, but of accidental death. The performance is, in my opinion, reprehensible, and ought not to have been allowed by those responsible for it. I am communicating with the London County Council on the subject.
    MR. H. C. LEA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that two years ago I put a Question to him on this subject of prohibiting performances of this character, and he rather gave me to understand that he would appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the subject?
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, I hinted at legislation. A Bill was prepared, and, I think, introduced, but its reception was so extremely unfavourable that the Bill has not been heard of since.
    MR. H. C. LEA: In view of the altered opinion of this House, would the right hon. Gentleman bring it in again?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not at all sure that the opinion of the House has altered.

    The "All-Red" Route.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if any progress has been made toward the establishment of the All-Red Route, and if any statement on the matter will be made during the present session.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): As has been already stated by my hon. friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, the informal Committee who are investigating this question are considering an Interim Report, but it is unlikely that any statement on the matter will be made during the present session.
    MR. FELL: Has any progress really been made towards the establishment of the All-Red Route, beyond getting this Report?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to my Answer.

    Foreign Prison Made Goods.
    MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that foreign prison-made carpets are imported into this country; and what steps are being taken by the Board of Trade to give effect in the case of carpets to the provisions of the Foreign Prison-Made Goods Acts of 1897.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Board of Trade are not aware of any importations of the nature referred to by my hon. friend. In order to enable action to be taken in a case of this kind, it is necessary for the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs to be furnished by the complainant with satisfactory proof that the articles in question were actually manufactured in prison.

    North British Railway Company and their Employees.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state the result of his conference with the directors of the North British Railway Company anent their action in compelling six of their employees to withdraw from the Lady-bank (Fife) Town Council.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Board of Trade have been in communication with the North British Railway Company on this subject and have received the following reply from the general manager:—"Dear Sir Hudson, With reference to our conversation at the

    1085
    Conference yesterday as to Mr. Keir Hardie's question regarding employees of this Company as town councillors of Ladybank, I beg to say that this Company has not, nor has it ever had, any rule or regulation which prevents their employees from being members of the town councils. To look no further than the case of Ladybank itself, Ladybank has been a burgh since 1876, and from that date servants of this Company have been continuously members of the town council. The company has no intention to enforce any restriction upon its employees to prevent them serving on town councils so long as such service is not inconsistent with their duty to the Company.—I am, etc., (signed) W. F. Jackson."
    Sir Hudson Kearley, Bart., M.P.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that six of the employees of this company have been compelled to resign their seats on the Ladybank Town Council, owing to the action of the company? Is there any guarantee there will be no repetition of that in the future?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I think the letter I have just read is the guarantee.
    MR. KEIRHARDIE: Has the general manager of this railway in any way explained why these six men were obliged to withdraw from the town council? Is it alleged the meetings of the council would interfere with their duties to the company?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot carryall the details in my head. I will make inquiry, but I think that probably the explanation is that it was felt their work on the council would be prejudicial to the discharge of their duty to the company.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: IS the right hon. Gentleman aware that the men have served on the council for years without complaint, and it was only when a dispute arose with the town clerk, who is solicitor to the railway company, that they were compelled to withdraw?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. H. C. LEA: Is there not a Bill affecting this company coming on to-
    1086
    night? Will the right hon. Gentleman telegraph to the general manager for an explanation with regard to the case of these men, and get a reply before the Bill is taken?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I will endeavour to get all the information I can.
    LORD BALCARRES: Has the question of the Ladybank Town Council any relation to the Bill coming before the House?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Old-Age Pensions Disqualifications.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, when a son contributes to the maintenance of his father, and the contribution is paid through the guardians, that sum is regarded as poor relief, so as to debar the father from receiving an old-age pension, although he has not cost the poor rate anything.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I think I can only say generally that where a son or other relative of a poor person repays to the guardians, whether in whole or in part, the sums given by the guardians to that person, the repayment does not, as I am advised, remove the disqualification for an old-age pension. Where the payment to the guardians by the relative is not by way of reimbursement in respect of relief given by them to the poor person but by way of voluntary contribution to his maintenance, the facts of the particular case would have to be ascertained before an opinion could be expressed with regard to it.
    MR. BELLOC: Are we to understand that there can exist a case in which a man has cost the public nothing, and yet he is debarred from his old-age pension?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Probably, yes.
    MR. BELLOC: Well, it ought not to be.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In the cases which not infrequently occur where several children are willing to

    1087
    contribute to the support of their parent, but it is necessary to get the board of guardians to enforce payment in order to bring in one outstanding son or daughter who will not do his or her duty, and where in that way the contribution is made through the board of guardians, is the old person really to be disqualified although no part of his cost has fallen upon the rates?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: That particular case has not been remitted to the Law Officers. If the right hon. Member will send it on I shall have much pleasure in sending it to the Law Officers.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether disqualification in cases of this kind was by the Act itself or by a regulation of the Local Government Board.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid it had been laid down in previous decisions that in a case where, in anticipation of a person becoming chargeable to the guardians, his son or daughter used the guardians as the medium of paying money for his or her maintenance, the disqualification would not apply, as there was no Poor Law relief given.
    MR. HAROLD COXasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could not get over this difficulty by getting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to issue a new secret instruction.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I do not think it would be improved upon if one were issued.

    Notification of Consumption.
    MR. VIVIAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can see his way in the proposed legislation for making compulsory the notification of consumption in the case of paupers to extend the proposal of compulsory notification to all cases of consumption.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I do not contemplate legislation on this subject at the present time. The action I propose to take as regards the notification of consumption in poor law cases will be taken under the existing powers of the Local Government Board, and must, I think, be limited to such cases.

    Liverpool Distress Relief Works.
    MR. MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Liverpool Distress Committee, having practically exhausted their funds, have announced that they will be compelled on Tuesday next to discharge 380 men now employed by them on relief works; and, if so, whether it is his intention to respond to the appeal of the committee for a grant-in-aid to prevent the collapse of their work and the consequences which would be involved in throwing so many men out of employment.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am to-day making a payment of £1,000 to the distress committee from the Parliamentary grant. I am glad to be able to add that, since the hon. Member gave notice of his Question, the immediate pressure upon the distress committee has already been relieved, as they have received additional funds from public subscriptions amounting to £1,250.

    Local Loans.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state how many applications for sanction of loans are now under the consideration of his Board, and what is the amount involved; and whether he can say approximately what time will elapse before his Board will have come to a decision respecting the applications.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The information asked for in the first part of the Question is not readily available, and could only be obtained after an examination of several hundred files of papers, which would involve much time and labour. Nor is it possible to give a definite reply to the latter part of the Question; the time which must necessarily elapse before a decision can be arrived at with respect to a particular application depends largely on the complexity of the matters to which it relates and the sufficiency of the information supplied in connection with it.

    Telegraphic Communication with the Orkneys.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he has

    1089
    received the account of the total wreck of the "Isle of Erin," and the loss of many valuable lives, given by the lighthouse keeper, North Ronaldshay, Orkney, suggesting that if there had been telegraphic communication the ship and crew might have been saved; and if he will take the earliest possible opportunity of extending the telegraphic system to North Ronaldshay, taking into account the irregularity of the mail delivery and the difficulties of obtaining medical aid of any sort, and the number of people on the island.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I have seen an account of the wreck and the suggestion to which the hon. Member refers. I informed my hon. friend in March, 1906, that I could not provide the telegraph extension to North Ronaldshay because the cost would he prohibitive, as compared with the revenue. I am considering whether I could undertake it on special terms of guarantee.

    Adult Night Messengers in the Post Office.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the recommendation of the Select Committee meant that all full time adult night messengers were to be placed upon the establishment irrespective of the age limit, the intention of the Committee being that these men should obtain the benefit of a small retiring pension; and whether he will arrange that in exceptional cases the messengers will be appointed under Clause VII. of the Order in Council of the 4th June, 1870, as was done in the case of the established telegraphists at the Central Telegraph Office.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Committee's recommendation was that "any full time messenger who has been employed for five years and can obtain a Civil Service certificate should be placed on the establishment," and this is being done. The unestablished telegraphists at the Central Telegraph Office were in the same way required to obtain Civil Service certificates before appointment.

    The Mall Improvement.
    MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of
    1090
    Works whether it is intended to construct a roadway between the Mall and Birdcage Walk, or only to widen the existing footway.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,): It is only intended to widen the existing footpath for a short distance behind the new gates.

    Grants to Roman Catholic Schools.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what would have been the total sum payable to the Association of Roman Catholic Schools in the last year for which figures are available if the present Education Bill had then been in force and if all Catholic schools in England and Wales had joined such an association; and what sum per child in average attendance this total represents.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. TREVELYAN,): Excluding schools which would not be eligible to contract out under Clause 3 of the Bill, the total sum payable would be, approximately, £705,000, representing an average of about 49s. 7d. per child in average attendance.

    Royal College of Science, London.
    MR. GWYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the teaching staff of the Royal College of Science, London, received substantial additions to income and exceptional pension privileges on the transfer of the administration of that college to the Imperial College of Science and Technology in January last; whether he can state on what principle the Treasury has acted in awarding these special terms; and if the principle is applicable to professors in Irish colleges under similar circumstances.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): On the transfer of the Royal College of Science to the governing body of the Imperial College the salaries of the teaching staff ceased to be payable directly out of public funds and I have therefore no information in respect of them. The Treasury, however, under the powers conferred upon them by the

    1091
    Superannuation Acts, agreed to award to these gentlemen compensation allowances and gratuities where justified by length of service, on the abolition of their offices under the Board of Education. The compensation of officers transferred from Irish Colleges is provided for in Section 16 of the Irish Universities Act, and in this connection I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 4th May last to the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University.
    MR. GWYNN: Am I to understand that the same principle applies to both England and Ireland when a college is transferred from Civil Service status to an outside status?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: So far as the provisions of the Irish University Act admit, yes.

    Second Division Clerks.
    MR. S. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the higher salaries prescribed by the Order in Council of 21st December, 1907, were afforded to second division clerks on the ground that their salaries under the Order in Council of 21st March, 1890, were inadequate during the earlier years of service; and, if so, will he explain why the lower salaries under the latter Order in Council, to which second division clerks in the Estate Duty Office are required to revert on promotion to the first division, are considered sufficient to enable these clerks to support themselves in their higher states.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative, and the second part does not therefore arise.
    MR. S. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that it is usual for a clerk upon promotion to be given the prospect of a higher maximum salary as well as to receive an immediate increase of pay, he will explain why, in the case of second division clerks in the Estate Duty Office promoted to the first division, the conferring of a higher maximum is to be accompanied by a substantial reduction of salary.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: I would refer my hon. friend to previous replies which I have given on this subject on 10th November and 13th July, 1908.

    Estate Duty Office Clerks.
    MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the second division clerks in the Estate Duty Office, London, affected by the Order in Council of 21st December, 1907, elected to have their salaries readjusted thereunder before any question of promotion was brought to their notice, and seeing that the promotion; of the clerks in question is to be by selection on the grounds of special competency and merit, such selection not having yet been made, the question has not at present arisen with regard to any individual clerk, he will state the reasons why specially selected clerks in the Estate Duty Office are to be required under that Order to enter the first division at a salary less than their readjusted salaries, while this was not made a condition in the case of the clerks of the Admiralty recently promoted, and whether it is to be understood that the chronological accident that one scheme ante-dated the other in its conception, though post-dating it in execution, is the sole reason for distinguishing the men to be promoted in the Estate Duty Office from those already promoted in the Admiralty.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: As regards the promotion of second division clerks the circumstances in the Estate Duty Office are different from those in the Admiralty. The Estate Duty Office is undergoing a reorganisation, which would have involved the disappearance of the second division staff if the present course had not been taken. Promotion is different from the mode adopted in the Admiralty, where there has been no general decision to make promotions, and a particular clerk is only promoted on the ground of exceptional merit.
    MR. CARLILE: Why is there this difference of treatment between the two classes?
    MR. HOBHOUSE: The circumstances in the one case are considered greatly superior to those in the other.

    Commissioners of Woods and Forests and Small Holdings.
    MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somersetshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests will make it a practice in the future to give the first offer of all vacant farms in their possession to the small holdings committee of the county in which they are situate.
    The TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): Yes, but with due regard of course to the circumstances of each case.

    The Board of Agriculture.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somersetshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he could recommend an early meeting of the Board of Agriculture to take into consideration the urgent necessity for pressing forward in all counties where applications have been made the best means to meet the requirements of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act.
    Sir EDWARD STRACHEY: The President does not propose to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend, as he does not think that any useful purpose would be thereby served.

    Secondary Schools in Scotland.
    MR. MENZIES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland why the statement of income, expenditure, and liabilities of secondary schools for the year 1905–6, given in Table I., page 953, of the Report of the Committee on Education in Scotland for 1907–8, is only for that date; why that table and the various other particulars of secondary education in Scotland given in that Report up to page 1013, inclusive, do not include all details of these schools and their expenditure up to and including 15th May, 1908, seeing that these details were necessarily in the hands of the
    1094
    Department since the latter date; and whether he will endeavour to print and circulate these as a separate paper at the earliest opportunity.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The statement of income, expenditure, and liabilities of secondary schools for the year 1906–7 (being the latest audited accounts available), were included in a separate Paper (Cd. 4310) issued on 19th September last. The other particulars referred to by the hon. Member (the latest available) will also be found in this Paper.

    Drumkeerin Evicted Tenant.
    MR. F. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet taken any action with a view of reinstating Peter D. Kelly, an evicted tenant on the West estate, Drumkeerin, County Leitrim, who returned from America with the hope of being reinstated and is still remaining in Ireland awaiting the decision of the Commission.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Estates Commissioners inform me that Kelly's application is being considered in connection with the allotment of un-tenanted land which they are acquiring.

    The King-Harman Estate.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that in November, 1903, terms of purchase were agreed upon between the vendor of the King-Harman estate situated in the counties of Roscommon and Sligo, and the tenants on the same; that one of the conditions agreed to by the vendor was that the Estates Commissioners be requested to purchase the whole estate with a view to secure the turbary for the tenants; that previous to the sale the landlord exercised the power of letting the turbary rights to the tenants, even where the bogs upon the estate were within the boundaries of the farms of certain individual tenants, charging the latter with rent for cutting turf in the bogs on their own farms in

    1095
    the same way as he charged rent to the occupiers of outlying farms in the district that the Estates Commissioners at the time of the sale recognised the rights of the occupiers as a body to turbary rights on the estate by vesting the bogs which had been held direct by the landlord in trustees for the benefit of the said occupiers; that one of the former tenants upon whose holding there was a large tract of bog which, previous to the sale, had been, according to the custom of the estate, let off as turbary from year to year to a number of tenants in the district, denied all access after the sale to the bog in question to the former users, save at enormous rentals; and whether, seeing that this action causes loss and inconvenience to about 200 families resident in the district, and that a decision in favour of the former users was given by the Judicial Commissioners, but was reversed upon a technical point by the Court of Appeal in February of this year, he will, in his amending Act, introduce a clause restoring to the 200 occupiers in question their former rights of turbary and making the Act of 1903 clear upon the point involved in this case.
    MR. BIRRELL: This estate was purchased by the Estates Commissioners in 1905. The landlord had in his own hands certain bogs, containing in all 1,308 acres, and these have been vested in trustees for the benefit of the tenant purchasers. He also had the right to empower persons to take turf, on payment to him of a bog rent, from other bogs lying within the boundaries of certain holdings on the estate, the tenants of these holdings having the right of turbary for their own use only. The Commissioners were asked to make regulations authorising the taking of turf on these bogs, but the Court of Appeal decided that the Commissioners had no power to make such regulations, as the holdings had been vested in the purchasers without any reservation of turbary. I do not think it would be possible to introduce a clause into the Land Bill for the purpose suggested in the last paragraph of the Question.

    Waterville (Kerry) Road Scheme.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
    1096
    Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an inspection has been made by the Congested Districts Board of the proposed road between Cahersivane and Clogvoola, near Waterville, County Kerry; and can he state when the Board will be prepared to construct this road.
    MR. BIRRELL: The proposed road was inspected in September, 1907, by the engineer of the Congested Districts Board, who reported that only seven families would derive much benefit from it, and that it would probably cost considerably more than £600. The Board decided in December last that, if the county authorities agreed to undertake the work, they would consider what contribution they could make. They are not prepared to construct the road themselves.

    Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he proposes to take the Report stage of the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Bill; and will he give adequate time for its full discussion on Report.
    MR. BIRRELL: Having regard to the expressions of opinion which have reached me from hon. Members from Ireland sitting both above and below the gangway, the only chance of the Bill becoming law this session seems to depend, upon the acceptance of an Amendment making the adoption of the provisions of the Bill as to compulsory notification optional with each local authority. Personally, I think the Bill, even subject to this condition, worth saving, but the matter is under consideration.

    Branchfield Grazing Farm, Sligo.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Branchfield grazing farm situate near Coolaney, County Sligo, and held in fee by Mr. McKim, 3, Carnew Street, South Circular Road, Dublin, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners; whether an inspector has been sent to value this farm, and, if so, what is the nature of his report; will a sale of this farm take place; and, if so, will he state whether the claims of the subtenants on this estate, whose average

    1097
    valuations do not exceed £3 10s. will receive first consideration in the event of the distribution of this ranch for the relief of congestion.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that these lands have been inspected, but Mr. McKim's interest therein does not appear to be sufficient to enable him to sell the lands under the Land Purchase Acts.

    Ballinaraw Evicted Tenant.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the Estates Commissioners have decided that Richard Foy, whose father was evicted from a farm in Ballinaraw, Bunninadden, County Sligo, is a fit person to be provided with a holding, will he say what steps, if any, are being taken to have him so provided.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have referred this case to their inspector, with a view to providing the applicant with a holding.

    Rathmagurry Evicted Tenant.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain the cause of the delay in the reinstatement of Pat Kilroy, of Rathmagurry, near Curry, County Sligo, who was evicted from his farm on the Knox estate on 9th June, 1902; and whether, seeing that the tenant in occupation is now and has for some time past been prepared to accept the terms of compensation, namely £50, offered by the Estates Commissioners for surrendering this farm, steps will immediately be taken to have the evicted tenant reinstated.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that this case is under consideration, but, as they are at present advised, there appears to be a legal difficulty about their acquiring the holding under the Evicted Tenants Act. Further inquiries will be made.

    Land Purchase in County Armagh.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will
    1098
    state the number of purchase agreements under the Irish Land Act, 1903, lodged with the Estates Commissioners up to 31st October last from the County of Armagh, with the total number of advances applied for in connection with these agreements, the number of agreements from Armagh completed, and the total amount actually advanced at the date named.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that up to 31st October last, agreements for the purchase of 13,505 holdings in County Armagh had been lodged, representing a purchase money of £2,629,181. Of this amount there had been advanced on that date £848,903 for the purchase of 3,484 holdings.

    Turbary on the King-Harman Estate.
    MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the total area of the turbary on the King-Harman estate, County Roscommon, vested in trustees for the benefit of the tenants, and what is the area of bog on the holding of G. Acheson, who was decided by the Court of Appeal to be entitled to the exclusive right to turbary on the holding sold to him by the Estates Commissioners, to the exclusion of some persons who had previously cut turf thereon under annual permits from the landlord; and what was the average number of the persons allowed to cut on the bog on Acheson's farm.
    MR. BIRRELL: With regard to the turbary on this estate, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given to a Question asked by the hon. Member for North Roscommon. The area of bogs vested in trustees for the benefit of the tenant purchasers is 1,308 acres. George Acheson's holding comprises 163 acres, and includes a considerable area of heather-covered bog. The Estates Commissioners understand that the vendor formerly licensed about forty persons to take turf from Acheson's bog, about one-third of these persons being tenants on the King-Harman estate.

    Shannon Bridge at Portumna.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to an inquiry relative to the necessity of building a new bridge across the Shannon, at Portumna, between the county of Galway and county of Tipperary, or repairing the existing bridge and thus avoiding a considerable amount of expense; whether he is aware that one of the members of the Commission sitting to decide the question is Mr. John Ouseley Moynan, county surveyor, of North Tipperary, who has already drawn up and furnished to the County Council of North Tipperary a Report dated March, 1908, in which he insists on the absolute necessity of building a new bridge as aforesaid; that the majority of the Commission, as at present constituted, are paid officers of County Tipperary and County Galway, being the counties primarily responsible for the cost of a new bridge (if any); and will he say whether such majority will have the power of imposing part of the expense of erecting such new bridge on neighbouring counties such as Clare, Limerick, King's and Queen's, who have no representatives on the Commission.
    MR. BIRRELL: A Commission has teen appointed at the request of the County Council of North Tipperary to consider the question of building a new bridge at Portumna, the county surveyor having reported that the existing bridge is in a dangerous condition. The county surveyors of the North and South Ridings of Tipperary and of the East Riding of Galway have been placed on the Commission, the other members being Mr. Doyle, K.C., chairman, and Mr. Griffith, engineer to the Dublin Port and Docks Board. The Statute under which the Commission was appointed limits the number to five. It was, therefore, impossible to include representatives of all the counties mentioned in the Question, and an equitable selection has been made. It is one of the duties of the Commission to recommend the area of charge, but any county dissatisfied with such recommendation can appeal to the Lord-Lieutenant in Council.

    Loughrea Police.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether all the land in the neighbourhood of Kilrecle, Loughrea, has been sold to the tenants through the Estates Commissioners; whether the district is perfectly crimeless; and whether the Government will consider the propriety of reducing the number of policemen in the district to a normal level.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that more than one property in the neighbourhood of Kilrecle is still unsold. The two extra policemen who are stationed at Kilrecle are still required for the protection of person and the prevention of cattle-driving, and it would be premature at present to consider the question of withdrawing them.

    Whyte Blake Estate, Loughrea.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that agreements to purchase their residential holdings, have been signed by the tenants on the Whyte Blake estate, Holly Park Loughrea; whether the Estates Commissioners have already distributed the untenanted lands of the estate amongst the small holders; whether the tenants on most of the neighbouring estates are similarly circumstanced; and can he state when it is proposed to disband the military garrison stationed in the middle of the estate.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the tenanted lands on this estate have been sold by the landlord to the tenants. The offer of the Commissioners for the purchase of the untenanted land has been accepted and a scheme for its allotment is being prepared. There are, however, other circumstances connected with the locality which render the retention of the extra police absolutely necessary. I am not aware of any military garrison in the district.

    Surety Prisoners in Irish Gaols.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Chief

    1101
    Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can give details as to the prison treatment of persons committed in default of providing sureties for good behaviour for the offence of cattle-driving, under the heads: Prison uniform, dietary, correspondence, visits, exercises; association; remission of sentences; and punishments.
    MR. BIRRELL: Prisoners of the class referred to in the Question are treated in Ireland as untried prisoners. For the special rules governing their treatment I would refer the hon. Member to the Rules for Ordinary Prisons in Ireland, published as Parliamentary Papers in 1902 (H.C. Papers 129 and 189 of 1902) The details could not well be compressed within the limits of an oral Answer.

    Irish Poor Law Returns.
    MR. KAVANAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several officers of Poor Law unions in Ireland have applied for remuneration for the preparation of Returns which they were required to furnish by sealed order of the Local Government Board for the purposes of the English Royal Commission on Poor Law; whether such application has been refused by the Treasury; and whether, in consequence, such expenses have to be paid out of the local rates.
    MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member for South Wexford on the 26th instant.

    Deportation of Paupers to Ireland.
    MR. KAVANAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that paupers can be deported from Great Britain to Ireland on magistrates' warrants, to be supported and maintained by Irish ratepayers; whether he is aware that such a case has recently occurred in Carlow, where a pauper has been sent from England to the Carlow workhouse, giving his birthplace as Leighlinbridge, whereas no one of the name has ever been known in the locality; and whether
    1102
    he will instruct magistrates in this country to make more investigation before issuing a warrant for deportation.
    MR. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the case referred to. As I have stated on previous occasions the question of amending the law regarding the removal of paupers will be considered when legislation is being introduced for the reform of the Poor Law. I have no power to give instructions to magistrates in England or Scotland.

    Sligo, Leitrim, and Northern Counties Railway.
    MR. F. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that in the Public "Works Loan Bill introduced by the Government in last session of Parliament provisions were made for a free grant of £32,909 to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, on behalf of the Sligo, Leitrim, and Northern Counties Railway Company, and having regard to the fact that this railway is not managed in accordance with public opinion in the counties through which it runs, inquiries will be made regarding the same before sanctioning this grant.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: The grant in question was simply the formal remission of arrears of interest due on a loan in accordance with an arrangement made in 1896, when the affairs of the company were settled under a reconstruction scheme. The remission was confirmed by the Public Works Loans Act of this session, and the transaction is thereby closed. In these circumstances the course suggested by the hon. Member is impracticable.

    Killea Post Office.
    MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the proposed removal of the Post Office from Killea, East Donegal, into the County Derry, to the inconvenience of the people now served by it; whether he is aware that the proposed change would only benefit a few at the cost of the bulk of the people having to walk long distances to post and obtain their letters; and whether he will take immediate steps to keep the office in the hands of

    1103
    the same family and in the same place, where it has given general satisfaction for years, and prevent an injustice being done to Donegal in order to serve Derry.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The necessary inquiries regarding the candidates for the vacant sub-office at Killea have not yet been completed. In selecting a new sub-postmaster, due regard will be given to the position of the premises offered. In the circumstances I can hold out no hope that a member of the family of the late sub-postmistress will be appointed.

    Portumna Postal Service.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the town of Portumna, County Galway, is at present without a mid-day mail, while small towns in its vicinity of not more than one-fourth its population have the advantage of one; whether it takes four days to convey newspapers per parcel post from Ennis to Portumna; has he received resolutions from public bodies calling his attention to this matter; and what steps he proposes to take.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: An application on this subject has been received and is now under inquiry.

    Queen Anne's Bounty Board.
    Sir G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, seeing that a Select Committee reported in 1901 that the Queen Anne's Bounty Board and the Ecclesiastical Commission might advantageously be united so as to effect a saving of money estimated by the then Archbishop of Canterbury at £20,000 to £30,000 per annum, he will consider the desirability of taking steps, at the first convenient opportunity, to carry out the recommendation of the Committee.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am aware that the Select Committee of 1901 reported generally in favour of the amalgamation of the Queen Anne's Bounty Board and the Ecclesiastical Commission, and that a Bill to carry this into effect was intro-
    1104
    duced in 1902, but subsequently dropped. The question is, no doubt, one deserving serious attention, but in view of more pressing matters which will have to be dealt with I can give no undertaking that the Government will introduce a measure on the subject.

    The Peers and Government Bills.
    MR. HENRY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, after recent and previous experiences, in order that the time and energy of Members of this House may not be devoted to consideration of Bills after the Second Reading before it is ascertained whether the House of Lords accept the principles of the provisions of Bills introduced in this House, he will consider the desirability of endeavouring to make necessary arrangements that the Committee and subsequent stages of Bills that have received a Second Reading in this House be deferred until such measures have received a Second Reading in the House of Lords.
    MR. ASQUITH: My hon. friend has made a very novel proposal, to which, as at present advised, I should hesitate to assent.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Could not the Government easily find out what the action of the House of Lords would be by asking the Leader of the Opposition?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    The Lado Enclave.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, having regard to the position that has arisen in the Lado enclave, and to the mischief that has followed on the withdrawal of troops of the Congo Free State, he will consider the advisability of transferring the management of the enclave, subject to the lease to the King of the Belgians, to the Colonial Office, so that it may be administered with the East African Protectorate and Uganda.
    MR. ASQUITH: The Agreement of 9th May, 1906, between Great Britain and the Independent State of the Congo provides that on the termination of

    1105
    occupation of the Lado enclave by His Majesty King Leopold II., the territory shall be handed over within six months to the Soudanese Government. His Majesty's Government do not propose to alter that arrangement.
    MR. FELL: Have not the Colonial Office the better machinery for administering such territory?
    MR. ASQUITH: The territory will be handed over as soon as circumstances permit.

    Trawling Prevention Bill.
    MR. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the near approach of the end of the session, he will state when the Second Reading and subsequent stag s of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Bill will be taken.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: At the same time may I ask the Prime Minister if he can now state if the Prevention of Trawling in Prohibited Areas Bill will be pressed this year, or if it will be deferred till next session; and, in view of its importance not only to Scottish interests but to the credit of the country, if it will receive a prominent place in His Gracious Majesty's speech.
    MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the statement that I made on this matter on the 19th, but I may add that I hope to be able to make a statement as to the future course of public business some time next week.

    The Education Bill.
    Lord R. CECILasked the Prime Minister whether further negotiations were proceeding between him and the Archbishop of Canterbury in relation to the Education Bill, and if so whether the House would be informed of the result.
    MR. ASQUITH: The only correspondence that has taken place has already appeared in the public Press.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it would be convenient to him, either
1106
to-day or later, to make a general statement as to the Business of the House. The right hon. Gentleman postponed last week a general statement until he knew the decision of the House of Lords in. regard to the Licensing Bill. I imagine that the decision of the House of Lords is now generally known; and that being; so, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may now be prepared to make the general statement which he promised.
MR. ASQUITH: That element of uncertainty has been removed; but I should prefer to defer my statement a little time.

LORDS AND COMMONS.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to give notice that on an early day I shall move the following Resolution, "That having regard to the fact that serious questions affecting the working of the Parliamentary system have arisen from the differences between the two Houses, the time has now come for dealing with the position and composition of the House of Lords, either by the initiation of legislation for the purpose, or by the exercise of the Royal prerogative to withhold the issue of writs of summons to Peers of the realm to attend Parliament, on the advice of Ministers responsible to the House of Commons and through the House of Commons to the people, or by both methods, so as to secure that the accident of birth shall no longer afford rights of controlling the legislation of a free and self-governing people."

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (No. 2) BILL.
Mr. SPEAKERsaid the instructions to the Committee, appearing on the Paper in the names of the hon. Members for the Walton division of Liverpool and North-West Manchester, were out of order.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
The CHAIRMANsaid the first Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the

1107
hon. Member for East Mayo, should come in after the word "authority" in line 6 instead of at the beginning of the clause.
MR. DILLONsaid that unless the words he proposed were inserted at the beginning of the clause, it would probably be impossible to raise the question as between contracting-out and coming into the national system for the Catholic schools. If the Amendment was put down to come in after the word "authority," it could not be discussed, as the Amendments preceding that word were so important that they would fully occupy the time at the disposal of the Committee. He would respectfully urge that, unless the Chairman's sense was very strong that the words were out of order at the beginning of the clause, he should not deprive him of the opportunity to move them now; otherwise they would be prevented from raising what to them was the supreme issue of the Bill.
The CHAIRMANsaid the Committee was acting under an order made by the House, and he had no responsibility for that order, except to see that it was carried out. The reason why the Amendment could not be allowed at the beginning of the clause was that it was a rule of Committee debates that an Amendment could not be proposed to insert words at the commencement of a clause with a view to proposing an alternative scheme to that in the clause. It was obvious that if that were allowed, they might never get to the clause at all.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the Amendment his hon. friend did not propose an alternative scheme; it only proposed an exception to the general scheme contained in the clause.
The CHAIRMANsaid there was no question but that it was a separate scheme from the point of view of a Committee debate.
MR. HUNT, in moving the omission of subsection (1), said the reason he had put down the Amendment was that he could not see why what were called the
1108
provided schools should not have just as much right to have money from the rates as any other schools. Indeed, he thought they had a little more right because those who provided the schools had saved the State a lot of money by building the schools and finding the money to carry them on. Therefore, if any schools ought to have rate aid, surely those were the schools. Under this clause they were penalising the very people who had helped the State and who had done for education what the State never did in the old days, and he could not help thinking that instead of disallowing their payment from the rates they should have a fair system, and that, at all events, those denominations who had already helped education ought certainly to have their fair share of the rates. Until they got a fair settlement of this question on those lines, this education difficulty would never be settled.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out subsection (1)."—(Mr. Hunt.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'an elementary school' stand part of the clause."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,)said the hon. Member must be quite well aware that the Government could not accept the Amendment. If it were carried it would leave the denominational schools on the rates now exactly as they were at present. Any arrangement entered into was subject to the condition that the denominational schools should not be rate aided, and he doubted whether the object of the hon. Gentleman would be carried out even if his Amendment were agreed to. The corollary of rate-aid was obviously local public control, and he did not think the hon. Gentleman wished that to be applied to the schools with which he was more immediately associated. The Amendment raised the whole question that had been debated in times past, and was indeed the basis of the compromise. He could not, therefore, see his way to accept the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not surprised any of them in not accepting the Amendment. He quite agreed that he could not accept it. It raised the general question of the whole Bill, and it gave an occasion, of which he thought the Committee should take advantage, of really arriving at some clear idea of the present condition of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the compromise which had been arrived at, and the Prime Minister on a previous day said the Bill could only pass as an agreed Bill. It was because the House had been led to think by the Government and by other speakers that this was an agreed Bill, in the words of the Prime Minister, and an agreed compromise, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education, that it received the degree of favour which it did receive in the Second Reading debate and that the benches he was now addressing were relatively so thinly occupied. The Members of that House undoubtedly had got the impression, rightly or wrongly that they were discussing a measure upon which very eminent ecclesiastical dignitaries of the Church of England, of the Church of Rome, and of the Nonconformist bodies had been consulted. That was the impression under which the House had consented in the first place to pass the Second Reading and, in the second place, to submit to closure by compartments. That was the view. Was it the correct view? He thought they were really bound a little to press the Government upon this point. The Prime Minister, in answer to a question that afternoon, had said that there was no more correspondence than that which had appeared in the Press between the Archbishop and the Government. He wished distinctly to understand how the matter stood between the Government and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and between the Government and those with whom they had been in communication, and who represented the Roman Catholic Church. When the Prime Minister said there was no further correspondence since last Thursday, was it to be understood that since then the Archbishop of Canterbury had made no representation to the Government on the subject
1110
of this Bill? If the Archbishop had not—he wished specifically to put this question—did the right hon. Gentleman interpret his silence as meaning that he was content with the financial proposal for schools and the arrangements for transfer and maintenance? As the hon. Member for Mayo had said, when Clause 1 was passed the Committee would be committed absolutely to the destruction of voluntary schools; they would go beyond recall so far as the Committee was concerned when subsection (1) of Clause 1 was passed. Surely, then, the Committee ought to know if the parties to the compromise or arrangement were content with the terms upon which the schools were to go. It must be clear to every member of the Committee that the Government had no right to consider the Bill as an agreed Bill unless the compromise covered all the questions lying behind the clause. What would be their position if they found during the next three days, in the course of the operation of the closure, that upon the points upon which the compromise was supposed to be arranged the arrangements were unsatisfactory? It was not an unreasonable question to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee in explicit categorical terms how the incomplete correspondence with the Archbishop had terminated; whether the agreement which had not been arrived at when the correspondence came to a conclusion had been now arrived at; if not, what was the nature of the hitch, and whether it was a difficulty which should induce the Committee to hesitate to pass sub-clause (1) as part of an agreed Bill. Also, he asked if the Roman Catholic Church was contented with the arrangement that had been come to with regard to contracting-out schools. These were reasonable questions to ask and answer there and then, and unless there was a clear and explicit statement it was not legitimate for the right hon. Gentleman to talk of an accepted compromise, and for the Prime Minister to speak of this as an agreed Bill. He pressed the matter no further at the moment, but awaited with anxiety what the right hon. Gentleman had to say.
LORD EDMUND TALBOTthought the right hon. Gentleman would have replied at once to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, but as he was going to defer his answer he would like to ask him to develop, if he could, what fell from the Prime Minister on Friday last in reference to the position of the Catholic contracted-out schools under the Bill. It was quite clear, as had been pointed out, that owing to the Chairman's ruling on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mayo, when the Committee passed Clause 1 under the closure at half-past ten o'clock, then, so far as contracting-out schools were concerned, the question would be settled. The Prime Minister intimated on Friday that the question of grants to contracting-out schools was still an open question, and by so saying, as he understood Parliamentary phraseology, the Prime Minister intimated that the scheduled grants as they now stood in the Bill would be raised. Before the Committee came to a decision upon this part of Clause 1 it was only fair they should be told what was to be the amount to be given to the contracting-out schools. If they were not given that information then it would seem the Government were following the same course they had pursued with the Archbishop of Canterbury and which had led to the difficulty in which the Prime Minister now found himself. For reasons best known to himself the right hon. Gentleman avoided in his correspondence and conversation with the Archbishop letting the latter know what the grants were going to be. Even when the Archbishop was sent a draft of the Bill the amount was left blank in the Bill. Were they now going to be treated in the same way? If so, it was not courteous; it was not fair to the House; and, on behalf of his co-religionists, he asked to be informed before proceeding further what grants were to be proposed for the contracted-out schools.
MR. LYTTELTON, as one who had voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, earnestly asked for an answer to the question. He had not the opportunity in a few moments on the Second Reading to give his reason why he was disinclined to stand in the way of a settlement; but as he had said
1112
publicly since, his vote was given subject to the reservation that the right of entry should be further safeguarded, and that Amendments to the contracting-out and transfer clauses should be of a very substantial character. He further had said, and he repeated, that he would not give up the position he had taken in voting for the Second Reading, unless satisfied that the rights of Roman Catholics were safeguarded; that was a question of honour and equity. It was a matter of the gravest importance, before deciding on this clause, to know exactly what the position was, whether an agreement had been arrived at with the Church of England, Nonconformists, and Roman Catholics. He most earnestly trusted that some further light would be thrown upon this matter.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he was sure there would be no desire that he should make a Second Reading speech on every Amendment, but he would be glad to give such information as was asked for. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition seemed to be under some misapprehension. When he last spoke the Prime Minister said this was not to be treated as a treaty between high contracting parties, and the Government had not diverged from their position; they thought they had arrived at common ground upon which they could proceed, and that common ground was that there should be no rate aid to any school not under public control and management. That principle was clear from the outset, it was in the letter from the Prime Minister to the Primate, it was made the first condition and not objected to, and was part of the agreement. The right hon. Gentleman asked if there was any further correspondence since the letter between the Government and the Archbishop of Canterbury. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen the letters between the Archbishop and the Prime Minister published on Saturday. Perhaps he had better read a passage from the Prime Minister's letter—
"We are not only willing but anxious to hear and consider any criticisms you may have to offer on the schedules as they at present stand. Mr. Runciman will very gladly accept your offer of a conference with expert assistance. It would, however, facilitate matters if in advance you would kindly have sent to him a statement

1113
in outline (not, of course, in detail) of any specific objections to the proposed scale and of any counter-proposal which you may wish to formulate."
When they came to these subjects they would be treated with every consideration, and the Government would do what they could to show that their proposals were perfectly reasonable, absolutely fulfilling the undertaking of the Prime Minister that the contracted-out schools should have a reasonable chance of existence. They would be able to show when they came to that stage that they had made full and ample provision for contracted-out schools. The transfer of schools they would treat in exactly the same way, and he would be able to give good grounds, not only in theory, but in practice, for the belief that their terms were fair and just. He altogether deprecated discussions of either of the Schedules on the first subsection. They would have full time for discussing them. On Wednesday they had put down the Report stage of the Financial Resolution, when he hoped to make a fuller statement on the finances of the Bill. They had increased the number of days for the Committee stage so that both Schedules might come under full discussion, and there was no reason to believe that out of that discussion they would not come fully justified.
MR. WYNDHAMwished to say with very great respect, for they all knew the great courtesy with which the President of the Board of Education had handled this difficult matter, that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question of the Leader of the Opposition. He had referred to the Schedules and to Clause 2, and had said that he hoped and believed that the financial terms of the Schedule providing sums for the contracted-out schools and the administrative terms of the clause would, when reached, be considered satisfactory by the Committee. That was not an answer to the question whether the Government had arrived at a complete understanding with the Archbishop of Canterbury and those who spoke for the Roman Catholics upon whether the terms would be considered by them as adequate, effective, and full.
1114
They could not pass subsection (1) of Clause 1 until they had an answer to that question. The point was not whether the Government thought their terms adequate, but whether they could say that those who spoke for the Church of England and the Roman Catholics thought them adequate. Otherwise it would not be an agreed Bill and they must look at this subsection as if it was the beginning of a Bill introduced under ordinary circumstances. In view of the silence with which the right hon. Gentleman had met his right hon. friend's question, they saw at once that the subsection was the foundation of the whole Bill. The President of the Board of Education said that it was one of the items on which an agreement had been arrived at, but it was not an item at all, but the foundation of the whole scheme. It was only an item if agreement had been reached on all the other items—the terms for contracted out schools, the transfer of Church schools in single-school areas, and the right of entry in county council schools. Being a foundation, it was obvious that it would determine both the shape and stability of everything super-imposed upon it. When they voted at half-past ten that night for the clause they would definitely give up one system of national education for another.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: So far as the Committee is concerned.
MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, so far as this House was concerned. Unless on the Report stage they diametrically reversed the view they took in Committee, so far as this House was concerned, they would substitute for the existing system a system which educational experts told them would be less efficient and which financial experts told them would be more expensive. Under ordinary circumstances everybody would agree that the House of Commons would feel it its duty to examine such provisions with minute care and somewhat prolonged deliberation; but none of them would pretend that they were discussing the question under ordinary circumstances. They were discussing it under somewhat extraordinary and, he thought, extra-constitutional conditions. They had been

1115
told by the newspapers that this item embodied the upshot of the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Primate of the Established Church. Did it embody that? Had they reached a conclusion? Until they knew that, what was the use of referring them to the newspapers of the country? It might be that thanks to the good offices of the Prime Minister and the Primate they were relieved of their functions and had no duty to perform. That seemed to be the view of the Government, because, as they had had no opportunity of collecting the opinion of their constituents, it was evident that they were not in a position to perform the duties that generally deolved upon them. They were invited by the Minister for Education—he would not say commanded, as he did not wish to import heat into the debate—simply to signify their assent to an agreement which the official heads of the political and ecclesiastical institutions of the country had almost, if they had not quite, arrived at. In response to that invitation they were entitled to ask whether they had arrived, or had almost arrived, and, certainly, whether they were sure to arrive, at an agreement. If there was any doubt about that, the whole case for passing Clause 1 as an item of compromise fell to the ground. It was suggested that if the Prime Minister and the Primate did not quite understand each other then all misunderstandings would be cleared up in another place. Was he to understand that they were to march into the lobby when the guillotine fell and that all outstanding differences of the most fundamental character were to be adjusted by the Lords spiritual and temporal? Was that the view of the supporters of the Government? Since that was the very minor role allocated to the House of Commons he thought that they ought to be very graceful to the Prime Minister for having allowed them a whole day in which to signify their formal assent and to put their mark on an instrument of policy on which the Prime Minister and the Primate might possibly agree. The first Minister of the Crown and the Archbishop of Canterbury had done their work for them. It was quite like the old times. They were back in the Middle Ages. But even then the
1116
rude representatives of the people were permitted to take the liberty of asking a few questions, and he would ask the Minister for Education three questions [Cries of "Oh."] Was that too much? Their right to debate ended at half-past ten; was it too much to ask three questions on a Bill of this magnitude? His first was whether it was a fact that, if they passed this subsection now, contracted out schools were a necessary consequence. Was it a fact that they would adopt contracting-out into the national educational system? They knew what the result of the division would be. The battalion opposite was very well drilled and observed silence in the ranks. Very few would speak; fewer would listen; and all would march into the "Aye" lobby. So it was not hypothetical, but if they passed the subsection they would have adopted, after one day's debate, contracting-out as part of the national system. If that was so, they knew where they were. Then he asked his second question. Would not that impose a very considerable burden upon the taxpayers, who would have to provide the Parliamentary grant to support these contracted-out schools; and would it not, under subsection (3) of the clause, impose a very large burden on the ratepayers who were invited to run rate-aided schools in competition against the taxpayers' schools? Was it not clear that if they passed the subsection they were going to embarrass the financial position of the country? His third question was whether the Minister for Education had made any attempt to estimate the cost put on the taxpayers and ratepayers if they passed the subsection with all the consequences it entailed. If the subsection was passed, it was perfectly clear that they would be committed to contracting-out on a large scale and to a large increase of the education grant, along with, in all probability, equivalent grants for that purpose, or another purpose, in Scotland and Ireland. That was clear, but what was not clear was why it should be done. It would have been quite clear if the Minister of Education had been able, and willing to answer his right hon. friend. If the right hon. Gentleman had been able, he was quite sure that he would have been willing to answer his

1117
right hon. friend. If this was an agreed Bill, an accepted compromise, then the answer would he that they asked the House to pass subsection (1) Clause 1 in the hope of peace. But if the right hon. Gentleman was not able to give that assurance what possible reason could there be to ask the House to divide the national system of education into two conflicting parts, and to place great burdens on the taxpayers and on the ratepayers in order to introduce separate kinds of schools running in competition with each other? Perhaps by so doing the Government would discover another method of relieving unemployment. There was little hope for peace unless the Minister for Education could reply satisfactorily to his right hon. friend. He himself was sorry for it. When the State announced that in future it would stamp its approval on only one form of religious instruction in a country which had hitherto been famous for the vigour and variety of its religious convictions, what great hope was there of peace? Unless the Minister for Education could say that this was an agreed Bill, an accepted compromise, the hope of peace became less and less; and it had been extinguished by the conditions under which they were asked to welcome this measure, because they were asked by the closure Resolution really to abandon their position under the Constitution and to accept an approximate agreement between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prime Minister to be reviewed or ratified, if reviewed or ratified at all, not there but in the House of Lords.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid that the obvious meaning of this clause was that no rate aid of any kind was to be given to any schools except those of a certain character. It was notorious that all the Roman Catholic schools in the country declined to take to themselves that character, and therefore the House was proposing that no rate aid should be given to any Roman Catholic schools. That was, he maintained, an essentially unjust proposition, however many archbishops or bishops had agreed to it. He did not think that anyone on that side of the House denied that the
1118
Roman Catholics paid rates for the support of schools to which it was admitted that they could not send their children, and therefore they had an absolute claim in equity to a refund of a proportionate share of the rates for the support of schools to which they could send their children. There never had been an attempt to answer that argument. The plausible excuse had occasionally been given that if this argument were applied to education they might apply it to battleships and free libraries. But surely the distinction was very great. They built battleships for common national purposes, but they had not yet come to the point of deciding that there was one common national religion to which every citizen in this country was bound to conform. At any rate, he hoped not. But if there was not a common national religion to which they were all bound to conform, he had a right to say to one section of the community: "If you take my money for your schools, I have a right to ask for a share of your money for my schools." He held this proposition, apart from the question of putting the schools in an efficient condition. He held it on the ground of financial honesty. That being so, if the Government proceeded on the principle of refusing rate aid to voluntary schools, they were bound to make that loss good out of State aid. Personally he had never been able to appreciate this great mystery of the distinction between rate aid and State aid. In various parts of the World there were various strange creeds supported by the State, but never before had people been found willing to maintain as an article of faith, for which they would fight to their last gasp, that there was an eternally sacred distinction between rates and taxes. Yet that was the proposition which seemed to be put forward now. He hoped that hon. Members opposite would not fall into the same folly and insist on having actual rate aid for their schools when they could get a proportional contribution from the Imperial Exchequer. He readily admitted that they were right in objecting to a fixed Exchequer grant, for the fixed Exchequer grant took no account whatever of the variable cost of education in different places, or of its tendency to increase.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought that the hon. Gentleman was not in order to go into these details at the present stage, although he might refer generally to the financial effect of contracting-out.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid that he did not object to contracting-out. He was one of the few Members of the House who actually believed in contracting-out. Two years ago he proposed an Amendment in favour of it and hon. Gentleman opposite, both above and below the gangway, voted for it although they now explained that they did so not believing in it. On that occasion the Government voted against his Amendment, yet now they had embodied it in their Bill. Whether they believed in it or not he should not care to guess. Personally he believed that contracting-out was the only possible solution of this difficulty, and that they would never get real liberty for the schools of the country except by freeing them from local control. His hon. friends opposite said that they objected to contracting-out because it would put the Catholic schools outside the national system of education. That was a very attractive phrase, but did it really mean anything? Were not Eton and Harrow as much part of our national system of education as the schools maintained by the Borough Council of West Ham? Before the Committee adopted this clause it ought to be made perfectly clear that the Government did propose to take account of the difference in the cost of schools in different areas, and to provide for the progressive increase of the cost of elementary education in the council schools.
MR. BELLOCthought it would be necessary for every Roman Catholic to support the Amendment. They regretted this, because there were many of them, certainly all of them who took any interest and part in the public life of the country, who recognised clearly that the attempt which was being made to make a settlement of this vexed education question was a genuine one and was the outcome of a great deal of energy on the part of the Minister for Education. He acknowledged that in
1120
framing this subsection of the Bill, the Board of Education believed that they must accept the only alternative offered to the Catholics. But he respectfully submitted that they had not taken sufficient steps to find out whether the Catholics could accept it or another. The Catholics, as the House knew, numbered from five to seven per cent. of the population of the country. They were so concentrated in numbers that their particular position in the community did not make them indeed the dominant party, but their vote very largely influenced elections in such districts as his own constituency of Salford and in Manchester, Bradford, Liverpool, and some districts of London. He submitted that that point of view was not sufficiently studied in the hurried communications which had taken place with the heads of the Catholic party as the last moment.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that his hon. friend was under a complete misapprehension. Both his predecessors were in full communication and touch with the highest dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, both in the summer and in the autumn.
MR. BELLOCsaid he knew as a fact that the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman and, even more, the predecessor of his predecessor were in touch with them, but if the Minister for Education was under the impression that he had arrived at some sort of final solution with the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, then he said that personally, and other members of that Church and the whole hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, disagreed with him. The unanimity on this matter was very different from the diverse feelings which existed when the Bill of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland was under discussion; and that unanimity, if it existed, made it dangerous for the future progress of this Bill. He wanted to explain why the feeling that this clause was unreasonable existed amongst many of the members of other religious, communities than the Catholic or the Anglican. His hon. friend the Member for Preston said that when contracting-out was proposed two years ago the Irish Party, or at any rate the Catholic

1121
Members of that Party, voted for it. They voted for it as the lesser of two evils in a Bill of the most drastic kind, proposed if he might say so, as a weapon of offence. This Bill was not of that character. This Bill had the character of a final compromise and was put forward indeed, almost as non-contentious. The other was described, in a military metaphor as a sword. What was more, they opposed contracting-out because there was very considerable danger—he used the word, danger advisedly—of this compromise becoming law. They all saw the conversation which took place on the front Opposition bench when another place was alluded to, but he did not think that that other place, which was already waking up to the mistake it had made in the last few days, was going to make another mistake, and he was not aware that Lord Rothschild possessed any debentures or monetary interest, and, therefore, he did not think he would enter into this matter. He did not think it would concern those things the noble Lord thought most important, and it was on that account and because some of the Anglican episcopacy and many men of various parties in this House were agreed upon this compromise—it was because it was the more likely to become law that the more strenuously should they oppose the propositions which it contained. They could not accept the position of inferiors receiving a smaller amount than their fellow citizens, while they paid the same taxes, and if schools were to be established in this country under what he believed was its national religion—[Cries of "What is it?"]—Cowper-Templeism—and if Catholics were to be treated as exceptional people who must be fined for holding a religion of somewhat greater antiquity and with somewhat sharper definitions, they would resist it in this House, they would resist it when or if the Bill became law, and—he knew the gravity of saying this, but he might say it with perfect justice—he believed that in making such a proposition the Government would create a position not only untenable in logic, but unworkable in practice.
LORD R. CECILsaid the only comment he would make upon
1122
the speech of the hon. Member for South Salford Was to protest that Cowper-Templeism, whatever that might mean, was not the national religion, unless it Was true, as he believed an interesting writer had said, that religion was dead in this country. As to the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman in his answer said that the Bill was not an agreement and repeated what had been said before by speakers on the Treasury bench, but he did not think he meant himself to be taken quite seriously. Nobody in the Committee supposed that the Bill would ever have been introduced unless the Government had been able to flourish before the House something in the nature of an agreement which they had arrived at with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Everybody knew that that was the foundation on which the Bill rested, and he thought that Was clear from the right hon. Gentleman's own speech, because he went on to say that the Archbishop never objected to this subsection, which was an essential part of their scheme. He had done his best to read the voluminous correspondence between the Government and the Archbishop which had been published, and he should say that the Archbishop objected in almost every line to this subsection. He said it was a most tremendous sacrifice and was a thing to which he could scarcely ask his fellow-Churchmen to agree. Every argument of the Archbishop was a complete objection to this subsection. The most reverend Prelate said—he did not agree with him—that the other advantages of the Bill were such as to enable him to agree to that subsection. [MINISTERIAL. cheers]. Yes, but what were those advantages? One of the chief, which the Archbishop had said was absolutely essential was still a matter of negotiation. That was why the right hon. Gentleman not only in form but in substance had not answered in any degree the question put to him. The point was quite simple. This had been represented by the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman himself as in the nature of a treaty—[Cries of "No"]—well, as a compromise or a balanced settlement. He did not care about phrases, he was dealing with facts. They were given a balance-sheet by both of the Ministers, and foremost amongst those things which

1123
the Church gave up were the matters contained in this subsection. What they wanted to know was what was to be put on the other side of the balance-sheet. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to assure the House that these items of the balance-sheet had been agreed upon, but it was quite immaterial whether they put anything on the other side. It was like the right hon. Gentleman saying he had agreed to sell a horse and the price did not matter. ["No."] That was precisely the same thing. It was all very well for members of the Nonconformist party to protest against that, but they would find if they examined it that the parallel was an absolutely true one. He had not overlooked the correspondence which was published in Saturday's Papers. Nothing could be more clear than what the Archbishop said. He said that the question of the Schedule was absolutely an essential question. In so many words he said it was essential to the agreement and essential to the settlement they had come to. Therefore it was absolutely absurd to say that when he agreed to this subsection he agreed to it without reference to the terms which the Schedule was to contain. There was one passage in the letters published on Saturday to which he desired to draw the attention of the Committee because it might be the explanation. The Prime Minister said he had purposely put off the schedule till Tuesday in order to give time for negotiations and discussion. Did that mean that if the negotiations did not result in an agreement the Government would withdraw the Bill? There was no answer at present, but he thought the Committee would be very glad to know that. It was not for him to criticise hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite; it might well be thought it was consistent with the views of a party which was always dneouncing sacerdotalism to try and settle the education question by an agreement with the Archbishop. He did not know how that might be, but they ought to know whether, if an agreement was not arrived at on Tuesday next, the Bill would be withdrawn. He was obliged to ask that question.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he really must call the hon. Member to order. He had given him very large latitude, but clearly
1124
there must be a limit to the questions asked, and he did not think that which the noble Lord asked came within the scope of the subsection.
MR. A. J. BALFOURon the point of order said he wished to ask a question. He believed he was right in saying that this Bill was presented as an arrangement in which two sides both gave up something. Something which was given up was represented by the subsection, and what they were anxious to know was whether an arrangement had been come to as to what was to be given up on the other side. He would ask as a point of order whether it was not absolutely necessary before they allowed subsection (1) to pass into the Bill they should know what was the corresponding arrangement on the other side, and could that be excluded from their discussion. It was a very exceptional position of affairs, which justified him in putting a point of order in that particular form.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman if he had been in the House would have noticed that he had not pulled up anybody for putting a question of that kind, but now the noble Lord wished to know if the Bill was going to be withdrawn under certain conditions, and he thought that was not allowable.
LORD R. CECILsaid he would not repeat what he had said; he was only going to make this one other observation, which he thought the Chairman would allow, that the question of whether an agreement or not was arrived at was really a matter of vital importance to the House in considering whether they would assent to this subsection, and they had to consider, in assuming the probability of such an agreement, this further fact—that they had a statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Westminster that the terms offered were grossly insufficient. They had the converse statement repeated with great energy by several eminent Nonconformists, that no concession of any further kind would be made to the denominations in question. It would, therefore,

1125
seem impossible for the Government to give way or make any further advances in connection with the schedule, and, therefore, they had to take it for the purposes of this discussion that on the terms as they stood the only authority which gave the Government the least right to say that this was a balanced settlement or an agreed Bill had absolutely repudiated the measure as it stood at present, and on that ground, without going into the tremendous sacrifices which this subsection imposed upon the Church, without repeating what he said on the Second Reading as to the total inadequacy of the Bill—on that ground if all the other grounds were swept away, he should feel himself compelled to vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that in the few observations he had to make, he would not say anything which would make any concession difficult of attainment, and he should not have made any observations at all on the subject before the Committee, if he had not wished to give utterance in the House to the objection which was so very strongly felt, as he believed, with increasing force in Lancashire, a county in which he represented a constituency. He would ask the Committee most earnestly to consider for a moment the wholly exceptional position of Lancashire as far as these proposals were concerned. He did not wish to elaborate or to repeat the points which had already been frequently made in the course of these debates, but the Committee was probably aware that the majority of the children in Lancashire at the present time were being educated in voluntary schools, and taking the population as a whole by any test of homogeneity that could be applied, the denominational system was one which was suited to and warmly appreciated by the great mass of the population throughout this county. That was true of Lancashire, and he wished to draw an analogy for a moment between the state of affairs in Lancashire and the state of affairs throughout the country as far as the Roman Catholics were concerned. Many of his own constituents were Roman Catholics, and
1126
held views on this subject which were certainly quite as strong and unimpeachable as those held by Anglicans. This Bill was put forward as an agreed settlement, and as a compromise which it was presumed gave to the Church and the Roman Catholics something more than they would have been able to obtain under previous Bills which they had successfully resisted. If that were not the case put forward it was clear that there would not be any great inducement for this change, which they were resisting by every means in their power, because they believed that if they were to waive their objections and support the present proposal the paradoxical consequence would occur that Lancashire and the Roman Catholic schools would be actually in a worse position under Clause 1 of the present Bill than they were under the Bill of the last Education Minister but one, the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There was in. his Bill the safeguard that under certain conditions the rates would be still available for denominational schools, and they were not cut adrift from the national system. Now, they had a much worse Bill, which was put forward as an improvement. So far as Lancashire was concerned, it would not be disputed by any Lancashire Member that the majority of the people there continued to desire that denominational instruction should have recourse to the rates. The Bill, however, said that if they retained that teaching they must be cut adrift from the rates and make heavy sacrifices. In Blackburn they had a denominational school which would cost them £6,000 a year under that Bill.
MR. RUNCIMAN: Has the hon. Member taken into consideration the question of pooling?
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he had not taken that into account in this case, but he was informed, on behalf both of Roman Catholics and of Anglicans, that taking the country as a whole pooling would not introduce any very material qualification of the figures. But even if some reduction were made, the position in Blackburn would be

1127
that the people would still have to pay rates in support of teaching of which they disapproved, and to contribute a very large sum in order to retain the privilege of carrying on their own schools. This was the very negation of equality as between the different sects, and he formally gave notice that if the Bill passed there would not be an election in Lancashire at which candidates on both sides would not be asked: "Are you prepared to increase the grant until it coincides with the full total cost of secular education?"
THE CHAIRMANsaid the question of the adequacy of the grant to contracting-out schools did not arise now.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that in his judgment there never would be a settlement upon the terms laid down in the Bill. But if the Government would deal with voluntary schools upon a basis of exact equality, then there would be a permanent settlement. Exact equality meant that there should be a right of entry, and that denominationalists should be treated in precisely the same way as those devoted to Cowper-Temple teaching were treated in the council schools, without any of these almost insulting distinctions.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech. Cowper-Templeism does not arise on this Amendment.
MR. F. E. SMITHsubmitted that it was impossible to discuss the Amendment unless they considered the terms to be granted to contracting-out schools. As one who had never pretended to be a strong denominationalist, but who had always lived among a community of very strong denominationalists, he predicted that unless the Government recognised that there must be equality of treatment there would be no compromise.
MR. ASHLEYsaid that all his constituents felt deeply about this Bill. They had not been consulted on the compromise. If they had been they would not have
1128
agreed to it in any way. Under it the voluntary schools, Anglican and Catholic, were to be handed over to the local education authorities, and when they remembered that 700,000 children were being educated in the voluntary schools they would agree that the subsection might have a very important and far-reaching effect. By the subsection the managers and trustees of the voluntary schools would be compelled to hand over schools held under charitable trusts which specially laid down that the teaching of the Church of England and no other was to be given in them. Cowper-Temple teaching would be given in them every day by the local education authority, and it would be small comfort to know that denominational religion might be allowed an entry on two days a week. It was a strong order to ask denominational school managers to hand over their schools on such terms. Thousands of the working men of Lancashire had built these schools in order to educate their children in the faith of their parents. Let the Committee consider what their feelings would be. Was there any justice in the proposition that these schools should be handed over and that on two days a week denominational teaching should be given, but on the other five days Cowper-Temple teaching should be given?
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that that question did not arise on the subsection.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was aware of the multifarious duties of the Prime Minister, but he felt obliged to say that he bitterly regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not found it possible to be present during this discussion. The Bill was of such supreme importance, and so difficult was the task before them, that the Committee really needed the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman during the discussion. He could not help thinking that had the Prime Minister been present, he would have begun to regret that he had insisted upon their proceeding with the Bill with so much rapidity and so little time to consider it. After all, this measure was presented as being the

1129
outcome of an understanding between Nonconformist opinion on the one side and Anglican opinion on the other, and that the differences between the parties had been almost bridged. The Prime Minister had stated that the two bodies had come so closely together and the gap between them was so small that it was the duty of the Government itself to step in and bridge it over. What they wanted to know was whether the Prime Minister or the Minister for Education was in a position to say that that statement correctly described the position to-day. He thought that the Prime Minister's statement left out of account the position of the Roman Catholics. At any rate, the passage of the right hon. Gentleman's speech to which he referred did not allude to them. It was confined to the Nonconformists and to the members of the Church of England. But the question with which the debate started and which still remained unanswered, though put by his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, was whether the statement of the Prime Minister correctly represented the position. It might be that he thought it represented the position, but when he used those words the other day, did they correctly represent the position? That the right hon. Gentleman thought they did, they one and all recognised to the full. But they had seen the correspondence which appeared on Saturday in the newspapers, and there was grave reason to doubt that the Government had really brought the two parties so closely together as they thought. Throughout the debate they had seen that those who were accustomed to act together in the closest harmony in that House had found themselves taking different views of this solution, and they all of them had to do the best they could under very difficult circumstances. But surely it was material for them to know whether what was within this Bill offered the means of enduring peace, and also what was the present position of the negotiations. As his noble friend the Member for Marylebone had pointed out, this Bill was not merely as a whole a balanced settlement, but clause was balanced against clause, and, as the Prime Minister himself had pointed out, Clause 1 was the great concession to
1130
Nonconformist opinion. It was, therefore, very material to know what was expected to be received in return for what they gave, what it was they were to get elsewhere in the Bill, and what was the price to be paid. They ought to know whether the Archbishop and his friends would receive in the later portions of the Bill the considerations which they thought they were promised when they consented to become parties to this settlement. He pressed for an answer to the question whether the position of the negotiations was as hopeful now as when the Bill was introduced, and whether the grave doubts expressed in the Archbishop's letter on Saturday had been removed in the course of the negotiations since. Might he say one word as to the position of the Roman Catholics? Of course, they knew nothing of what had passed between the Government and the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, but it was evident to anybody who wanted a solution of this question, that the Government had not only to effect a settlement reasonable and satisfactory to Nonconformists and to the members of the Church of England, but also one which would be reasonable and satisfactory to the Roman Catholics also. He regretted that an hon. Member opposite had made an attack upon his noble friend Lord Rothschild which was wholly unnecessary and irrelevant. It was an abuse of the hon. Member's position to make insinuations that seemed all the more reprehensible and all the less pardonable when they recollected that the communion to which Lord Rothschild belonged maintained at considerable expense their own special schools. Any member of the Jewish communion would recognise that the services of Lord Rothschild, with his family, to those schools were such as should protect him against the insinuations of the hon. Member. It was necessary to have a solution, if it was to be enduring, which would be reasonable and satisfactory to all those bodies. But they were asking all who had grave doubts about the possibility of arriving at a settlement, and all who were without knowledge as to the present position of the negotiations on various points, to accept now what was the foundation of the whole scheme. He earnestly desired

1131
a settlement, and he put it to the Government whether, by withholding information of this kind, they would really promote the passage of the Bill. He thought that in a matter of this character the Government ought to deal frankly and fully with the House, and play with all the cards on the table.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid there was no objection whatever to replying to the inquiries made by both right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he proposed to answer them in a few words. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire had asked him whether they were as hopeful now as they were last week of arriving at a settlement of this question. He would tell him emphatically that they were. They had no reason to believe the contrary. If either of the right hon. Gentlemen could tell him that he had information from the Archbishop authorising him to say that he did not agree to the passing of this subsection until they had finally closed up in water-tight form every detail and every minor point as respected the amount of grants, the pooling of grants, and the rents, then he could only say that was new information which he received with great apprehension. But he had no ground for believing that anything of the kind existed. The latest knowledge he had led him to believe that the Archbishop was not prepared to destroy the Bill at the present moment because they had not arrived at a complete agreement as to the financial clauses. There was nothing new in the correspondence on Saturday. The Archbishop, when the Government introduced their Bill, stated in his letter the fact that, as regarded the money, he could not give a final reply. There was nothing new in that. The Archbishop had said exactly the same thing before. The Government were going into these details with those who represented the English Church, or they thought represented the English Church, and he hoped that, before they had done with this Bill in the House of Commons, they would be able to state definitely whether the representatives of the Church did or did not agree with the terms of the Bill. But they could only proceed with one subsection at a time, and he was asking the House to do a perfectly justifi-
1132
able thing, namely, to pass the first subsection, when he said that all outstanding features had been settled, with the exception of the provision in regard to rents, the figures as to the grants, and certain matters of minor interpretation. It would be entirely contrary to the practice of the House to say that they would not take this first subsection because there might be some outstanding features that could be discussed later on, not only on the Committee stage, but on the Report stage. [OPPOSITION cries of "Will they be discussed?"] He ventured to say that these important matters would be discussed on the Report stage, and the Government had no wish to prevent their being discussed on the Report stage.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINpointed out that whilst they could reduce the grants on the Report stage, there was no power, even the Government had not the power, to move an increase of them. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have that in his mind.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he had that in mind. What they were now discussing was the first subsection of Clause 1. The other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was that if they passed this clause, they would be taking an irrevocable step. He was not asking them to take an irrevocable step. They never took an irrevocable step on the Committee Stage of the Bill. He was not quite sure that, if they gave to the contracting-out schools far more than they did in the schedule, the Leader of the Opposition would even then vote for it, for he understood that the right hon. Gentleman objected, to the principles of the Bill as it was framed. All he could say was that they were doing their best to close up the small points, and they ought not to be prevented from getting subsection (1) of this clause, merely because they were now discussing and hoped to agree on other points.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman asked him whether he had any information that the Archbishop was unwilling to pass subsection (1), or

1133
was in a mood which would make a settlement of later clauses difficult. It was not he who was in communication with the Archbishop; it was not he who had had correspondence with his Grace; it was not he who was the authorised channel of the Archbishop's views in that House, and he could do no more than give the impression left on his mind by the correspondence. Anybody who had read that correspondence with an impartial eye must be aware that it showed that the Archbishop was deeply disquieted about what the right hon. Gentleman seemed to regard as details of the Bill. They were not details, but essential things as to which the Archbishop said there was to be a settlement. Even some of the speeches made on the other side offered sufficient warning that there might be grave doubts as to whether a settlement really could be arrived at upon this Bill. Let them assume for the sake of argument that they came to terms with the Archbishop. There was still left the question as regarded Roman Catholics. He was perfectly ready to discuss the subsection on those terms but, accepting the premise it was not treating them fairly to suggest that they were now discussing the principles which the Archbishop was anxious or ready to see pass and that other outstanding differences were questions of detail. That was really not so. The right hon. Gentleman said they must deal with each subsection by itself. That was precisely in contradiction to what was said by the Prime Minister and by the right hon. Gentleman himself on the Second Reading. They then said: "You cannot treat these questions by themselves. They are all part of one organic settlement. You cannot pass one without accepting the other. You cannot drop one without affecting the other." Accepting that view of the Bill he asked what was the organic settlement. Was it the Bill as it appeared before them? They knew it was not. They knew that conclusively from the correspondence. They knew that in this organic settlement they could not discuss one fraction without knowing what the other fractions were; it was like a tesselated pavement, each portion of which depended upon the others; they were at
1134
all events aware that while there might be agreement that this subsection should pass if the other parts of the Bill were satisfactory, there was no agreement that it should pass if the other subsections were unsatisfactory. The whole correspondence with the Archbishop and the Bishop of London showed that the other integral portions of this balanced arrangement were not settled. When the Government told them that this was an arrangement which must be taken or left as a whole, it was the most plain and obvious corollary that they should know what the whole was of which this subsection was a part. It was, not true that the other thing was a matter of detail. It was not true that the amount of money which the Roman Catholics got was a detail. It was not true that the terms on which entry was to be carried out or the terms on which transfer was to take place were details. They were essential and fundamental parts of one big bargain, and while he still, unhappily, had his doubts as to whether even if they carried out the bargain they would have a settlement, everyone admitted that if they did not carry out the bargain they could not have a settlement. It was perfect folly to part with one half of the bargain until they knew what the other half was. That seemed to him so plain and so obvious a fact that common fairness of dealing between the Government and the Committee required them to tell the Committee how they thought they could meet the claims of the Archbishop and the Bishop of London on the one side and the Roman Catholics on the other, before they passed from the subsection. It seemed so plain that he was amazed that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not see the thing in the same light. He was not conscious of having put before them anything in the nature of a paradox. The whole argument of such observations as he had laid before them was based upon the Prime Minister's own declaration that this was a self-contained scheme, indefensible in each of its parts but defensible regarded as a whole. Then they must know the whole, and the Government were most gravely to blame in asking them to discuss any

1135
of the parts until they were absolutely assured that the whole was that self-contained, harmonious, and organic unity which alone would justify the House in hoping against hope that it was to be a final settlement of the question.
MR. MADDISONentirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken as to the view put by the Prime Minister, namely, that this was a self-contained scheme, and that as a matter of fact it was not a Bill at all, and he did not regard it as a Bill but as a mere bargain. When he heard that, he felt himself totally unable to vote for the Second Reading, because he did not believe in the bargain, and if he had voted for the Second Reading he should not have been free to alter this or the other part of the bargain that did not suit him. He had never felt more humiliated in his life than that afternoon. They had been discussing the Archbishop of Canterbury. He had come there foolishly thinking that it was a Bill. They had had any amount of talk about the Archbishop and occasionally a Catholic Archbishop had been brought in, and on one solitary occasion he believed there was a reference to the Nonconformist leaders. They seemed to have receded into the dim and distant past. The person who was substantial and real was the Archbishop of Canterbury. It would help their debates if the Minister for Education would get a certificate from the Archbishop for each clause that he could read out and then there would be no doubt about it. The other alternative was to give the Archbishop a seat on that bench and then perhaps he would speak for himself. After what the tight hon. Gentleman had said, as he understood it, he was still carrying out his bargain. It was always difficult to deal with bishops; when they got to archbishops it was nearly impossible, and when the Archbishop had not made up his mind he was in a dilemma. But the right hon. Gentleman was under an entire misapprehension. Hon. Members had not read the Bill. This was a Bill to make proper provision with respect to elementary education and not elementary religion If they kept to education they would have no need of the Archbishop.
MR. POWERsaid that no one could deny that the clause and the Amendment raised a point of enormous interest to all voluntary schools and of particular interest to the schools in which he and his friends were interested. They did not pretend to be exactly the spokesmen of English Catholics, but they claimed that they were speaking in a particular manner for the Irish Catholics in this country. If those of Irish extraction were taken from the schools and the congregation they might as well shut up the greater part of the Catholic churches and schools of the country. The figures given the other night by the noble Lord the Member for Chichester as to the position of Catholic schools in this country were dismal, but he did not think they overstated the case. As he listened to those figures and to the debate he could not help regretting that the compromise practically arrived at two years ago by the ingenuity and the ability of his friends and of the Chief Secretary was not carried out. He very much feared they would never get a settlement of the Catholic question so favourable to the schools for which they spoke. He hoped the last word had not been spoken. He asked Nonconformist Members to recollect that they had suffered much in the past for their principles, and he hoped they would not inflict upon Catholics further injustice. By offering them a system of education which they could not accept they were offering them an impossibility and imposing fresh disabilities upon them. He appealed to them. They had an honourable record of which they might be proud, and he asked them to approach the whole of this question in the same spirit in which they had solved the question of University education in Ireland.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he did not think he should be adequately doing his duty to his constituents if he did not pronounce a few words at this stage of the discussion. It seemed to him that this quasi agreement was of a remarkable and precarious character. On the one hand they had concessions made by the friends of the voluntary schools which were of an assured and certain character, and on the other hand they had proposals

1137
made by the Government with regard to contracting out which were of a most uncertain and doubtful character, and which must necessarily create some anxiety in the minds of the supporters of voluntary schools. There was uncertainty as to both the amount and the permanency of the grant to contracted-out schools. It was quite possible that some time in the future a Government might be in power which, viewing contracted-out schools with abhorrence, would discontinue the grant. He would not be doing his duty as Vice-President in association with Lord Halifax of the Yorkshire House of Laymen if he did not say from his certain knowledge that there was a most profound anxiety felt throughout the Northern Province on this subject. He had a great desire for a settlement that would at least last for some years. Unless any arrangement arrived at met with the support of all parties it could not be permanent, and they would find themselves in an even worse position in the course of the next year or two than that they were in now. He felt very keenly that these discussions were injurious to the cause of education which must play a great part in the prosperity or decadence of this nation.
MR. STUARTasked the President of the Board of Education to give the Committee some information as to how far this was and was not an agreed measure. He was extremely desirous of passing this compromise, because he wished to have peace in the educational world for some little time at least. He thought both sides were giving up something and getting something, but what he wanted to know was whether if he endeavoured to amend the Bill he would endanger it by trenching upon the compromise. He wished to know how far this was an agreed Bill. For instance, he would like to know whether there was anything in the recent arrangement made to prevent him differentiating the Catholic position from the Church of England position. In the very clause they were dealing with there was a period allowed for religious education, and he believed that many schools would be troubled very much if the three quarters of an hour allowed
1138
was not reduced to half an hour. Would he be at liberty to vote for that diminution without endangering the compromise? There were many things he would like amended which he would not risk moving Amendments upon if it would endanger the Bill. He thought they might be taken a little more into the confidence of the Government. In the year 1884 when there was a dispute between Lords and Commons about the extension of the agricultural franchise and the redistribution of seats there was an agreement arrived at between the members of the Government and the Opposition in the House of Lords, and the very same difficulty arose as the one with which they were now face to face. He wanted to know from the Government how much of this measure was capable of being altered and how much was absolutely agreed upon. Speaking as one who was urgently desirous of accommodating himself to the carrying through of this compromise he thought there was a great deal to be said for the pressure which was being put upon the Government on this point.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYagreed that there was a good deal to be said for the view that the Government should tell the House how much was agreed and how much was not agreed. They also required enlightening as to the precise terms upon which contracting-out was to be arranged. From a business point of view, even if the contracting-out terms were satisfactory this subsection would be open to the same objections. He looked upon contracting-out as a great evil under any circumstances, and under the Bill it would take place in exactly the places where it was least needed—namely, where there were other schools. That seemed eminently undesirable. He wanted to draw attention to the case which seemed to him to have been rather neglected hitherto by those who had been carrying on these negotiations on behalf of the Church, the case of the single school areas where there was going to be no alternative to contracting-out. There this subsection would be the death-warrant of the non-provided schools. The only course open to these schools was to become provided schools and come under the Act. He did

1139
not wish to argue the point on its merits, but if it were not part of the bargain nobody on the Opposition side of the House would support this proposal for a moment. It was a quite untenable position to the majority of those interested in denominational teaching in the single-school areas. They would find if this Bill passed into law that instead of having denominational teaching in those schools which were built for that purpose facilities for such teaching would be reduced almost to a nullity. It seemed to be supposed that it would be quite easy in those schools to get that denominational teaching given, but in scattered districts where there were many schools in a single parish and the clergymen had more work than they could get through and where the headmaster might be unwilling to give the teaching, the facility for giving that teaching in those schools would amount to very little indeed, and the whole purpose for which the school was built would have been destroyed. Then there was the question of expense. They were going to ask the denomination to pay for the religious teaching and they were to pay them rent for the schools. What was the difference between the Bill and the present law in this respect? In both cases the school was owned by the denomination or the trust and utilised by the local education authority. At the present time rent was not paid, but in future rent would be paid, but they would not have the same right of giving denominational teaching. Under these new proposals the denominational teaching would be less, and there would be a considerable balance to the owners or trustees of those schools after they had paid the local education authority for that particular portion of the teachers' salary devoted to denominational instruction. Where was that to come from? He should like to ask the President of the Board of Education if there were any actuarial statistics to show the additional cost which would fall upon the rates. People in the rural districts would see that while their children were not receiving the same religious instruction as before their rates would be heavily increased. This would not be acceptable in those districts, and
1140
especially in the single-school districts. They could not expect the owners of those schools to be willing to give them up to the local authority without rent unless similar facilities for religious instruction were given as hitherto. On these grounds he would vote for the Amendment.
SIR GEORGE WHITEsaid he was sure the bulk of hon. Members would feel regret at the tone which this discussion had taken. He had endeavoured to follow the debate in order to obtain some idea of the principle upon which this proposal was based. The noble Lord asked whether the Archbishop of Canterbury assented to this subsection, and his right hon. friend replied that he had assented to it, although reluctantly.
LORD R. CECIL: I am afraid that I failed to make myself clear to the hon. Gentleman. The whole point of my speech was that we have no ground for thinking that the Archbishop of Canterbury assented to this subsection except upon certain terms, and that we are not sure, in fact we have every reason to believe that he was not satisfied with the terms proposed.
SIR GEORGE WHITE: The noble Lord distinctly said that the Archbishop of Canterbury had reluctantly assented.
LORD R. CECIL: Conditionally.
SIR GEORGE WHITE: On the conditions set forth here. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Certainly, so far as he was aware that assent to the first subsection depended upon what, he believed, was the substance of the whole debate, namely, the amount of grant to be allowed to the contracted-out schools. The answer given by the President of the Board of Education was all the answer he could give on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman read the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury which showed plainly that the actual financial conditions had not been finally settled. He gathered from the correspondence that this was still an open question, and he thought that

1141
should have satisfied the House that, whilst that was a debatable point, his right hon. friend could give no further information at this stage. But did not that bring the discussion down to a certain number of shillings that would settle or unsettle the whole question? He understood the desire of the Leader of the Opposition and others who had spoken was to know exactly on what basis the contracting-out grant was to be fixed. Surely, if there was nothing in this contracting-out clause beyond the question of a few shillings, that should not be used as a means of wrecking this arrangement, which seemed to be the object of some hon. Members who had addressed the House. The noble Lord had said that information had been given that the Nonconformists whom he himself represented were determined to make no further concessions. He should like to point out to the noble Lord that they had no knowledge whatever, any more than the House generally, of the terms of contracting-out. He was quite sure unless it could be shown that these terms were altogether inadequate that was a point on which they would be sorry to wreck the Bill. They must, however, put this limitation upon that statement—they did feel that the denominations who claimed the liberty which contracting-out would give them should be prepared to give something, as they had professed themselves willing to do, for that liberty. With that limitation he was quite sure that hon. Members on that side of the House would, so far as the financial question was concerned, meet it with an open mind and a desire to get at what was fair and reasonable as between all the parties. So much had been introduced into this discussion that if he were to attempt to follow the arguments of the speakers opposite he was afraid that he should embark on a Second Reading debate, rather than confine himself to the discussion of Clause 1. If the clause was being discussed, as he thought it ought to be discussed, on the merits of contracting-out apart from the question of finance, then he should take it that contracting-out was a part of the agreement which could not be broken without the whole thing being irretrievably lost. If, on the other hand, it was merely a ques-
1142
tion of doing justice to the denominations who desired in part or in whole to contract out, then he did not think they ought to come to a division on that question which was admitted to be unsettled. He felt, as one who voted for the Second Reading of this measure, that it was not open to him to move any Amendment affecting vital principles on the one side or the other, but at the same time he felt at liberty to put down Amendments affecting the administration or the machinery of the Bill, with due regard to questions of principle. If his right hon. friend pointed out that any of the Amendments he put down was going contrary to what was regarded as a principle involved, he should feel in honour bound to withdraw the Amendment. That was the spirit in which he thought the Bill should be approached by those who voted for the Second Reading. Those who did not vote for the Second Reading of the Bill were free to take what course they pleased. The hon. Member for Burnley was antagonistic to the Bill, not particularly because of the compromise—he would have been equally antagonistic to the Bill which was withdrawn—but because he was a strong and logical supporter of the purely secular position. He could understand hon. Members who supported the secular position; he thought they were perfectly justified in taking up that position; but if those who supported the Second Reading in the hope that they might be able to come to a reasonable settlement attempted to bring in Amendments which distinctly conflicted with the main principles of the Bill they showed either that their vote in the first instance was given under a misapprehension, or that they had seen reason to alter their minds in that respect. He assured hon. Members opposite that they were not alone in the conviction that a clause like this was going to work mischief in some respects. They were told from that side of the House the same thing, but if contracting-out was an essential part of the arrangement—and he and his friends on that side conceived that it was, though from the educational point of view he should desire to see some other arrangement made—he felt that it was not open in the circumstances to do otherwise than had been done. He had expressed more

1143
than once his sympathy for the Catholic position. He hoped his Catholic friends would remember that they made claims in regard to education in this country which they did not make in other countries, or, if they made them, they did not obtain. When the hon. Member and his friends pleaded for the Catholic consciences to be respected, they must make a similar appeal to Catholics. When Catholics attempted to impose conditions, and said that they must have a Catholic atmosphere in. their schools, he thought they were putting a tax upon them which it was impossible to meet, however willing.
LORD EDMUND TALBOT: The Catholics of this country found the land on which their schools are built, and they paid for the buildings.
SIR GEORGE WHITEsaid he could not answer the noble Lord on that question without being led far from the Amendment and he did not wish to be called to order by the Chairman. He would simply say that Catholics in demanding conditions which they did not obtain from other English-peaking races were putting them to a test to which they could not fairly respond. He believed the Government were willing to deal with the Catholic schools as liberally as the circumstances would allow. He trusted his hon. friends would not take up the position of endeavoring to wreck the Bill on the contracting-out clause. If they did so, they were bound to offer some other solution than that which was before the Committee at the present moment. He thought it was most unfortunate that on this clause, the main principle of which had been sanctioned on the Second Reading, they had had a discussion which did not bode well for the future progress of the Bill through the House. He believed there was a large and increasing number of people in the country who saw in this Bill a suggested mode of settlement which was on the whole in the complicated character of our education system the fairest which could be obtained. He hoped that the House would address itself to the Bill not as a positively agreed measure, but as a
1144
largely agreed measure. He believed all outstanding matters were capable of adjustment if the House would continue to pursue the course in regard to the Bill which they pursued on the Second Reading.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he should like to state the difficulties which presented themselves to the minds of himself and his hon. friends when considering how they were to vote on this subsection. The subsection embodied one side of a bargain. The compromise as it had been called, or the agreed Bill, depended on the one side on the surrender of the voluntary schools, and on the other side upon certain other conditions as to right of entry, transfer, and contracting-out. What they were asked to do in dealing with this subsection was to embody in the Bill the surrender of the voluntary schools. At this moment the Committee knew nothing of two very important matters about which they ought to be informed if this Bill was to be considered as a compromise. The terms of transfer were still matter of negotiation outside the House. Contracting-out also was still matter of negotiation. That they should be informed about contracting-out was the more important because general dissatisfaction had been expressed on both sides of the House with the practice of contracting-out. It was a dissatisfaction which he himself felt profoundly. Under the ruling of the Chairman there would be no opportunity for discussing the Amendment which the hon. Member for East Mayo had put down. That Amendment would have led to the consideration of an alternative for contracting-out—an alternative which he should have liked to see embodied in the Bill. The Committee would be precluded as soon as this subsection was passed from considering the new clause of which the hon. Member for East Mayo had given notice, and under these circumstances it was all the more important that they should know what were the conditions of contracting-out. Were they such as would impoverish the schools now, and still more hereafter, or were they conditions which would alter and improve the figures now in the Bill? This measure had been spoken of as

1145
an agreed Bill or compromise. They were asked to vote one portion of that compromise when they not only did not know what were the terms of the other portion but when the contracting parties outside did not know themselves. He called attention to the two leading points referred to by the Archbishop, viz., the terms offered to schools which elected to contract-out and the conditions of the transfer. On these points the Archbishop stated that he was thoroughly dissatisfied with what had been stated in the House by the Minister for Education. Now, what they wanted to know was whether the parties were agreed, or whether there was any reasonable probability that they would be agreed. Those were two points on which they ought to be satisfied before they were asked to vote for the subsection.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,)said he regretted that he was not able to be present at an earlier part of the sitting. The hon. Gentleman had made a very fair appeal to him, and he would do his best to respond. He never represented, nor did the President of the Board of Education, that this was a concluded agreement, signed, sealed, and delivered; an agreement which it was only for the House to register. He expressly guarded himself in the speech for the Second Reading from taking any such view of the matter. What he said was that the parties concerned had, in the opinion of the Government, arrived within measurable distance of a settlement. They believed that on the main points of principle both sides were prepared to give way, and that under those conditions the Government had made themselves responsible for making proposals which they hoped would form a basis of discussion, and, after modification, if modification were necessary, would be acceptable to both. It was on that understanding that the House read the Bill a second time. They were now dealing with a clause which, if carried into law, would give the local authorities in the future an absolute control over all schools to the expenses of which the rates had contributed. That was, perhaps, the main part of the sacrifice or concession which the Church of England
1146
made to the Nonconformists in consideration of the later clauses of the Bill, which represented the concession or sacrifice which the Nonconformists made to the Church. The hon. Gentleman was quite entitled to say: "If we agree to pass this clause, are you satisfied, or can you give us reasonable ground for believing, that the other part of the consideration is going to be satisfied also?" What was the essence of the consideration moving from the Nonconformist side? It was first of all, the right of entry conceded by Clause 2, and as to which he repeated that if there was any reasonable doubt as to whether it was adequately safeguarded by the drafting of the clause in its present form, the Government were most anxious that whatever might be obscure should be made clear, and that whatever was insufficient should be made sufficient; and the second head or branch of the consideration moving from that side was undoubtedly the system of contracting-out. There again certain clauses of the Bill provided that the contracting-out schools should receive no support from the rates, but a large part of their expenditure from the Exchequer. They regarded it as essential to this proposed compromise that there should be, in consideration of the clause now under discussion, an effective right of entry into provided schools, guaranteed to the denomination on the demand of an adequate number of parents, and that there should be a system of contracting-out, in the language agreed to between the Archbishop and himself, which should give to the contracting-out schools a reasonable prospect of existence, while providing, at the same time, that some substantial part of the bill should be borne by the denomination. That was the compact, so far as there was one, and he had every reason at that moment to hope that that part of the consideration would be fulfilled to the satisfaction of both parties. He could not say that there was at the moment a concluded agreement in regard to the precise scale fixed in the schedules either for the rent to be paid for transferred schools or the scale of grants to be paid in respect of contracting-out schools. That was a matter still under discussion. The proposals made by the

1147
Government he believed to be adequate for the purpose and that they would fulfil what was agreed with the Archbishop. In regard to the contracting-out schools, in effect they provided that 85 per cent. of the expenses should be paid out of the Exchequer, leaving only 15 per cent. to be paid by the denomination. He was not saying whether that was right or wrong, but it was a very much larger sum paid out of public funds than the percentage prior to the Act of 1902, which, if his memory served him correctly, was not more than 75 per cent. That was their proposition, and they were still awaiting any criticism in regard to these figures which had been invited, but had not yet come, and to which, when it did come, they would certainly give most respectful and sympathetic consideration. Beyond that he could not go. He agreed that the clause to which they were asking the House to assent necessitated a considerable sacrifice of the position hitherto tenaciously held by the Church, but it was in consideration of the assurance that it was their intention to proceed with Clauses 2 and 3, which involved a surrender in principle of positions as tenaciously held by the Nonconformists. He could not at that moment say that he had an absolutely concluded agreement, but he had the best reason to hope that on this point also an agreement would be made.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman was not present at the beginning of the discussion. Of course, he knew that the right hon. Gentleman would have been present if he could have been. He was well aware of how heavy the burdens were which were laid upon the right hon. Gentleman and the necessity of his absenting himself from some portions of their discussions. He was convinced that the right hon. Gentleman had not only told them the truth—that he need hardly say—but that he had told them the whole of the truth, which was a much more important thing.
MR. ASQUITH: And nothing but the truth.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But is the truth really satisfactory? Could they
1148
say that they were voting in the full knowledge of all the elements which should influence their judgment? The Prime Minister must feel that if he had only entered upon the negotiations at an earlier period, or had deferred discussion in Committee until negotiations had reached a more mature stage, the great difficulty in which they now found themselves would have been avoided. The House was really divided into two sections—the optimists and the pessimists. The optimists thought the Bill would give them a settlement. The pessimists, of whom he was one, doubted it. But was it an unreasonable protest against the course of the Government in asking them to deal with a section of the whole that was precise and clear, while leaving in obscurity later portions, it being admitted by the Prime Minister that he had not yet come to an agreement with the Archbishop of Canterbury? He imagined that the prospect of an agreement with the Roman Catholics, to whom the Prime Minister did not refer, was even more dim. The right hon. Gentleman told them he had every hope that he would be able to offer such terms in regard to the transferred and the contracting-out schools as would give reasonable satisfaction, but he had given no ground for that hope, and the only public statement they had had from the Archbishop was profoundly hostile to what the right hon. Gentleman most unhappily called a detail. The Archbishop had expressed himself in, as he thought, a most gloomy spirit upon the proposals the Government still thought fair, and there was not a single representative of the Roman Catholics who had not expressed, in the strongest permissible language, his belief that this could be no settlement. Under these circumstances he quite admitted he could ask for no further revelations from the Government, because he believed they had no further revelations to give, but he was justified in expressing his deep regret that the right hon. Gentleman asked them to come to a conclusion on this question, before all those interested in this great and bitter controversy had come to some agreement with His Majesty's Government. They had nothing to found their conduct upon except the vague—he was

1149
afraid very vague—hopes of a very optimistic administration. That appeared to him a very unsatisfactory foundation on which to base further discussion on the Committee stage of the Bill.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he did not think it was necessary to prolong this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of those who approached this Bill in an optimistic and in a pessimistic spirit, but he would rather be disposed to describe the two attitudes of mind as being on the one hand those who desired to obtain a settlement and on the other those who did not. He believed the great majority of Members of the House desired a settlement and it was to them he would make his appeal. Here they had the first subsection of the clause which involved a surrender and a large surrender by one of the parties. They come on presently to the second and third subsections of the clause which involved another surrender. If they found when they reached later stages that an agreement had not been arrived at and there were no elements of a satisfactory settlement, neither those who agreed with a settlement nor those who were opposed to it, would feel that there was much use in prosecuting their labours; but surely they might wait until they had reached that stage before they abandoned all hope of the great measure which was now before the House and the country.
It was in that spirit he would ask the Committee to continue its discussion.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not wish to continue the discussion but he was bound to say that when the right hon. Gentleman chose to describe himself and a large number of Members of the House who voted against the Second Reading of the Bill as persons who did not desire a settlement he used language which was unnecessarily provocative and offensive and which no Minister would dare use if they were not working under the gag.
MR. HUNTwas understood to say that he wished to know whether this was supposed to be an agreed Bill. The Minister for Education said that the contracting-out schools ought to have a reasonable chance, but what did he mean? Was it an even chance or a ten to one chance; so far as he could make out the odds were longer. The Catholics were willing to accept most reasonable terms, but it appeared that the Nonconformists wanted their own religion to be taught without paying for it; they wanted the other denominations to pay for it and receive nothing in return.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 211; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 420).

AYES.

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

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Alden, Percy

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

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bryce, J. Annan

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Erskine, David C.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Essex, R. W.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Byles, William Pollard

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Barker, Sir John

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Fenwick, Charles

Barnard, E. B.

Chance, Frederick William

Ferens, T. R.

Beale, W. P.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Findlay, Alexander

Beauchamp, E.

Clough, William

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

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

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

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Bertram, Julius

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Glendinning, R. G.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cowan, W. H.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Black, Arthur W.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Grant, Corrie

Bowerman, C. W.

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

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Branch, James

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Gulland, John W.

Brigg, John

Duckworth, Sir James

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Marnham, F. J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Massie, J.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Summerbell, T.

Hart-Davies, T.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Sutherland, J. E.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mond, A.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Hedges, A. Paget

Napier, T. B.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

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

Nicholls, George

Toulmin, George

Henry, Charles S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Nuttall, Harry

Ure, Alexander

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Paul, Herbert

Verney, F. W.

Higham, John Sharp

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Vivian, Henry

Hobart, Sir Robert

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Walton, Joseph

Hodge, John

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pollard, Dr.

Wardle, George J.

Hooper, A. G.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N)

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Horniman, Emslie John

Radford, G. H.

Waterlow, D. S.

Idris, T. H. W.

Rees, J. D.

Watt, Henry A.

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Jackson, R. S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whitbread, Howard

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Jenkins, J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rowlands, J.

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

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

Whitehead, Rowland

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Kekewich, Sir George

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wiles, Thomas

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lambert, George

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Sears, J. E.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Lehmann, R. C.

Seaverns, J. H.

Williamson, A.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Seely, Colonel

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

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

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

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Snowden, P.

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

M'Callum, John M.

Soares, Ernest J.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

M'Crae, Sir George

Spicer, Sir Albert

M'Micking, Major G.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Maddison, Frederick

Steadman, W. C.

Mallet, Charles E.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Glover, Thomas

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F

Craik, Sir Henry

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Ashley, W. W.

Crean, Eugene

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Cross, Alexander

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Balcarres, Lord

Delany, William

Halpin, J.

Baldwin, Stanley

Dillon, John

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon

Hay, Hon. Claude, George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Donelan, Captain A.

Hayden, John Patrick

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hill, Sir Clement

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Duffy, William J.

Hogan, Michael

Boland, John

Faber, George Denison (York)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hudson, Walter

Bull, Sir William James

Fell, Arthur

Jowett, F. W.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Ffrench, Peter

Joyce, Michael

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Field, William

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Flynn, James Christopher

Kilbride, Denis

Cave, George

Forster, Henry William

Kimber, Sir Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gardner, Ernest

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Gilhooly, James

Lundon, W.

Clive, Percy Archer

Gill, A. H.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Ginnell, L.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

1152

1153

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

M'Arthur, Charles

O'Doherty, Philip

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

M'Kean, John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

M'Killop, W.

O'Grady, J.

Sheehy, David

Magnus, Sir Philip

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Meagher, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Stanier, Beville

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Mooney, J. J.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Morpeth, Viscount

Reddy, M.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Thornton, Percy M.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Nolan, Joseph

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Hunt and Viscount Helmsley

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

MR. HAROLD COX MR. HAROLD COX (Preston), in moving to insert the word "fully" said the point of his Amendment was that contracting-out schools had a right to some assistance from the rates. They ought to make some contribution from their own pockets in order to preserve their liberty, but they ought to get some assistance from the rates, not as a charity but a right. Supposing it were possible to allocate the rates those who desired to have a particular type of school would allocate the rate they paid to that particular type and those who wanted another type of school would allocate the rate they paid to that, and nobody could say that that would be unfair. But as that was impossible the only way in which justice could be dealt out would be to give those who desired a particular type of school a share of that money which they contributed to other schools in the shape of rates. After the discussion that had taken place however he would not press his Amendment. He begged formally to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5 after the word 'be' to insert the word 'fully.'"
Question, "That the word 'fully' be there inserted,"—put, and negatived.
MR. DILLONin proposing to insert the words "except as herein after provided," said that if these words were not inserted here, it would be impossible on the subsequent stage to raise the question of the different classes of schools which should be main-tine by the local education authority. The Secretary to the Admiralty had taunted the Catholic representatives with
1154
the fact that in 1906 they supported the principle of contracting out, and the hon. Member for Preston had said the same thing. That was a most unfair and misleading way of stating what occurred in that year. When Clause 4 of the Bill of 1906 was introduced it was entirely unsatisfactory to them in its form, and was so hemmed round with conditions that the Catholic schools could not avail themselves of its provisions. While that clause was in its original shape the hon. Member for Preston got up and moved that the schools excluded from that clause should be permitted to contract out. That they supported, because it provided as it were a back door by means of which Catholic schools might be able to get some means of living on. It was wholly misrepresenting what occurred to say that the Catholic representatives in the House supported the principle of contracting out. Throughout all the discussions of the 1906 Bill they declared that the true place for their schools was within the national system of education, and that they saw the greatest possible evils would arise if they were driven out of it. The present Chief Secretary for Ireland when he assented to the principle of contracting out, defended it on the ground that it was an exception grafted on to an exception, and that it would apply only to a minority of individual schools. But how different was that from saying that all the Catholic schools of the country must accept the principle of contracting out or perish. The hon. Member for Preston said he understood that they were willing to pay for the privilege of liberty in order to get rid of public control, and that

1155
the only way of getting rid of public control was by contracting out. The position which existed was that the Catholics of this country were demanding public control, and the Government was going to refuse it. They wished the fullest public control consistent with the protection of the conscientious convictions of their people, and the Government said: "No, you must contract out and we will give you this grant."
MR. HAROLD COXasked whether the hon. Member was in favour of the local authority appointing the teachers in the Catholic schools.
MR. DILLONsaid that was so, and it was in order to make way for a clause which he had on the Paper that he was proposing this Amendment. The Catholics were asking to be included in the national system, asking for public control, and said that it was possible to conciliate the conscientious convictions of the people they represented with public control and the inclusion of the Anglican and Catholic schools in the national system. He denied that when the Government offered contracting out they were offering a privilege. They had never asked for the right to contract out, and they were, therefore, entitled to say it was no privilege. The President of the Board of Education in introducing this Bill had characterised contracting out as most objectionable from an educational point of view, but at the same time had asserted that it was impossible to come to a settlement without contracting-out. He traversed that assertion and denied it. It was quite possible, and if the Government accepted his clause, it. could be done now. The right hon. Gentleman could arrive at an agreement with the Catholic school managers without any recourse to contracting-out, which he quite agreed was extremely objectionable from an educational point of view. He denied that contracting-out was a privilege, especially with the conditions that had to be observed, which were that there must be none in single school districts; there must be thirty children in attendance; and the schools must attain equal efficiency with the council schools, in
1156
staff, prices, and secular instruction. The last condition under present circumstances was impossible, and it was a most evil and monstrous thing to present as a-settlement a contracting-out scheme saddled with that condition. It was impossible now, and would become more and more impossible as education progressed. By setting up this system they admitted that it was a question of conscience with the Catholics of this country. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk in his very sympathetic speech had said that when Catholics asked that Catholic schools and Catholic teachers should be paid for at the public expense they were asking for what could not be granted. The Government were offering to Catholic schools under this contracting-out clause £6,000 a year, which the Archbishop of Westminster was to distribute among them, with the smallest possible amount of public control. They could have in the Catholic schools freedom from public control, and all these things which they did not ask, but they must put their hands into their pockets, and pay the difference, pay a fine for their consciences. That nobody could deny who looked at the Bill with a fair mind. With regard to the great question of denominational education being paid for out of the rates they had all heard over and over again the famous alliteration "Rome on the rates." It was a phrase coined by Dr. Clifford, for whom he had a great respect, though he had always fought against him. When Dr. Clifford spoke of "Rome on the rates" he only used that phrase for the sake of its alliteration. What he really meant was "Anglicanism on the rates." He was sure the Rev. John Clifford did not care so much about Rome being on the rates; it was the Anglican Church to which he objected being put on the rates. What difference did it make whether Rome was on the rates or on the taxes? All they asked was that the children in the Catholic schools should not be condemned to an inferior system of education, because of conscientious objections. The Government were proposing under this Bill to pay the rent of the Anglican schools and they paid that rent although they gave them facilities for putting their children into these public schools and

1157
teaching Anglican doctrines there, and they must also remember that under this system of Cowper-Temple teaching they had a form of religious teaching which to three-fourths of the laymen of the Church of England was satisfactory. Why could not the Government relieve the consciences of men like the Rev. Dr. Clifford, by setting off against the cost of teaching Catholic doctrine and catechism, the rent of the Catholic schools? It would have more than paid and if by taking over the schools they allowed a small rent they would set that off against the cost of teaching Catholic doctrine and by that means they would lift Rome, not only off the rates, but off the taxes also, and they would convince people that they were not paying the expenses of teaching Catholic doctrine. What was it he proposed as an alternative? He was opposed on every ground to contracting-out. He was glad to recognise that the Prime Minister was not going to adhere very strictly to the scale of the schedules, but even so, he still feared there would he a heavy and serious burden thrown upon the Catholic people, and no matter what improvement was made in the amount of the grant the opinion would prevail that the education was to be on a lower scale. Now he directed attention to his alternative proposal. His alternative was to revive the clause of the Bill of 1906, which after prolonged discussion was agreed to by the representatives of the Catholic schools and by the Liberal Government as speaking for the Nonconformists. It was quite true that many of the Nonconformists were not enamoured of the clause. They were discontented, but a good deal had happened since then, and the fact had to be remembered that the Government and the Catholic schools accepted that scheme by which the Catholic schools could come in, although he knew many Nonconformists objected to it he would ask was there any Nonconformists to-day who would get up and say that they preferred the concession they were making under this Bill to that which was made by the Bill of 1906? In the interests of education and of the Catholic schools he appealed to the Nonconformists upon
1158
the other side of the House to say whether they could not agree to give back that clause of the Bill of 1906, and at least to allow the Catholic schools to make the experiment of coming into the national system. The terrible danger that oppressed him in connection with this matter arose when he looked to the future which many of the leaders even of their own Church had failed to do. He looked with the utmost dread on any measure that would stereotype the Catholic schools as an excrescence upon the national system. One reason was this. This Bill whether it passed or not had an enormous weight of public opinion behind it; the vote on the Second Reading proved that. Had it not been for the solid vote of the Irish Party the division would have been ridiculous. This was, in point of fact, a Protestant settlement. He did not say that it included all the Protestants, but it certainly had behind it the overwhelming mass of the Protestants of this country, and, with the great Protestant forces supporting it, the Bill was moving inevitably towards a Protestant settlement. The Bill might be wrecked, but if it were, another Bill would be introduced on the same lines, with, it might be, some modifications. The great questions on which the Bill would be fought in the course of these discussions were not questions which interested Catholics in the slightest degree. The right of entry and questions of that kind, of the utmost importance where Protestant schools were being transferred, did not interest Catholics in the smallest particular. As was pointed out the other day by the hon. Member for Cambridge University and also by the hon. Member for Oxford University, in many cases the Anglican schools were being rapidly transferred to the public authorities, and the number of children in the public schools was increasing day by day. That was not the case with Catholic schools, which remained in the same position. Therefore he was afraid, looking into the future, that Catholic schools would be left outside of the national settlement, and that whatever Anglican schools might contract-out, they would gradually drift, under Protestant influence, into the national system. Catholic schools would remain struggling

1159
outside until they were left isolated and alone. Too poor to protect themselves and secure fair play, they would eventually find themselves completely outside the general Protestant settlement. Catholics in this country were only 2,000,000 as against 40,000,000, and he was afraid, looking into the future, that they would hear it said that the public rates and taxes ought not to be burdened by the support of Catholic schools. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk had used these warning words, namely, that in making these demands Catholics were asking for privileges which were not given to Roman Catholics in any other English-speaking country of the world. That was perfectly true. Although Catholics were a third of the population, and among the wealthiest of the whole of the Australians, they did not get 1s. for any of their schools, nor even in the United States did Catholic schools receive anything from public funds. But he might inform the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that he had talked with some of the leaders of public opinion in Australia who had stated that there was an undercurrent of doubt as to whether they had acted wisely in this respect towards Catholic schools. He thought there was an increasing feeling in that direction. He repeated that he feared, looking into the future, that Catholics would be left outside of the Protestant settlement, and they would become so isolated that someone would get up in that Assembly and say: "Why should they remain on the taxes?" Therefore, he made a strong appeal to all fair-minded men in the House, who desired to see fair play and justice done to all fellow-citizens, and who repudiated, as he was sure Nonconformists sitting beside him would repudiate with warmth, any notion that they would be party to inflicting injuries or civic disabilities on Catholics in this country. For conscience sake, and though they differed from Catholics widely, he appealed to the Nonconformists to open the door so that the Catholic schools for which he spoke might come into the national settlement, and not be caused to contract-out, which had been condemned educationally by everyone, and by the very Minister who had introduced this Bill. He had received
1160
that morning, like other Members he dared say, a document which added still further to his fears. It was an important document from the Manchester Diocesan Council which passed a series of resolutions the other day. The Bishop of Manchester, who had taken a prominent part in discussing the Bill, was present. The last of the resolutions was to the effect that the proposal as to contracting-out was an express contradiction of the principle of public or local control; that the children attending such schools would be unjustly deprived of the benefit of the rates paid by their parents; and. finally—
"That the provision was unjust in itself and framed with a view of conciliating one section of the community, and ought to be taken out of the Bill."
He was grateful to the Leader of the Opposition and to the other hon. Members, above the gangway who had spoken on their behalf, but he did not think as. Catholics they would be wise in trusting their future to an alliance with them, because it could not in the nature of things remain. Hon. Members who were the representatives of the Protestants in this country would either now or in the near future come to an arrangement, because they had principles in common. Roman Catholic Members could not come to an arrangement that would suit Protestants. They had principles which they could not surrender, principles which had nothing to do with Cowper-Temple teaching or the right of entry, and they would be allowing themselves to be forced into a dangerous and indefensible position if they allowed their schools to be permanently shut out of a national system in this country and penned into small preserves of their own. He appealed to the Nonconformist leaders to reconsider their decision, and to ask themselves whether they would not be acting more in consonance with their own principles of justice, fair play, and generosity, if they revived Clause 4 of the Bill of 1906 and allowed the Catholics to come into the national system.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 6, after the word 'authority' to insert the words 'except as hereinafter previded.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. RUNCIMANsaid it was difficult for the Government to withstand the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman, and on more than one ground. They knew perfectly well that the nonconformists of this country had long had sympathy with the Roman Catholics in their struggles, first of all to get rid of their disabilities, and secondly, to secure for themselves a place in the educational system of the country, and they had all admired the efforts made by the Roman Catholics to keep alive their own schools, conducted entirely on their own principles, not only in this country but elsewhere. He was sure the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House would acquit him and his colleagues of any trace of bigotry which had made the existence of Roman Catholics in some parts of England, Wales and Scotland, almost intolerable. But when he asked the Government to revive Clause 4 of the 1906 Bill in its final form, he was sorry to say he could not satisfy him. When the old Clause 4 in its final form left the House, it went up to the House of Lords, and every Catholic Peer voted against it. If his recollection was correct he believed the hon. Gentleman himself warned the Catholic Peers that by refusing to accept Clause 4 in its final form they were really striking a serious blow at the Roman Catholic position in this country.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Clause 4 in its final form was never voted upon—that is to say, the words in the concluding paragraph as it stands on the Paper—
"Provided that the local education authority shall appoint persons acceptable to the Parents Committee to be teachers of the school."
That was certainly not in the clause when it was voted against in the House.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid the hon. Gentleman was correct. The clause had four forms, and it was voted against by the House of Lords in its penultimate form. It was unacceptable to the hon. Gentleman and his friends, and when it was objected to by the Catholic Peers, the hon. Member for Mayo warned the Catholic
1162
Peers that by refusing this compromise they were striking a blow at the Roman Catholic position in this country. As far as he remembered, the hon. Gentleman himself had no sympathy with their extreme action. He asked the House to look at the position he (Mr. Runciman) found himself in when dealing with Clause 4. He could not carry Nonconformist opinion with him in the country on Clause 4. It was quite impossible for him to do so, and it must be perfectly clear that he could go no distance whatever in the negotiations if he had not had behind him practically the solid Nonconformist opinion of the country. Indeed there would be no ending to this long controversy if Nonconformist opinion as a whole was not in favour of the terms arrived at. If Clause 4 had been one of these terms he could not have carried the Nonconformists with him. That must be his reason for saying that at present they could not accept Clause 4. The hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House said the Catholic position was no different now from what it was two or three years ago. If he might accept the opinion of the head of the Roman Catholic Church he might take it that the Catholic Church did not wish to have public control over the management of their schools. He would like to read to the House a considered statement of Archbishop Bourne made just previous to the last general election wherein he said—
"To take the management of schools intended for Catholic children out of the hands of those who represent the religious convictions of their parents and to place it in the hands of public ratepayers who cannot represent those convictions is a violation of parental rights to be resisted as an unwarrantable attack upon religious liberty."
He gathered from that statement that Archbishop Bourne and the Roman Catholics in this country could not accept full public control. The Government had laid it down as a principle from which they could not depart, that if rate aid was to be given the schools must submit to full public control and their management must be under the control of those who subscribed for the upkeep of those schools, and finally that teacher-ships should be thrown open to men of all denominations so long as the whole of their salaries were paid for out

1163
of public funds. The Catholics wished to have preserved 5,000 teacherships to members of the Roman Catholic Church. That was a very large piece of private patronage. He did not object to hon. Gentlemen opposite wishing to retain it, but so long as they retained it they could not have the same terms as were given to those trustees who were prepared to allow their teacherships to be filled by men of all denominations. Rate aid and full control were necessary corollaries, and he could see no way of their departing from that principle. The hon. Gentleman had stated that some provisions in the Bill might be of advantage to Anglicans as well as Roman Catholics. They had endeavoured as far as they possibly could to treat Anglicans and Roman Catholics alike, and where they had provided for the payment of rent and the transfer of schools that rent was payable equally in the case of Roman Catholics and Anglicans. He quite recognised the position taken up by the Catholics in regard to their schools. They said they could not, and never had, transferred any one of their schools. He admired their adhesion to that principle, but if they refused to come in to the national system, under the conditions in which a national system must be controlled, he deeply regretted their decision, but they could not possibly be treated in the same way as those who came under entire public control, and which were manned by teachers of all denominations. Teacherships could not be treated as a preserve for any one church. When he said it was impossible to arrive at an agreement with Roman Catholics except by contracting-out, he said it because they could not have an agreement to which the Nonconformists would be parties. He believed that the only way in which they could provide for the continued existence of Roman Catholic schools in this country in a position of efficiency was to give them a sufficient contracting-out grant. Everything turned on the amount. There had been really most grotesque exaggerations of the amount which would have to be found by Roman Catholics under the Government's contracting-out scheme. It had been said that they provided for giving about 50s. per child contracting-
1164
out grant to the Roman Catholic schools, and this was compared with the cost of education in London, which was declared to be £5 18s. per child. This £5 18s. included not only maintenance but loan and sinking fund charges. The comparison was, consequently, absurd. He had no wish to oppress Roman Catholics in matters of money. The Government had done their best to find out what was their view. Only that morning at the Board of Education they were presented with figures as to the cost of Roman Cathode schools, which did not give, he thought, a correct account of the total cost of the upkeep of those schools. The Catholics had been good enough to send up their figures to the Department, and if they could prove their case as it had been stated in the public prints, that they would have to find £300,000 a year to keep their schools in existence, the Government would be prepared to reconsider the financial provisions. But he was certain that that figure was vastly exaggerated and no such enormous sum was likely to fall on the Roman Catholics if the 50s. grant went through. When he compared it with the amount of the grant in Scotland he was encouraged to think that the figures they had suggested were just and fair. In Scotland the contracted-out schools at the present moment got between 38s. and 40s. The hon. Members from Ireland told them they would be satisfied with a 10s. rise on that. He could not help thinking of the comparative cost of education in England and in Scotland. Scotland spent generously on education, and if 40s. was enough in Scotland he could only hope and believe 50s. was enough in England, and he hoped they would be satisfied with the sum with which they were satisfied in Scotland. He wished they would come frankly into the national system. He was perfectly certain there was not a single authority in the United Kingdom which would not give the fullest facilities for the teaching of Catholic children. He was sure the authorities would go a very long way towards meeting the peculiarities of the Roman Catholic case—further than they were at present prepared to admit. But as they insisted on standing out and retaining private patronage, he regretted that he could not see any arrangement which would allow their incomes to be

1165
increased out of the rates levied by the local authorities.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he deeply deplored the answer which had just been given by the President of the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman had altogether misunderstood the point of the Amendment, for he had reduced it simply to a question of finance. It was not a question of finance, but one of principle, of religious equality, and educational efficiency. The Government claimed that they were willing to meet the Irish Catholics in regard to the grants as far as they possibly could, but his argument on this point was that they could not make a school with a grant minus the rates as efficient as a school with a grant plus the rates. The right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Catholic Peers voted against Clause 4 of the Bill of 1906 was unfounded, because they did not vote against the final form of that clause. It was true they voted against the penultimate form but not against the final form. But supposing they did. Did the right hon. Gentleman lay down that the Catholic Peers of the Conservative Party were entitled to speak for the Nationalist Party in this House with regard to Catholic education? He had not the smallest doubt that some of those Peers would vote against the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill this session if it reached the House of Lords. In that case what would any hon. Member think of the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he withdrew the Irish Land Bill because the Catholic Peers opposed it? The hon. Member for East Mayo over and over again had condemned the attitude of the Catholic Peers on this question. The President of the Board of Education said he could not get the Nonconformist yarty to support him in bringing forward again Clause 4 of the Bill of 1906, but was that a worthy position for the Minister for Education to take up? He would remind the House that the Clause 4 referred to in its ultimate form was sanctioned by the Prime Minister of that day, by the Minister for Education of that day, by the present Prime Minister, and by the Government as a
1166
whole of 1906. What right, therefore, had the present Government to recede from the position taken up in 1906 if it was a just position? If the position was just in 1906, why was it unjust to-day? This was a most extraordinary doctrine of political expediency, and he never expected such a doctrine to emanate from the ingenious mind of the Minister for Education. It was not only extraordinary but it was a political cynicism that rights granted in 1906 should be withheld in 1908 simply because a certain extreme section of the followers of the Government objected. He wished to deal in a word or two with that familiar cry of "Rome on the rates." He was sorry that he was not in a position to argue this point as if he were dealing not with Catholic but with Jewish schools, because the position was practically the same. The Jews were separated from every Christian community by an impassable gulf of dogma, but they were no more separated from the Protestants of this country than the Catholics were. In many cases the Jews had built and supported their own schools, and in their fidelity to their schools under persecution there was a great analogy between them and the Catholics. As their sufferings and convictions were similar, he contended that they ought to receive the same treatment. He did not wish to be offensive, but what would be said of him if he started the cry of "Jerusalem on the rates"? He would at once be told that he was using the language of bigotry, but he would be quite as much justified in using that phrase as others were in using the cry of "Rome on the rates." One of the most high-minded men in this country, the Chief Rabbi, said the other day he was afraid that the private and voluntary Jewish schools would disappear under this Bill, and would be merged into the national system. The Minister for Education had been very eloquent in regard to the unacceptability of the claim to have Catholic teaching. in Catholic schools. If there was to be Catholic teaching by the head teacher, would any man in his senses propose that it should be given by anybody but a Catholic; would he suggest that a Baptist or a Congregationalist or Dr. Clifford should go to a Catholic school

1167
and teach or try to teach the Catholic children doctrines in which they profoundly disbelieved, thus placing themselves in the dilemma of teaching doctrines which they did not believe and making hypocrites of themselves, or else teaching doctrines in which they did believe but which Were antagonistic to the religion of the parents of the children? In North-East Manchester and the East End of London, where there were a large number of Jewish and Catholic schools, they would be called public schools, and they would be declared to be entirely under public control. They would be declared to be entirely free from any tests as applied to the teachers, and they would be precluded from giving anything but simple Bible - teaching. Let him pass from these childish formulas to the realities. In some of the schools in the East End of London nearly every child would be a Jew and nearly every teacher, and certainly the head teacher, would be a Jew, and there would be simple Bible-teaching in that school. It would, however, be limited to the Old Testament; and yet they were told that although they should admit to the national system a Jewish school with Jewish religious teaching given by Jewish teachers, they should exclude a Catholic school with Catholic teaching and Catholic teachers. Without expressing sympathy With the Jewish position, he had some right to complain that their fellow-Christians in this country would not extend the same charity and consideration to those who were separated from them by a similar impassable dogma to that which separated them from the Jews. The party of popular control and anti-clericalism were now opposing an Amendment which proposed popular control and minimised clerical control. That was an extraordinary antithesis and reversal of positions. What would happen? He did not wish to be misunderstood on this point. He had in his constituency in Liverpool a number of Catholic priests who, every Sunday, wet or dry, for the last ten or fifteen years had gone out and made a collection for the building and maintenance of their schools. A deputation came to him from Liverpool last Friday on this subject. He might mention incidentally that the President of the Board of Education was mistaken
1168
as to the views of Catholic authorities on contracting-out. In Liverpool, to a man, the Catholic bishop, priests and laymen were not only in hostility to contracting-out but they were in a state of feverish and almost dangerous excitement at the prospect, and the only reason why he did not advocate to them passive resistance to rates paid by Catholics was the likelihood of passive resistance taking another form. It was his duty, as one of the representatives of that great community in Liverpool, to appease rather than to inflame popular hostility to contracting - out. What would happen under this Bill? The Prime Minister had given it as a strong reason why they should support this Bill that at the present time they were getting 85 per cent. of their expenses. But was that a fair comparison? A fair standard to take was not their position as it existed before but after the passing of the Act of 1902. The children attending Catholic schools were as entitled to every penny of the rates and taxes as the children of other religions attending other schools. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about Catholics being better by 10 per cent. What he should have said was that they were 15 per cent. worse under this Bill than under the Act of 1902. Therefore that entitled him to say that so far as the educational efficiency of their school was concerned this was not progress but retrogression. There had been a great deal said about passive resistance on the other side of the House. This Bill had been brought forward largely for the purpose of meeting the case of the passive resister. He had some sympathy with the passive resister so long as he complained of Anglican doctrine being imparted to Nonconformist children, and on every occasion he and his friends on those benches had done what they could to try to remove the grievance. He had undergone more electoral risks in defending the Nonconformist position on this point than any hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House. Hon. Members opposite could take up the Nonconformist position without antagonising any of their own supporters, but when dealing as he was with extreme Catholics he was constantly being misunderstood. Over and over

1169
again Nationalist Members had had to face a perfect cyclone of vituperation and abuse because they stood not only for their own religious convictions, but also for those of the Nonconformists. What was the so-called settlement under this Bill? The money was to be pooled and then left at the disposal of the different denominations. He had spoken of the Catholic priest who went about the Scotland division every Sunday begging for his school. There was no doubt that he was entitled to a large voice in the government of the school, but it was not the Catholic position that he was entitled to the whole voice. They wanted a Catholic school, but they had never claimed that they should be subject to clerical management alone. The Amendment of his hon. friend substituted popular control and this Liberal Democratic Government proposed that they should have clerical control. That was an extraordinary position. They were asked to pay 15 per cent. more for the so-called privilege of being made the pariahs of education in this country. He acknowledged that the Government had been generous and humane to Catholics in certain respects, and he thanked them for it to that extent. When the proposals of the Government were put forward he said to his friends that the inequality and inferiority of the Catholics would not end with education alone. It would run through all the life of the school and shut out from the broad, generous atmosphere of national life; it must be stunted and starved. A friend of his said that that had happened already in Scotland, where a portion of the relief fund which had been wisely allocated for the relief of children in the schools had stopped in the national schools and had not reached the Catholic schools. That was a revival of the spirit of the old penal law. Sweeten it with whatever generosity of sentiment they might express it was a badge of educational inferiority on the children of Catholics because they adhered to their Catholic convictions. It was a strange going back in history when a Liberal and Democratic Government in this age of progress and toleration told the Catholics of the country that they should have education according to their conscientious convictions, but in order to remind them that they were still in a
1170
position of religious inferiority as Catholics in a Protestant country they would inflict on them a heavy fine in return for their devotion.
MR. REESsaid he had the greatest sympathy with the Catholics in the position in which they were placed in regard to their schools. He sincerely hoped that the Government would meet their case by giving them the largest possible grant. It was quite hopeless that they should come on ordinary terms into the national system. Nobody who knew how the Catholic religion was and had to be taught in their schools, could possibly suppose that they could accept the conditions which were accepted in regard to other Churches. With the exception of a few rich people the Catholics of this country were a, poor community, and they had made great sacrifices in providing their own schools. He knew a priest whose income amounted to £20 a month, who spent £17 a month on a school and lived on the remaining £3. While he sympathised with the speech of the hon. Member for Salford he thought it was unnecessary for him to take the opportunity of complaining of an individual Member of the other House, Lord Rothschild, who had been generous, not only to those of his own religion, but to deserving causes of all sorts and should have been exempt from such accusations. The tale repeated was moreover, he believed, a pure invention. The utmost possible help in the way of pecuniary grants should be given to Catholics, with the view of making this settlement acceptable to them.
MR. JAMES HOPEin supporting the Amendment said he would ask the Minister for Education to keep an open mind on this matter. Statements had been made as to the cost of contracting-out, which would want-careful examination when they came to deal with the figures. He did not-pretend that it would be, at any rate at first, £300,000 as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought-it Would be £200,000. But if it was only half of £300,000 it would be an intolerable burden. These were details which

1171
must be discussed later. What he wanted to urge was the hopeless position in which these schools would be placed by the working of Clause 3, subsection (3). Clause 3, subsection (3) said—
"All sums paid to an association under this section shall be applied for the purposes of public elementary schools belonging to the association, but subject thereto, the distribution of these sums and the manner in which they are applied shall be in the discretion of the association."
He contended that those words put the supporters of those schools in an intolerable dilemma. If they carried out improvements on the education from their own point of view they would be ruined financially, and if they refused to carry out these improvements they would be told that they were opposing any advance in education. He, therefore, submitted that if they were to approach this question with any prospect of a settlement, the grants, whatever they might be, must be elastic. He asked the Prime Minister not absolutely to close the door to another solution somewhat on the lines of this Amendment. He confessed there was another reason why he would be very sorry the Amendment was not accepted. Their relations with the local authorities had, with very few exceptions, done an immense amount of good to the Church schools. They had helped the local authorities to realise their position and that had prevented their being cut off from the local authority. He did not believe that the difficulties were insuperable if looked at in a proper light, or that the Amendment would in any way tarnish the formulae on which the Government relied. Therefore, he hoped that the Prime Minister would not absolutely and finally reject the Amendment which the hon. Member for East Mayo had proposed.
MR. HARWOODsaid he had listened with deep interest to the debate and was bound to say a few words on this Amendment because he had felt himself unable to vote for the Second Beading of the Bill. They all desired a solution of this education difficulty, but he thought that they might go too far in trying to secure peace when there was no peace. He represented a large number of Roman Catholic voters, and he had always
1172
promised them that he would never support anything which he considered unfair to them. He stood by that promise, and that compelled him to speak a few serious words to the Government and to offer to them a suggestion. The Minister for Education had not only that afternoon but on previous occasions, and also the Prime Minster, given to the Committee the genesis of the Bill. It started from a Nonconformist grievance with which he sympathised. No one could question that grievance; but there had been other grievances as well. It was not the business of the House of Commons to encourage any extravagant conscientious grievances. In his own constituency there were a large number of Roman Catholic schools which had been maintained by the members of that community while they had also been paying the school board rate without a murmur. They had as good ground to rebel as the Nonconformists. Could it be said that the House would listen to those Nonconformists who had rebelled and would not listen to other religious bodies who had to endure as great a wrong but who did not rebel? They all desired a settlement, but not a settlement which would leave at its centre a lasting feeling of a deep wrong. Better wait a little longer than have a settlement which would leave the seeds of a growing discontent. He regretted that the Minister of Education said: "Well, the Roman Catholics will not come into our national system of education. This is the only way they can come in, and therefore they must stay out." Was that so? He would vote against the plan of the Government, whatever grants they proposed to give to the Roman Catholics. He would vote against any great body of schools being shut out from a national system of education. In his own town the Roman Catholic system worked very well. Possibly he had come under disgrace with some of his constituents because he had declined to vote against the Bill of 1902. In all the Catholic schools in Bolton, under that Bill they had had two representatives on the management of the local authority. There was an enormous advantage in getting representation, even if the local authority did not get full control. Strong Nonconformist friends of his had been on the management of these schools

1173
and that had been an advantage to them as well as an enormous advantage to the schools. He, personally, had the greatest possible dislike to one-horse clerically controlled schools—no matter to what denomination they belonged, but he contended that great good had been done by the lay representation on the management of these Catholic schools. Why. should the Roman Catholics be made, as they would under this clause, to pay the penalty for a so-called peace, by being thrown back on their previous position, which had been acknowledged to be bad? Was it not possible, if they could not get full authoritative control, to secure representation on the management of these schools by means of some modus vivendi? He knew that the financial position of these schools and the position of the teachers had been vastly improved by the representation of the local authority on the management since the Act of 1902. The teachers were now able to appeal when necessary to the central authority, and their whole position had acquired added dignity and independence. He was sure that the teachers would be loth to go back to their old conditions. This was not altogether a question of money, although the Roman Catholics had shown that they had cheerfully made monetary sacrifices for their schools, and that they would make those sacrifices again. What the Roman Catholics dreaded was being thrown out of the stream of the national educational life of the country and driven into a backwater, so to speak, which would degrade the educational efficiency of their schools and their own self respect. He asked the Government to consider most seriously whether some compromise could not be arrived at instead of pursuing what he believed was a mistaken policy. He had taken part in some conferences for peace for several years past, but he would not cry "Peace, peace," when there was and could be no peace, and while the proposed settlement would leave a spirit of rancour in the hearts of so many of his fellow countrymen. He thought the solution lay in retaining on the management of the voluntary schools, without full control, representation and participation. That would secure both the interest of education, of the public, and of
1174
his Nonconformist friends. What would be the result of handing the money grants over to these associations and not to the separate schools? It would be that his Nonconformist friends would say that they were handing it over to be put into clerical pockets. They withdrew all participation, knowledge, and interest in the schools, and they flung them a sum of money, and. said: "Divide this among yourselves." He thought it was a backward step, and he would rather have the conditions, under the Act of 1902. It was worth considering whether there was no choice between this proposal and retaining those conditions and going on as at present. He would not support or vote for a Bill which carried with it inevitable injustice to a great mass of his fellow-countrymen.
MR. KETTLEsaid he had, since he had been in the House, listened to every debate on education in. England and Wales with great attention and some amount of wonderment. He had always been anxious to discover what sins the Roman Catholics had committed that they should be penalised under the education system, and he thought he had at last found out what their offence was. The Catholics of this country had committed the unpardonable sin of being a minority. The rejection of this clause, accepted two years ago by the present Government, and now proposed by his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo, meant that they might have many things in England, but there was one thing they were determined not to have, and that was religious equality. With every claim for religious equality came the cry of "Rome on the rates," or something equivalent, but when rates, portions of which were contributed by Roman Catholics, went to the upkeep of schools for other than Roman Catholic; children the fundamental question arose of whether it was "Rome on the rates" or "Rates on Rome." Surely the honour and dignity of this great Protestant country, which was engaged in a great Protestant settlement, would require that if Rome was not to be helped from the rates its Roman Catholic subjects should be relieved from the local rates for its educational system. If they were

1175
to have principles, and the House did discover them occasionally from time to time, they really ought to have principles which would work both ways. His hon. friend the Member for East Mayo put the whole situation in a phrase which, if there was impartial journalism in this country, would ring throughout it with greater prominence than "Rome on the rates." The hon. Member said—
"Catholics are to be fined for conscience sake."
They repudiated most strongly the opinion that it was a privilege to stand out of the national system. The hon. Member for Preston at an earlier period of the afternoon took exception to that phrase of standing out of the national system, and made some qualification which perhaps cleared up things; but at all events the Catholic subjects of this country, as the result of conscientious conviction, with the strength of which every Member of the House was perfectly well acquainted, were compelled to stand out of the normal national system, to be an excrescence upon it, and to send their children to schools which from mere financial necessity must be, whatever the self-sacrifice of the teacher, if not inferior in fact, generally regarded as inferior to the general voluntary schools of the country. That was the situation. He did not think the speech of the Minister for Education, in refusing to accept this Amendment, was very happily phrased, although he did not go so far as to accuse him of discourtesy, at any rate of deliberate discourtesy. He must congratulate him upon his new found respect for the House of Lords, based on the vote of a small section of Catholic Peers. He was sure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not regard the House of Lords in all its decisions upon all Bills as acting under plenary and divine inspiration, and at any rate it was a small body of Peers who voted. He did not attach much importance to the decisions of the House of Lords, but the question was as to the general position in regard to the appointment of teachers, and the vote was taken on a clause which was radically different from this one. The Minister for Education said the Catholics possessed a large amount of patronage in their schools, and
1176
spoke of their having a preserve exclusively kept for Catholic teachers. He thought he told them that there were something like 5,000 teacherships filled by Catholics under the present system. Might he suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if the education of this country were conducted on fair and equal conditions the Catholics would not have less than 5,000 teacherships. If there were no tests would the Roman Catholics fill fewer teacherships paid for by public money than the number mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. His own impression was that they would fill a very much larger number. The Minister for Education gave his real reason for his opposition to the clause in the latter part of his speech. He did not confine his opposition to it to any ground of principle or administrative difficulty, but said that the Nonconformist opinion in the country was such as to make it impossible for him to grant the demand involved in the acceptance of the Amendment. If that was so, this part of the Bill dealing with Catholics, this being the final compromise and offer, was to be settled, not by Catholic, but by Nonconformist opinion. They emancipated the Nonconformists in 1829, although they had forgotten the fact. They fought the old religious battles against the Established Church, both in England and in Ireland, side by side with the Nonconformists, and he was bound to say, although, like his hon. friend, he remembered with profound gratitude their action in connection with the Irish University Bill earlier in the session, when he looked at their action on this matter he felt he was almost sorry that they ever emancipated them and gave them seats in this House. Although the Nonconformists always said they sympathised with their point of view, he was extremely sceptical whether they understood it. He was profoundly convinced and persuaded of the sincerity and tenacity with which they held their own principles, but they seemed unable to adjust themselves to their point of view. He would say no more. He did not share their religious prejudices, but he respected them, and he was sorry they could not see their way to support the political principle of equality for which they had historically stood in this country. The

1177
right hon. Gentleman had alluded to a statement of his hon. friend the Member for South Kerry, on the Scottish Education Bill, to the effect that Catholics in Scotland would be content with an increase of 10s. per head on the 40s. provided by that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to institute a comparison between the cost of education in Scotland and England, leading to the conclusion that if in Scotland the Catholics would be content with 50s. they ought to be content with the same figure in England. His hon. friend said nothing of the kind; he never said that a grant of 50s. would place these schools on an equality with the State schools in Scotland. The question of principle undoubtedly did come into this matter, but that of money and pecuniary consideration also came in. The President of the Board of Education was not, as he understood it, as completely persuaded of the equity and justice of the settlement as he was before the discussion began. He had the figures before him from the Catholic authorities stating the Catholic point of view, and pointing out the deductions which must be made from the supposed advantage which came in under the pooling arrangement. He took the right hon. Gentleman's statement that afternoon as not expressing the same measure of belief with regard to the Schedule, and as indicating that the Government were prepared to listen to reason and mathematics, if it was not prepared to listen to conscience with regard to the Bill. His hon. friend for the Scotland Division had referred to the passive resistance of their Nonconformist friends, and suggested that if this Bill passed in its present form without facilities for the Catholics of this country, they possibly might take a hint from the action of their Nonconformist friends in the past. Prom the Catholics of Lancashire, who were largely Irish, he himself would expect a policy of active, and not passive resistance. His short experience in the House had taught him that minorities, whether Catholic or other, got a good deal of sympathy, but no justice. If the Bill was passed in its present form without this consideration for the Catholic conscience, which ought to be respected even in a Protestant country, the Government
1178
would carry through their great final settlement with a wrong and injustice, which they had not sought to defend, embedded in is heart. They were stamping the Catholic schools with a sort of broad arrow, and making them the outcasts and pariahs of the national system of education. They did not want to stand outside the system of national educational life, but the Government compelled them. to. They side-tracked them and turned them into a backwater. In addition to that, they inflicted upon them a heavy penalty. He could not think that such conditions could form the basis of a real and permanent settlement of this controversy.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he could not allow the debate to close without giving expression to the intense indignation which he knew would be roused among the Irish and Catholic population of this country, by the action of the Government. They all though towards the end of the debates on the Bill of 1906 that something like a satisfactory solution had been arrived at and everyone regretted that that solution had been upset by the House of Lords. The arrangement arrived at at the last moment between Lord Crewe and the Catholic Members of this House was embodied in the last paragraph of the new clause on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Mayo. It was never discussed or voted on either in the House of Lords or this House, the possibility of that discussion being destroyed by the action of Lord Lansdowne and his friends. They had been told by the right hon. Gentleman that he now could not get the consent of the Nonconformist Party to the provisions of Clause 4 of the Bill of 1906, but he himself did not believe there had been so great a change in the opinion of the Nonconformists since two years ago, that they would refuse a way to an all round settlement, because they refused to accept the arrangement made between Lord Crewe and the Catholics of this House. He was not one of those who took it for granted that the sole enemies to Catholic education were the Nonconformists. He had no sympathy with the strong

1179
language used against the Nonconformists, because he believed that if the Government gave them a chance they would adhere to the arrangement made when the Bill of 1906 was introduced. If that were the fact, he believed the Catholic community would accept as a settlement Clause 4 of that Bill. He could not, however, forget the action of a certain section of the Church of England, which had been, if he might say so without offence, to the last degree mean and treacherous towards the Catholic community of this country. They had used the influence and votes of the Catholic representatives for the purpose of defending the interests of the Anglican schools, and made common cause with the Catholics for that purpose. When the opportunity came and they made terms for themselves, they threw off all association with the Catholics, and deserted the interests of the Catholic schools. Therefore, if there was to be any condemnation, that section of the Church of England deserved its share. It seemed a tremendous pity when there was in the air and in the breasts of all men a general desire for a permanent settlement of this question, that such an arrangement as that contained in the clause of the hon. Member for East Mayor could not be arrived at. They were told that if this Bill was passed into law it would effect a permanent settlement. It was quite true that certain hon. Members above the gangway voted for the Government on the Second Reading, but so far as other portions of the House were concerned there was nothing like a strong and unanimous opinion in favour of this Bill. The division showed the very reverse. Was anyone prepared to get up and say that no matter what the division might be on the Third Reading this would be anything like a settlement in face of the action of the Leader of the Opposition? Nobody could attempt to say that there would be educational satisfaction or settlement in this country when so many, both in and outside this House, were opposed to the Bill. They had strongly and bitterly opposed to the Bill the late Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, with a large following, and they had the opposition of the Catholics in that House and throughout the
1180
length and breadth of the land. With such an array of political forces could anyone believe that the Bill would leave the question of education in a satisfactory position, or that there would be anything but a renewal of hostilities, discontent, and dissatisfaction? He said, as a Catholic Member of that House, and he thought that it was the opinion of every other Catholic Member, that such a result was a pity. He believed that it was perfectly possible to arrive at a settlement which would be really permanent, final, and satisfactory to all interests and denominations if the Government only took a little time. They had been sitting pretty nearly the whole year through, and within a few days the House must adjourn for Christmas, yet this matter of grave importance, the most important matter that Parliament could deal with, was to be disposed of within a short period. Where was the necessity for this extraordinary hurry? Why should a pistol be put to the head, not only of one party, but of all the parties in the House? Why should the Government say that in two weeks before Christmas Day the question must be settled? There was no reason for this undue haste. He thought that the Government would be far better advised if they sought, not after a hasty settlement, but a real, permanent, general, and satisfactory settlement. He believed that such an all-round and general satisfactory settlement could be arrived at if men were given time; but if the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Minister for Education, like a couple of religious highwaymen, put pistols to their heads and said: "You have got to take what we propose," then he thought that was unreasonable. It was said by some people that Catholics really had a great deal of assurance in asking for any assistance from the Government at all. They were told that in other English speaking countries the Catholic people were not offered any assistance whatever for their schools. But what they did in other countries, he presumed, had nothing whatever to do with educational questions in this country, which was upheld to other countries as an example of broad-mindedness and as a place where, whatever might

1181
be the case in other countries, there was freedom of conscience and, religious equality for all. That was the attitude taken up by this country. She had no right to refer to America or any of the Colonies, or to any other part of the world, because if she did not want to be regarded as a hypocrite England must act up to her professions and give to all the subjects of the realm and to every religion equal and fair treatment. The Catholics, he was certain, asked for no more. Dr. Clifford constantly quoted the phrase "Rome on the rates," but that phrase was too much like the refrain of some song in a low music hall, and it was an absurd statement if they considered the Church of Rome in connection With her rights. Catholics were entitled in common fairness to justice. He would say to hon. Members whose opinion they generally respected that if Catholics were compelled to pay rates for educational purposes, they were entitled to get some return for those rates. He could understand perfectly well if hon. Gentlemen opposite said: "We regret that Roman Catholics cannot come into the educational system because of conscientious objections, and that therefore they do not get any advantage from the rates which they pay. It is mot fair to exact money from people and give them no return for it. We will relieve the Catholic parents of the country from the payment of rates for educational purposes." If that were proposed it would be fair and reasonable. He would like to hear some reason why such a proposal should not be made. And what became of the rates of the Catholics? He was happy to say that they had members of various denominations in the Nationalist Party representing Ireland, and the question of religion was never raised among them. Speaking as a Catholic Member of the House, whose father was a Catholic Member before him, he would say that he had an equal respect for members of all the Protestant denominations. He had as much respect for the opinion of Nonconformist Members as he had for the opinion of Church of England representatives in the House or outside it. He had no feeling of prejudice one way or the other in regard to any of them.
1182
He differed from them all inasmuch as they, whatever their particular sect might be, belonged to the one great Protestant religion, with which as a Catholic he could not agree. But it was a monstrous thing to come to the Catholic parents of the country, who were among the poorest and hardest worked citizens in the land, and say to them: "We have made an arrangement by which your consciences will not allow you to send your children to our schools. We respect your opinions; we do not find fault with them; we regret the necessity which compels us to keep you outside; but notwithstanding that necessity you shall pay towards the upkeep of our schools." Why should they say to Catholics that they were not only to be excluded from the schools but that they were to pay rates for the maintenance of schools which they did not use? They would use the money of Catholics for a religion which was entirely foreign to the hearts of Catholics, and was to be taught in the public schools. That in his opinion was a monstrously unfair position. He had no intention of saying anything in the slightest degree disrespectful or offensive to Nonconformists, because he agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool that Nonconformists had had to suffer in the past just as Catholics had had to suffer in many parts of their history for conscience sake; still, in his opinion, it was a mean thing to take the pence and shillings and pounds of a few hard-Worked Catholic workmen and say that the money should be used directly for the teaching of a religion of which these men did not approve. They were to have Cowper-Templeism, on which he was not an authority; he believed" that it differed in various localities according to the wishes of the authorities. [An HON. MEMBER: It is an elastic religion.] He thanked the hon. Gentleman for giving him a true description of Cowper-Templeism; it was now an elastic religion. He did not quarrel with the hon. Member for that Supporters of that religion admired it probably because of its elasticity. At any rate, whatever might be said of the Catholic religion, it could not be described as elastic. Yet Catholics, were to be called upon to pay for a religion which was

1183
elastic and repugnant to them. That was something which should be regarded as quite unfair. If hon. Gentlemen opposite admired Cowper-Templeism he did not quarrel with their opinion, but surely they could pay for it. He did not suppose that there was a Catholic who would make it a condition in the educational settlement that a farthing of Nonconformist money or of Church of England money should be spent on teaching the Catholic catechism to a single Catholic child in this land. Whatever their difficulties and troubles might be, Catholics could at least pay for the religion of their children, and they were proud to do so. He submitted that in all fairness the position was untenable, and that it was a mean thing to call upon the Catholics of this country to pay rates for schools which they did not use, and in addition to give them no guarantee whatever that their money would not be used for the propagation of religion in which they did not believe in the faintest degree. He believed that it would be perfectly easy to come to an arrangement on the lines of Clause 4 of the Bill of 1906. He believed that clause would be acceptable not only to the Catholics but to those members of the Church of England who were not accepting the present settlement proposals of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Minister for Education. It was an unfair and a disastrous thing that Catholic or Church of England schools should be separated in the general settlement; they ought to be brought together. He believed that it was quite within the powers of statesmanship to bring all the children of the schools of all denominations into a common scheme, at the same time providing fair and reasonable safeguards for the religious convictions and principles of every denomination in the land. This Bill would not do that; it would bring about no permanent settlement. It might pass; but as sure as it did pass, everybody knew that not many years would elapse before another Government would propose to amend it. There had been tinkering enough with the education question. Other countries in the world were ahead of us Germany was far ahead of us. And why? Largely because in Germany they had long ago seen the harm of not doing the very thing
1184
which he was urging upon the Government to do now. In Germany they has recognised the strength of the claims of the various denominations. They gave Catholic and Protestant equality of treatment, and the result was educational efficiency. It was possible to do that in this country, if there was only time. Let them have some real reason why all this amount of work should be done within a fortnight. What was there magical in the year 1908? There were only a few weeks of it left Surely next year when men had had time to think, when other people, with all respect to the Archbishop of Canterbury, had had conferences, when the Leader of the Opposition and his party and other sections of the community had had an opportunity, which he supposed they had not yet had, of considering the whole question, would not that be time enough to bring in this Bill? No. Let the truth at once be told about this matter. The Government were resolved to carry this Bill by the guillotine, by stifling discussion, within the compass of three or four days, practically before Christmas, because they knew that every day that passed by showed fresh recruits flocking, to that already not inconsiderable army which could not possibly accept the present proposals of the Government. If this Bill were postponed until next year it would be found on further consideration that when the Leader of the Opposition rose to speak he would speak for the majority of the Members sitting behind him, and that the number of Nonconformists who were opposed to this settlement would have increased. The Government knew this and felt that if the matter was to be carried through at all it must be carried through at once before men had had time to think and to investigate the matter. Was there a matter in England upon which the constituencies felt more strongly, and in which they took a deeper interest than this school question? Was it an unreasonable thing considering that it had been sprung on the country suddenly without any warning— —
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL,): Those remarks apply to the discussion that took place on Friday on the Resolution allocating

1185
the time of the House. They do not apply to this Amendment.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he wished only to ask, if the Amendment could not be accepted, whether the Government would not agree to postpone the whole matter so that Members of all parties would have an opportunity for a Week or so at least of consulting their constituents and holding meetings and of really getting at the true pulse of the country. He supposed it was idle to expect that the Government would accept the Amendment. It would probably be defeated by a very large majority. He deeply regretted it. He was absolutely certain that the Government was throwing away a great opportunity, an opportunity which nearly arrived in 1906 and which was bound to come with patience and with a certain amount of consideration and time, an opportunity of bringing about a settlement which would satisfy every denomination. He did not believe this settlement would really satisfy anything like a majority of any denomination.
MR. STUARTsaid he was one of those who regretted that the Bill of 1906 did not pass, and more particularly because the clause which was reproduced in this Amendment, in his opinion, met adequately the situation of the Catholic Members. Whether it was possible to revert to that or not he could not say. It must depend upon the Government. He presumed it was no part of the arrangement which they had made with the Church of England. He did not wish to see the Rill postponed or thrown aside, because he believed moderate representatives of both sides of opinion had come so near to a conclusion that it was well that they should proceed. But under these circumstances the Catholic community was being left out in the cold. It could not be included in any solution such as this Bill appeared to offer in its present form. It had very peculiar claims to consideration. The Nonconformists and the Church of England were both Protestant. They were at one in their belief in the open Bible both as a means of education and as a religious advantage. But the Roman
1186
Catholics differed from them toto cœdo. They upheld that it was unsuitable for education, that it was unsuitable for the laity. However much they might differ from that point of view that was their point of view, and they held it conscientiously. When the Protestant communities got rid for some time of this educational quarrel by an agreement among themselves, surely it would be a great mistake if these two great parties in the State did not take into account, the position of their Roman Catholic friends and endeavour to invent something which should meet their difficulties too. If they were going to have a solution between the two parties he did not at all side with those who thought that such a solution would break down easily. The moderate people on both sides were tired of this constant educational quarrel. Extreme people would never come into any agreement, but they would have to accept it when it was made. He believed they had a solid mass of the people willing to combine with the moderate people on both sides When they were going to get a solution of the question which affected themselves and their point of view, let them not be so selfish as to leave their Roman Catholic friends out in the cold. They would do well to turn their mines to what they could do to meet the Roman Catholic difficulty. There was no doubt that the Amendment would meet that difficulty, if it were applied to the Roman Catholics alone. They ought on both sides of the House to be willing to have something of the kind done to meet them, though it was on a different line from what met the difficulty they were trying to meet by their mutual concessions. He had no doubt that would settle the question as far as they were concerned. If the Government could not give them that solution let them turn to some other form of solution, and there were other forms. There was the simple pecuniary solution. Let them give the Catholics something which would meet their difficulties, because they were the poorest community in England and the Church was the richest. If they wanted to avoid everything of the character of religious persecution, if they wanted to have toleration as it ought to be

1187
but was too seldom understood, they ought to recollect that the Catholics were separated from them by a definite gulf. They did not all like Cowper-Temple teaching or Church of England teaching, but they were on the opposite side of the division line from that on which the Roman Catholics stood. He pressed upon the Government that they would injure the settlement if they left the Catholics out of it. There was still an. opportunity to devise something. He did not believe it was wise to adhere to the Bill and the. Government ought to be in a position before they came to the Report stage, if they, could not support the Amendment, to deal with the question in some way so that they might not make an agreement between themselves and leave the poorest part of the population outside it.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the hon. Member for East Clare, speaking of the conduct of the Archbishop and some of his hon. friends, said that in his judgment the Church of England was guilty of mean and treacherous conduct in making a settlement for itself without regard to the equal claims of the Roman Catholics. He should himself, having repeatedly in the course of three successive Education Bills, though not a strong denominationalist, advocated the claim for equal treatment amongst all denominations, think he was guilty of mean and treacherous conduct if, because the Archbishop of Canterbury was, rightly or wrongly, of the impression that he had made a settlement which as far as the Church of England was concerned was satisfactory, they were to eliminate from that settlement Roman Catholics, whose case was precisely similar to that of Churchmen. The last speaker had made the curious observation that the Catholics, as far as this grievance was concerned, stood in a position1 alone, and he certainly suggested that no similar grievance was felt by members of the Church of England. Such an argument seriously put forward after three sessions of stormy Parliamentary debate simply filled one with despair. He held on this question a brief no more for the Church than for the Catholic faith, but the one thing that had struck everyone in the whole course of the debate had been that the
1188
denominational position, if it had ever rested on strong ground at all, had rested on this ground, that no man, no matter of what faith, had a right to impose by force upon a third party his own will and his own view of what another man ought to believe. That was the whole case. Practically it was equivalent to a man saying he believed a certain thing and others ought to. The only comment one could make upon that point was that if the Catholic position was right the Anglican position was also right; the Catholic position was right, not because of its disparity in relation to Cowper-Temple teaching, but on the broad ground that the adult citizens of a, free country had a right to form their own opinion in religious matters. Approaching the question from this point of view, he had been struck by some observations from the hon. Member for East Mayo, who, in a most moderate and well-reasoned speech, expressed the opinion of Roman Catholics on the subject. A very considerable amount of abuse had been directed against the House of Lords for their attitude in regard to the last Education Bill, but nevertheless hon. Members to-day had been quite ready to express their satisfaction with Clause 4 of the Bill of 1906 as it left the House of Lords. Hon. Members below the gangway were so far contented with that clause that they were quite ready to introduce it now into this Bill in the form of an Amendment.
MR. DILLONsaid that Clause 4 had a very tangled history. The clause he had introduced was not quite the same. The House of Lords made certain alterations which did not satisfy the representatives of Catholics. Consequently the Ministry made further alterations in response to their request which made the clause satisfactory after it had left the Lords.
MR. F.E. SMITHreplied that it was a long clause, and he thought he was right in saying that when the clause referred to left the House of Commons the Leader of the Irish Party referred to it as an insult. Lord Crewe also in another place distinctly stated that Clause 4 in its altered shape would never

1189
have been accepted by the Government unless it was forced upon them by the House of Lords. Therefore, this concession was made in consequence of Amendments introduced in the House of Lords and accepted by the Government in the course of the pressure brought to bear in another place. No one could fail to respect both the tact and the patience which the Minister for Education had brought to bear on educational problems, and this was a refreshing contrast to his predecessor in office. He had, however, been struck with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman in which he stated that if he had attempted to apply Clause 4 to the present Bill he could not have carried the Nonconformists in the country with him. Where did that declaration land them? At the time of the passing of the Bill of 1906 did they not carry the Nonconformists with them? It was claimed at that time that the clause did carry the Nonconformists of the country with the Government, and now in a Bill which represented a compromise and was giving better terms, they were told that they could not have the same clause because it would not carry the Nonconformists with the Government. This question must be determined on grounds of principle. The question was whether it was right or wrong, and not whether the Government could carry the Nonconformists with them. The right hon. Gentleman would act wisely to remember that many powerful Ministers in great controversies had thought it convenient to inquire whether they could carry the Roman Catholics with them. If it was to resolve itself merely into a process of counting heads in the country he was not at all certain that the arithmetic of the Government was very reliable. Was the right hon. Gentlemen sure he was right hon. Gentleman sure he was right in saying he could not carry the Nonconformists with him? He premised his observation by saying he was not at all sure that the Government were carrying the Nonconformists with them in large numbers on the lines of the proposed settlement.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Gentleman need be under no apprehension on
1190
that point. I would not have acted without Nonconformist support.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he was not attempting to attenuate the concession which the Nonconformists had made, but, so far as the country was concerned, as distinguished from Nonconformists in the House of Commons, he was not sure that the right hon. Gentleman was not too sanguine. The Nonconformist grievance was embodied in the formulas "Not one penny of public money without public control," and "No clerical interference with the schools." But here they were giving £600,000 a year to a few clerics, and it made not the least difference whether the money was paid out of rates or taxes. This money was going to be spent without the fullest control; as a matter of fact they handed over £600,000 to a few priests controlled by an Archbishop, without any pretence whatever that any control was going to be exercised. That was how the Nonconformist grievance was going to be removed. He approached this question with a genuine desire that there should be a settlement. With regard to passive resisters, what was the only logical ground upon which passive resistance was based? It was a ground which had much in it, and one that appealed to every person who felt pain when he saw people undergoing imprisonment and suffering for conscience sake. The grievance was that a man was forced to pay a rate for the teaching of a religion which he regarded as pernicious. In that sense in the single-school areas there was a real grievance felt by Nonconformists who paid the education rate, but that grievance was nothing like so real as that which was endured by the Roman Catholics. The "substantiality of the grievance, complained of by the Nonconformists was nothing when contrasted with, the grievance of the Roman Catholics. It was either right or wrong; to make a man pay a rate to teach a, religion in which, he did not believe They had been told that it was a cruel and intolerance wrong and therefore, he asked, those who held that opinion for; apply it, to the position of the Roman Catholics, Why was it not a cruel wrong to Catholics when it was admitted to Catholics when it was admitted

1191
that their faith was removed from Cowper Temple teaching by a gulf infinitely greater than that which Separated Cowper-Temple believers from the doctrines of the Church of England? Catholics were made to pay the education rate out of their scanty pence. If it was a grievance in the case of Nonconformists which justified them in setting themselves up in organised revolt against laws passed by Parliament; if it was really a grievance which justified passive resistance, what answer was going to be made now by Nonconformists in this House to Roman Catholics when they said: "Here is a rate which presses on our conscience which you are making us pay for the support of schools established for the propagation of doctrines which we believe to be blasphemous, and will imperil the eternal salvation of our children." It was idle that a compromise based upon those lines could or ought to be permanent. The Roman Catholics would be unworthy of being free citizens of a free country if they consented to a compromise which was nothing but a brutal dictation of terms.
MR. HART-DAVIESthought the question before the Committee was merely a matter of common sense. We had a national system of education, and the Catholics and other denominations said they could not come into it. [Cries of "No."] Under these circumstances he could see no hardship in saying to them: "If you must stand out of the national system, be it so, but you cannot expect to have the whole of the expenses of your schools paid for by national funds." [Cries of "Why?"] He admitted that the weakness of the position was that there was a certain form of religious teaching in all schools, but he thought it was reasonable to say: "We will pay for all secular education in your schools and leave you to pay for religious instruction." He had always been in favour of a Secular system. He was education inspector for a good many years in India. The Government schools in that country were purely secular, but there, were schools which wanted a denominational atmosphere, and to them a grant was given which was supposed to represent the full cost of secular education only. He did not find that those schools
1192
suffered from being cut off from the main stream of national education, and he could not see why schools that contracted out under this Bill should suffer. He would be in favour of an extremely liberal grant increasing according to the amount spent on the school. They ought to be encouraged to make their schools efficient. He could not see why these schools should suffer in the smallest degree; they would be open to the advantages which other schools enjoyed in the way of scholarships. They would have their own management and their own masters and he did not see why the schools should be looked upon as inferior. He was in favour of contracting out. He did not want the whole of the youth of England to be brought up on the school board pattern. He did not want them to be fed altogether on Cowper-Templeism. He respected the Irish Catholics for their attachment to their schools, and if they were fairly treated in the matter of grants, they would be put on a proper footing.
MR. GWYNNsaid the discussion had gone on for several hours and he had listened to the whole of it. Not a single Member had risen to reply to the arguments of the hon. Member for East Mayo. The hon. Member who had just spoken was the first speaker to defend the proposals of the Government, but it was a singular defence. The hon. Member did not defend the scheme whole-heartedly, because he was in favour of secular education. Moreover, he admitted that the Protestant religion in some form or other was now to be taught in all schools, and, therefore, Catholics could not be on a bass of religious equality. While the hon. Member was in favour of contracting out he postulated an expanding grant to coyer the whole cost of education other than religious education; but the grant proposed was strictly limited and notoriously inadequate. That was the first time that he had taken part in an English education debate, and he hoped it would be the last, for this was a discussion in which the very name of logic was out of place. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill admitted that it was bad logic, and commended it to the House on that ground. That was the extraordinary advantage of English Ministers, possessed

1193
by them more than anybody else in the world If a scheme was logical they defended it on account of its logic; if it was not logical they said that it Was in harmony with the British nature and the British Constitution. In this was bad logic was not a very good foundation on which to rest the Bill. They were now dealing with proposals which were the result of an arrangement entered into behind the backs of the House. It was an arrangement of which English Members on both sides of the House might complain. But in the negotiations which had taken place those for whom he spoke had no representation at all. When he came to examine the reply of the Minister for Education to his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo what did he find? The right hon. Gentleman did not object on principle to the argument of his hon. friend, but said that the fact was that the Nonconformists of this country were against it. What he expressed was not argument but a conviction, and a conviction for which no reasonable argument could apparently be alleged. Such a conviction was in truth only a prejudice. When the right hon. Gentleman told them that he could not carry the Nonconformists of England in this matter, he wished to know whether Nonconformist opinion had really been sounded. Was it possible that it was determined to deny in 1908 what it was prepared to concede in 1906? Had the right appeal been made to the Nonconformists in that House? Already this session the Chief Secretary had appealed to them not without success, and he now appealed from their Nonconformist prejudices to their Liberal principles. The whole contention of his hon. friend was based on liberal principles. It was the desire of Catholics to be part and parcel of the democratic system, but the desire of the Government was to hand them over to the most extraordinary piece of clerical machinery ever propounded by a Liberal Government. Had the Nonconformists been approached and reasoned with in this matter? From the point of view of higher statesmanship, was it desirable to introduce into the body politic such a division as would be introduced by these two types of schools? Was that the way that Liberals were going to bring about the union of hearts between Irish and
1194
English? He urged the right hop. Gentleman to take a lesson from the success achieved in another matter this session by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and to try to induce the Nonconformists to approach this measure in the spirit of Liberalism and not in the spirit of eighteenth century theology.
MR. BUTCHERsaid he confessed that he had listened with some disappointment to the speech of the Minister for Education which seemed to him hard, dry, and unsympathetic. The right hon. Gentleman never appeared fully to appreciate the position of the Roman Catholics, which had been set forth with such clearness that evening. But this was not merely, in his judgment, a Roman Catholic question. The Amendment was the only solution of a great difficulty with, which they were confronted. He believed that this amended version of Clause 4 of the Bill of 1906 was the right treatment to apply to all the homogeneous schools, both Church of England and Roman Catholic, that needed exceptional treatment. Although many more in proportion of the Roman Catholic schools would benefit by it than the Church of England schools, he believed the Church of England would not grudge that benefit going to the members of the other Church. The case for such treatment was strong for Church of England schools in other than single school areas, but it was infinitely stronger for the Roman Catholic schools. First, because the Roman Catholics had no compensatory advantages to set off against their loss, while the Church of England gained at hast the right of entry into the council schools. The Nonconformists also had many compensations, which had been frequently enumerated, But the Roman Catholic schools had not a single gain. In the second place, there was this further point about the Roman Catholic case as compared with the case for the Church of England. The Church of England had under the Bill an alternative course, they might elect either to contract out under the terms offered by the Bill, or to become council schools under popular control, But the Roman Catholics had no alternative., Contracting out was the one thing offered to them.

1195
The council school was closed to them by the barrier of conscience. Therefore, if the Roman Catholics were given this as the one solution of the question, he held that the Government ought to make the contracting out a reality, and offer it on the most generous terms. The Minister for Education spoke of the grossly exaggerated language which had been used, as to the sums which would need to be paid by the Roman Catholics for the. maintenance of their schools. As an instance of this he quoted a statement that in. London the amount per head payable was £5 18s. He said truly that in this sum were included a large number of other charges But let them take the figures of the White taper. There was a very large difference between a 50s. grant and the sum of 94s. which was given in the White. Paper as the cost of maintenance per head in London.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The figures given in the White Paper include a number of charges that cannot fall upon the contracted-out schools.
MR. BUTCHERsaid perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell him what the right figure was.
MR. RUNCIMAN: No.
MR. BUTCHERsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman did not know it, he could not be supposed to know it to a shilling or two, but he felt no doubt that the White Paper gave, except for some trifling deductions, the charge for maintenance. They must also bear in mind the progressive rise in cost which had been going on since 1902 Figures supplied to him of a great many voluntary Church schools in London showed that the rise had been as much as 50 per cent. for salaries and equipment. That rise Was still going on and he thought nobody could say that even the sum of 94s. was likely to be under the mark in the next few years. They had been told that fees might be charged, in order to make up the difference, but from all he could learn there were Very few Church of England schools which could afford now to ask fees, and the Roman Catholic schools were the very poorest in' the country. Indeed, he
1196
supposed that if it were not that the Roman Catholics Were able to get the services of the religious orders at very much lower wages than the market, rate, they could not get teachers at all. The right hon. Gentleman used the argument that in Scotland they found 40s. per head was sufficient for Roman. Catholic schools and why should not 50s. be sufficient in England? Well, 40s. per head in Scotland might have kept the schools going, but it should be remembered that in England since 1902 there had been a higher standard of efficiency and equipment all round, and it was impossible to ask schools which had been raised to a higher level to fall back to a lower. The Minister for Education in the correspondence with the Archbishop said that the contracted-out schools were to have a reasonable chance of existence. They ought to have more than that; they ought to have a reasonable chance of efficiency Why did the Government refuse this solution, which educationally was fat better than the contracting - out solution for schools of the homogeneous type that they were considering? He could not help thinking that the reason that they denied it to Roman Catholics was that they feared lest they should admit a certain number of Church of England schools. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] If it was that, it was a most unworthy reason. This contracting - out solution was not, he hoped, the last word of the Government. He came down there with hopes, as one who, ardently desired, not through sheer weariness but for other reasons, to come to a settlement of this question. He came with hopes of a compromise being reached which would be a little elastic and that the Government would be prepared to-, make concessions. After all, contracting-out on the terms now offered was of such a kind that under it religious conviction carried with it civic disabilities. It struck at the parent through the secular. welfare of his child. It was a cruel alternative to offer to the Church of England, a cruel necessity to impose upon: Roman, Catholics. Looking generally at Continental Europe, at the Colonies and elsewhere abroad they; found that the only countries which had arrived at a peaceful and final settlement, of the educational controversy had done

1197
so by recognising the great diversity: that existed of thought and creed and conviction, and in this country, too, he Was confident that the only way to peace would be by the road of toleration.
MR. NAPIERdid not think that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo, although it was the last form in which Clause 4: was before the Houses of Parliament, was a perfect form. The Amendment was somewhat complicated and depended upon a number of contingencies. It was likely to give rise to a great deal of friction, but still, with all its defects, he preferred it considerably to contracting-out. The real thing which he thought the House wanted to arrive at, and the real thing which, the Government would like to arrive at, was some form of clause under which the whole of the future expenditure on educational efficiency should not fall upon the denomination itself, and in the case of the Roman Catholics he thought it was peculiarly necessary that some form of clause should be adopted under which this should not be the case. It had been pointed out by speaker after speaker representing the Roman Catholics that they formed the poorest part of the population of the country, and he was sure they would not think he meant anything offensive when he said that they also formed the most ignorant part of the population. That almost necessarily followed from the fact of their poverty, and if. that was so, What a pity it was from the point of view of national efficiency that they should condemn them to a punishment of this kind, under which it would be almost impossible for them from time to time to provide the necessary funds to keep their schools on a level with the schools which had the rates behind them. Might he ask whether this was an essential part of the compromise? If the President of the Board or the Prime Minister assured them that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo was carried there would be an end of the compromise, he should feel bound with infinite regret to vote for the Government, because he felt the chief matter was that as between the two great parties to this educational difficulty they should
1198
obtain a settlement, but he should be; also regretful that the position in which the Roman Catholic and many; English schools would be left would not be, a convenient one. He did not gather, that this question of contracting-out was an essential part of the agreement as regarded the Church of England Had the Archbishop said: "I insist upon this clause"? The President of the Board of Education did not tell them so as a matter of fact, and he challenged the right hon. Gentleman. to say that this question was a term advanced by the Church of England The Church of England had certain schools which she would desire to have the benefits of the Amendment which the hon. Member claimed for Roman Catholics—homogeneous schools mostly of a high Church or Anglican character Hon. Members would remember that institutions of this kind were not only permissible in the Church of England but had existed in that Church from the very earliest times, and while the Church as a whole was a Protestant institution the Catholic part of the Church of England had from the reign of James I. down to. the present time been a integral portion of that Church. Therefore they had the right to claim for the Anglican school of the Church of England the same privileges which Roman Catholics were claiming for themselves. He ventured to say that there was no stipulation on behalf of the Church of England that the contracting-out in Clause 4 should be a portion of the Bill. What about the Nonconformists? The President told them that the view of the Nonconformists was strongly in favour of contracting-out as against Clause 4, but if he was rightly informed he did not think there was anything like a unanimousy perhaps even a preponderating opinion, of Non conformists in favour of contracting-out as. against Clause 4. Perhaps the President was moved by a recollection, of what happened during the Bill of 1906. They knew then that Clause 4 gave many searchings of heart to many Nonconformists in the House and in the country and that they did not like the clause. But a great deal of water had flowed down the Thames since 1906, and both sides of this House

1199
had begun to understand the position which was taken up by the other, and the religious denominations of the country were to-day infinitely more sympathetic with each other than they were then. He believed hon. Members on that side of the House more fully understood and sympathised with the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite than they did in 1906, and it seemed to him that after the expressions of opinion they had had that day, there might be a greater understanding which might possibly lead to a more satisfactory compromise. Might he point out one thing, and he addressed himself mainly to his hon. friends on that side of the House. He ventured to say that approaching the matter on Nonconformist principles he thought they ought to prefer some variation of Clause 4 to contracting-out. There were three principles with which the House was "well acquainted, which were the great issues of the Education Bill of 1906, viz., public control, no tests for teachers, and no application of public money to denominational purposes. Applying those three tests to the alternative schemes of contracting-out on the one hand and Clause 4 on the other, they had no public control in contracted-out schools, but they had in Clause 4 schools. They necessarily had tests for teachers in both sets of schools and as to the application of public money in each case there was no direct application of public money to denominational teaching, and there was quite as little application in the one case as in the other. If they looked at and took the whole Nonconformist position which was before the country at the last general election he ventured to say that that position was more offended by the contracting-out clause than by Clause 4, He would say just one word upon a point Made by the President in regard to the Roman Catholic Church and what it had to say about public control. That was based upon the declaration of Archbishop Vaughan, as the President himself told them, in 1905; before the general election. Well, even more water had flowed down the Thames since 1905 than since 1906, and how could they accept that declaration of Archbishop Vaughan in 1905 before
1200
the general election against that of hon. Gentlemen opposite who represented, if anybody did, the feelings and wishes of the Roman Catholic electors of this country? They had some little time before them before this matter was finally determined. It would be a week or ten days before the House would be called upon to give its decision as to the particular relief to be afforded to Roman Catholic members of the community, and he asked the Government seriously to apply their minds to this matter and to try to find out whether, as a matter of fact, Nonconformist opinion was not amenable to some modified form of Clause 4, rather than to the particular form of contracting-out which the Government had in the Bill. He believed they would find that Nonconformist opinion had no more objection to one than to the other, and he thought after the debate they had heard there should be some sympathetic consideration given to the undoubted claims of the Roman Catholics and also of the Anglicans who desired homogeneous schools.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONregretted that the Government would not accept the Amendment. It did not pledge them to adopt the new clause of the hon. Member for Mayo. But it left the door open for the consideration of some alternative to the proposals for contracting-out, which were so generally unpalatable on both sides of the House. The clause of the hon. Member for Mayo was not Clause 4 of the Bill of 1906 as it left the House of Commons, but was that clause as it returned from the House of Lords. In the House of Lords there were two additions made to it, very desirable to his mind, in regard to the constitution, of the parents', committee for the control of religious instruction and the requirement that the local education authority should consult the parents' committee in the appointment of teachers.
MR. DILLONsaid it was very important that this should be made clear; The form in which he had put down the clause was not that in which it came from the House of Lords, but the form in which it was adopted after

1201
the debate in the House of Lords by the Liberal Government.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONwas understood to say that the clause was the result of discussion in another place, and these two particular sections of the hon. Member's proposed new clause to which he had referred were printed in italics showing that they had not stood part of the clause as it left the House of Commons.
MR. DILLONsaid they were not put in by the House of Lords.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he did not think they need argue about it. If hon. Members would look at the clause they would see that these two particular subsections were printed in italics showing that they were not the product of the debates of the House of Commons.
MR. DILLONsaid the matter was of some importance. It was quite true that the clause was altered, but the shape in which he had put it down was not the form in which it had come from the House of Lords, but the form in which it was adopted by the Government, as announced by Lord Crewe, after debate in the House of Lords. It was the work of the Liberal Cabinet and not of the House of Lords.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that as the Bill came back from the Lords certain portions of the clause were printed in italics to indicate that they had not formed part of the clause as it left the House of Commons. He did not wish to carry the discussion further, but while admitting that the clause was not discussed in the House of Commons in 1906, he did not understand why, if it was accepted by the Liberal Government in the House of Lords then, the Minister for Education should be so reluctant to consider it now. Whether or not it should be accepted, it would give the opportunity for considering whether there should be an alternative proposal to contracting out. Probably the right hon. Gentleman would say there was not time enough, but that was no fault of the Opposition. They were told they were being conciliated but that was being done under the guillotine, a curious
1202
process of conciliation. They must make the best of the position, and take their chance of any opportunity that offered of discussing this very complicated Bill. This Amendment would offer to the Roman Catholics a possibility of escaping from a very distasteful position. To them complete popular control and the appointment by the local education authority of the teachers without reference to their religion must be an impossible condition. The Roman Catholics gained nothing under this Bill, the Church of England gained the right of entry for what it was worth, but the Roman Catholics gained nothing and were entitled to the fullest consideration. What was to be their position under the Bill? Were they to be driven into a system that was distasteful to them, which they could not possibly accept, with the alternative of starvation under the contracting-out clause? Another question the Government had not taken up was that of the homogeneous schools, where the bulk of the children were of one religious belief, and where that particular religious belief might be provided for under the scheme of the school without doing harm to anybody else. If only time had been given to deal with that matter and to arrive at the compromise which conciliation demanded for making a real settlement, they might have been able to have struck out some scheme covering the whole ground, but they had not had that opportunity. This Amendment would give the Department the opportunity for offering the possibility of escaping from unpleasant alternatives, and he appealed to the Government not to let the opportunity escape. It was said that contracting out would bring variety, but the variety they wanted was the variety arising from adaptation of teaching to local needs and conditions; they did not want the variety between rich and poor schools, between efficient and non-efficient schools. He asked the Government, in the hope of a real settlement of the matter, to; give full consideration to the Amendment.
MR. MADDISONsaid two things had emerged from the debate. The first was that the prospect of anything like a durable settlement was hot a good one,

1203
and the second that the equality of treatment was not to be obtained, either by contracting out or by the proposal of the hon. Member for East Mayo. Equality could only be reached by excluding entirely all theological teaching. As one who had moved about the big towns of England, he knew that all that had been said by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland about the self-sacrifice of their own priests and of those who managed their own schools was true. They were poor, very earnest, and very determined. As he happened to belong to a religious minority very much removed from them—he had the privilege to be an Unitarian—he sympathised to the full with the plea they made on account of the poverty and earnestness of their people. He would like hon. Members from Ireland to understand the position, which was that he and other English Radicals must steadily resist their attempt to impose denominationalism upon public money. Across the track of a national educational system came great external bodies, it might be from Rome, from Canterbury, or from Geneva. If he had his way, he would not allow any of them to interfere with the national system, for if such interference were permitted it broke up the amity of that system and kept alive that bickering which was not good for education, nor, he thought, for religion. If hon. Members from Ireland—whose objection to Cowper-Templeism he shared—had joined them some time ago, the chances were that the Catholics and other bodies might have had a hand in this bargain, or treaty of peace, and without outraging a single conscience they might have devised a system by which facilities
should be given for denominational teaching out of school hours. After these weary debates, these abortive proposals, these hopeless attempts to secure reconciliation among irreconcilables, the nation would one day turn to a system which would make the schools absolutely neutral in those matters which must divide us on this side of the grave.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINrecognised, as the hon. Member who had just spoken recognised, that the solution which the Government proposed could not meet the idiosyncrasies of small religious bodies. To meet the views of everybody was possible only by taking the course recommended by his right hon. friend, that without prejudice, the State should provide the religious instruction which parents desired. But if they could not do that, it was not necessary to go to the other extreme and provide no religious teaching whatever. If they could not provide what everybody wished for, that was no reason why they should provide what nobody wanted. He intended to support the clause, whether the Amendment were carried or not. He did not like the clause which the hon. Member for East Mayo had put upon the Paper; but he shared the view of the hon. Member for Oxford University that they ought not, at this stage of the Bill, to exclude the possibility of reaching in their deliberations some scheme more palatable to many of their fellow-citizens.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 159; Noes, 226. (Division List No. 421.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Courthope, G. Lloyd

Acland-Hood Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Craik, Sir Henry

Ambrose, Robert

Bull, Sir William James

Crean, Eugene

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Burke, E. Haviland

Cross, Alexander

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Delany, William

Ashley, W. W.

Byles, William Pollard

Dillon, John

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn. Sir H.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Balcarres, Lord

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Baldwin, Stanley

Castlereagh, Viscount

Edwards, Clement (Denbighs)

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

Cave, George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Banbury, Sir Frederick-George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Fardell, Sir T. George

Baring, Capt. Hn. G(Winchester)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Fell, Arthur

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh-Hicks.

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Worc

Ffrench, Peter

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Clive, Percy Archer

Field, William

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Boland, John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Flynn, James Christopher

Bowerman, C. W.

Cooper, G. J.

Forster, Henry William

Gardner, Ernest

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Gill, A. H.

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Ginnell, L.

M'Arthur, Charles

Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

Glover, Thomas

M'Kean, John

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

M'Killop, W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Gretton, John

Magnus, Sir Philip

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Guinness, Hon. R.(Haggerston)

Meagher, Michael

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim, N)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Halpin, J.

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sheehy, David

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Mooney, J. J.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Morpeth, Viscount

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Harwood, George

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Stanier, Beville

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Summerbell, T.

Helmsley, Viscount

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hill, Sir Clement

Nolan, Joseph

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

Hodge, John

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hogan, Michael

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Hope, James Fitzalan(Sheffield)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thornton, Percy M.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Oddy, John James

Valentia, Viscount

Hudson, Walter

O'Doherty, Philip

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

Hunt, Rowland

O'Donnell, C..J. (Walworth)

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

Jenkins, J.

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Jowett, F. W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

Joyce, Michael

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Percy, Earl

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Kilbride, Denis

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Younger, George

Kimber, Sir Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Reddy, M.

Lundon, W.

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Remnant, James Farquharson

NOES.

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

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Fenwick, Charles

Agnew, George William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ferens, T. R.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Findlay, Alexander

Alden, Percy

Cameron, Robert

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Armitage, R.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Fuller, John Michael F.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Chance, Frederick William

Fullerton, Hugh

Ashton Thomas Gair

Channing, Sir Francis, Allston

Furness, Sir Christopher

Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Baker Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cleland, J. W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Clough, William

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

Barker, Sir John

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Barnard, E. B.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Beale, W. P.

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

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Beauchamp, E.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Bell, Richard

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cowan, W. H.

Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

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

Crossley, William J.

Hall, Frederick

Bennett, E. N.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale

Berridge, T. H. D.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'd)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Harmsworth, R. L.(Caithness-sh

Black, Arthur W

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Duckworth, Sir James

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

Branch, James

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Brigg, John

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hedges, A. Paget

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Hemmerde, Edward George

Brodie, H. C.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

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

Brooke, Stopford

Erskine, David C.

Henry, Charles S.

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

Essex, R. W.

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

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

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Bryce, J. Annan

Everett, R. Lacey

Higham, John Sharp

1206

1207

Hobart, Sir Robert

Mond, A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morrell, Philip

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Holt, Richard Durning

Morse, L. L.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hooper, A. G.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

Horniman, Emslie John

Nicholls, George

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Norman, Sir Henry

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Hyde, Clarendon

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomasson, Franklin

Idris, T. H. W.

Hussey, Thomas Willans

Toulmin, George

Ilingworth, Percy H.

Paul, Herbert

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Paulton, James Mellor

Ure, Alexander

Jackson, R. S.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Verney, F. W.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Vivian, Henry

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Walton, Joseph

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Pollard, Dr.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wason, Rt Hn. E.(Clackmannan

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Laidlaw, Robert

Radford, G. H.

Waterlow, D. S.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Rees, J. D.

Watt, Henry A.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lambert, George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Whitbread, Howard

Lamont, Norman

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Rogers, F. E. Newman

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Lehmann, R. C.

Rose, Charles Day

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rowlands, J.

Whitehead, Rowland

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

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

Wiles, Thomas

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Maclean, Donald

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

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sears, J. E.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

M'Callum, John M.

Seaverns, J. H.

Wills, Arthur Walters

M'Crae, Sir George

Seely, Colonel

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

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

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

M'Micking, Major G.

Sherwell, Arthur James

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

Maddison, Frederick

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

Mallet, Charles E.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Soares, Ernest J.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Spicer, Sir Albert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Massie, J.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Menzies, Walter

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Steadman, W. C.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

And, it being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 27th November, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of Clause 1.
Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 238; Noes, 144. (Division List No. 422.)

AYES.

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

Bellairs, Carlyon

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Agnew, George William

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

Byles, William Pollard

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bennett, E. N.

Cameron, Robert

Alden, Percy

Berridge, T. H. D.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore

Armitage, R.

Black, Arthur W.

Chance, Frederick William

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Bramsdon, T. A.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Branch, James

Cleland, J. W.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Brigg, John

Clough, William

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Bright, J. A.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

Barker, Sir John

Brodie, H. C.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brooke, Stopford

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

Barnard, E. B.

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Beale, W. P.

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T.(Cheshire

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Beauchamp, E.

Bryce, J. Annan

Cowan, W. H.

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Crossley, William J.

Bell, Richard

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Sears, J. E.

Duckworth, Sir James

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Seaverns, J. H.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Laidlaw, Robert

Seely, Colonel

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

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

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lambert, George

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Erskine, David C.

Lamont, Norman

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Essex, R. W.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Soares, Ernest J.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lehmann, R. C.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Everett, R. Lacey

Levy, Sir Maurice

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Fenwick, Charles

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Ferens, T. R.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Steadman, W. C.

Findlay, Alexander

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

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Maclean, Donald

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Callum, John M.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Crae, Sir George

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Micking, Major G.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Glen-Coates, Sir T.(Renfrew, W.

Mallet, Charles E.

Thomasson, Franklin

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Thorne, G. R.(Wolverhampton)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Marnham, F. J.

Toulmin, George

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Massie, J.

Ure, Alexander

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Masterman, C. F. G.

Verney, F. W.

Gulland, John W.

Menzies, Walter

Vivian, Henry

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Micklem, Nathaniel

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hall, Frederick

Molteno, Percy Alport

Walton, Joseph

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale

Mond, A.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Harcourt., Robert V.(Montrose)

Morrell, Philip

Wason, Rt. Hn. E.(Clackmannan

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morse, L. L.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Napier, T. B.

Watt, Henry A.

Hart-Davies, T.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Harvey, A, G. C. (Rochdale)

Nicholls, George

Whitbread, Howard

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

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncs't'r

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Norman, Sir Henry

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Hedges, A. Paget

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Hemmerde, Edward George

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whitehead, Rowland

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

Paul, Herbert

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Henry, Charles S.

Paulton, James Mellor

Wiles, Thomas

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Higham, John Sharp

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Pollard, Dr.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Holland, Sir William Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Hooper, A. G.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Horniman, Emslie John

Rainy, A. Rolland

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

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Rees, J. D.

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

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Hyde, Clarendon

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Younger, George

Idris, T. H. W.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rose, Charles Day

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rowlands, J.

Jackson, R. S.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bull, Sir William James-

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Burke, E. Haviland-

Ambrose, Robert

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Carlile, E. Hildred

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Ashley, W. W.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Boland, John

Cave, George

Balcarres, Lord

Bowerman, C. W.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Baldwin, Stanley

Bowles, G. Stewart

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

1210

1211

Clive, Percy Archer

Hunt, Rowland

Power, Patrick Joseph.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jenkins, J.

Radford, G. H.

Cooper, G. J.

Jowett, F. W.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Courthope. G. Loyd

Joyce, Michael

Reddy, M.

Craik, Sir Henry

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Crean, Eugene

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cross, Alexander

Kettle, Captain Michael

Remnant, James Farquharson

Delany, William

Kilbride, Denis

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

Dillon, John

Kimber, Sir Henry

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Douglas, Rt. Hon, A. Akers-

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lundon, W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Fardell, Sir I. George

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Fell, Arthur

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Sheehy, David

Ffrench, Peter

M'Arthur, Charles

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Field, William

M'Kean, John

Snowden, P.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Killop, W.

Stanier, Beville

Flynn, James Christopher

Maddison, Frederick

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Forster, Henry William

Magnus, Sir Philip

Summerbell, T.

Gardner, Ernest

Meagher, Michael

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim, N.)

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

Ginnell, L.

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Glover, Thomas

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Gretton, John

Mooney, J. J.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Morpeth, Viscount

Thornton, Percy M.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Valentia, Viscount

Halpin, J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Nolan, Joseph

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Helmsley, Viscount

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

Hill, Sir Clement

Oddy, James John

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hodge, John

O'Doherty, Philip

Hogan, Michael

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Percy, Earl

Hudson, Walter

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his. Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) [GRANTS].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment of Parliamentary Grants to associations of schools in respect of every public elementary school belonging to such associations, and of a Parliamentary Grant in respect of instruction given in special subjects at centres, in pursuance of any Act of the present session to make further provision with respect to Elementary Education in England and Wales."—(Mr. Runciman.)
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (BY ORDER).
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th November], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he rose to move the rejection of the measure. It was long and complicated. It proposed among other things to take over several existing railway companies and place them under the control and authority of the North British Railway Company, also to build new lines and take over docks and harbours. In the provisions of the Bill the interests of various people were carefully safeguarded—the interests of the shareholders in the railways affected, the interests of the Postmaster-General, the interests of traders and shippers, of harbour dues and carrying rates, the interests of the ratepayers of Leven, and soon. But there was one class of people whose interests were not safeguarded. Under the Schedules

1213
it was specified that the North British Railway Company should appoint and pay all agents, officers, booking and other clerks, servants, porters and other persons and so on who were working the railway. He desired some assurance that the interests of the servants of the company taken over under the Bill should be safeguarded and their rights as citizens protected in a way that the present employees could not be said to enjoy. The company had a standing rule that all its employees must be at its disposal not merely during the working hours, but during the whole twenty-four hours of the day. That had been interpreted to mean that a servant of the company was prohibited from serving on any public body to which he might be elected, although its meetings were held during the hours when he was not on duty. They were not asking that servants of the railway company should be free to accept public positions which called them away from their duties during working hours, but they felt strongly on the point that during the time they were not on duty these men should be as free to accept positions of trust and responsibility to which they might be elected as any other members of the community. What they asked was that an assurance should be given of a definite kind that what had already happened in connection with the town council of Ladybank should not be repeated with the new people contemplated to be taken over under the Bill. Six members of the town council of Ladybank were employees of the company, and each had been compelled under threat of dismissal to resign his position on the council. A deputation of townspeople, including the provost and the parish minister, waited upon the manager of the company to plead the cause of these men, but the manager was obdurate and insisted that he had a right to control the whole of their time. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade had read at Question-time a letter from the manager in which this sentence occurred—
"The company has no intention to enforce any restriction upon its employees to prevent them serving the town council so long as such service is not inconsistent with their duty to the company."
It was not, however, alleged that the fact that these six men were acting on the town council in any way interfered with
1214
their duty as railway servants. The town clerk was also local agent to the railway company, and some of these men had occasion to criticise some charges he made for services alleged to have been rendered, and two days following their criticism the leader of the six was warned to resign from the council under pain of being dismissed. He had to resign, and the other five followed in quick succession. Since then two employees of the company who acted as chairman and secretary of the ratepayers' association had also been compelled to resign under a similar threat, which was actually carried out in the case of the chairman. This was a condition of servitude which would find little sympathy and no support, he hoped, in any quarter of the House. Unless satisfactory assurances were forthcoming they would do their best to defeat the Bill, or failing that, to have clauses inserted to safeguard the rights of citizenship of the employees of the company. They would fight strenuously if necessary to secure that railway servants should not be deprived of the rights of citizenship so long as the exercise of those rights did not conflict with their duty to the company.
MR. MORTON*MR. MORTON (Sutherland), in seconding, thoroughly agreed with the statement that no company ought to have the right of interfering with the rights of citizens. If a man went to a meeting of any kind in his own time, no company had a right to say he should not do it, and that if he did he would be dismissed. He rather thought they would not go so far as that in Russia or any other uncivilised country. If a company got favours from the State and a monopoly with regard to its business it had no right to say that men should not do so-and-so in their own time. He had been informed that this company proposed to take Leven Harbour or Dock and close it, or do what they pleased with it, without any recompense to the real owners, and that the clause referring to that had been put in without the usual notice which enabled parties concerned to defend themselves. That was another reason why they should carefully look into this Bill. Another complaint that had reached him was as the way in which the company, kept their spare

1215
engine - drivers and firemen hanging about. The men complained that after hanging about all day they were not fit to do a night's work on a locomotive; that it was a danger not only to themselves, but to the public. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would see that not only the men but the public were protected from dangers which might arise from that cause. His main object, however, in intervening was the question of third-class sleeping carriages. As long ago as 1882 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, stated that whenever a public company came to get favours and monopolies granted to them by Parliament the public had a right to see that their grievances were redressed before further favours were granted. Not only had nothing been done with regard to third-class sleeping accommodation, but the company had actually raised the price of week-end tickets by 20 per cent. The railway company said the first-class sleeping carriages did not pay, but everybody knew there was a loss on all first-class traffic. That loss had to be met out of the profit made on third-class traffic. That was a reason why third class passengers should be treated at least as well as those who travelled first-class. He could not see why the sleeping accommodation given to first-class passengers should be paid for by third-class passengers. He gladly recognised that the Board of Trade had tried to assist him in this matter, and he hoped to have their further assistance. He warned the railway companies that some night it would be possible to punish them by throwing out a Bill. He was told that the North British Railway Company had not been doing very well. He found on inquiry that that was entirely their own fault. It was due to their own bad management. They had wasted a million of money in building a great hotel at Edinburgh, they had wasted other millions on useless undertakings, and then they had the impudence—he used the word advisedly—to come to Parliament and say that the public must pay for the loss they had incurred. His constituents were very much interested in the claim that the railway companies should be required to provide third-class sleeping accommoda-
1216
tion. They were about 700 miles distant, and he wished them to have reasonable opportunity of coming to London in comfort. Unless he got a satisfactory reply he would insist on going to a division. The public had a right to demand for third-class traffic similar accommodation to that given to first-class.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire was asking a little to much when he asked for third-class sleeping carriages. If such carriages were provided, the trains would be inconveniently long. If the railway companies could afford to give the accommodation asked, he would not object, but he did not think the suggestion was practicable. He wished to call attention to a more serious matter. An alteration was made in the night mails from Aberdeen, which meant that the delivery of letters from his own and other northern constituencies was delayed in the South until the following day. Their conveyance took forty-eight instead of twenty-four hours. He made representation on the subject to the railway companies, and through the good offices of the Secretary to the Board of Trade they had met the request made to them in this respect. A conference of railway representatives was held, and the result was that the companies had agreed to restore the mail service to what it had formerly been, the alteration to take place in the beginning of May. He. was bound to say that the North British Company met them quite fairly. He could understand the difficulties they were in. Although their station in Edinburgh was large, it was not all that could be desired, and it was not an easy matter arranging the traffic. He desired to thank his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade for the ready assistance he had given in the matter.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY,)said the House would remember that the debate on

1217
the Second Reading of this Bill was adjourned in order that the conference to which his hon. friend had referred, might be held. He was glad to be able to confirm the statement made by his hon. friend. The railway companies had agreed not precisely to the arrangement existing before but to restore the mail connection so that those districts north of Aberdeen which were cut out would now be able to enjoy the mail service in the same way as they had done for many years past. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire had brought forward a topic which he had been pressing on the attention of the House for the past three years, He hoped the hon. Member recognised that the action of the Board of Trade in the matter had been sympathetic. In 1906 when the question of third-class sleeping accommodation was raised, he undertook to approach the managers of the various railway companies which ran trains long distances with the view of seeing whether they could be induced to give their favourable consideration to the suggestion. The Board of Trade had been unable to induce them to make the concession. The companies pointed out that the provision of third-class sleeping carriages would involve a financial loss. Not being satisfied his hon. friend again brought up the question in 1907, and he himself then supported the idea that third-class sleeping accommodation should be provided. He pointed out that the third-class passenger was really the backbone of railway traffic, and that he enabled the railway companies to pay dividends. The figures showed that third-class passengers were enormously greater than the second and third-class. He was not able to do more, but if the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to move a Motion or introduce a Bill, so as to let the House of Commons have a formed debate on the matter, and if the decision of the House of Commons was in favour of his hon. friend's action, then he was certain the railway company would reconsider the matter.
MR. MORTON: Will the Government give me time to bring in and carry a Bill?
SIR H. KEARLEYsaid that the hon. Gentleman knew how to take advantage of every opportunity which offered of
1218
bringing this matter before the House of Commons, as had been shown by his heroic record in connection with the tramways. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil—viz., the treatment by the railway companies of their servants who took part in municipal affairs—when this Bill was under discussion a fortnight ago he promised that he would take advantage of the directors of the North British Railway Company being present, to act as a friend at Court as between the Company and the men with regard to this grievance. He had placed the case which had been stated to him by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil by letter, before the general manager and directors of the Railway Company, and at their request he sent a copy of that letter to the general manager. He had had an interview that day with the general manager, and asked him for an assurane that in future no such interpretation would be placed on the standing rule of the company as to prevent employees, when their services were not required by the company, exercising their rights of citizenship; and he was now able to give, on behalf of the company, an assurance on these terms—
"The directors of the North British Railway Company authorise me to say that the employees of the company shall be left free to discharge public duties, and to exercise freely their rights of citizenship during those hours when they are not on duty for the railway company."
He hoped that the hon. Member after that assurance would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked leave to withdraw his Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. YOUNGERsaid he wished to move that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons with respect to Clause 26, which dealt with the closing of Leven Harbour. The Commission in settling this clause dealt with new matter of a very important character, but no previous notice of it had been given to the owner of the Solum at Leven Harbour, They did not want to override their system of Private Bill legislation by any general rehearing or revision, but it was an entirely different matter to order

1219
the hearing of a point which had not been heard. Mr. Christie had not seen the plans of the works to be placed on the land, and he was inclined to agree with him that this House ought to grant a rehearing. He was fortified in that contention by what the Lord-Advocate said in the Arizona case, in which the right hon. Gentleman said he did not find any suggestion that the matter was not argued in full previously, or that any new fact was brought before this House. In effect he said there must be some new facts brought forward to those which were before the Commissioners, or some gross blunder proved to have been made by the Commissioners, before such a rehearing would be allowed. He contended that here there were new facts, that these facts were of very great importance, and that such protection as the clause granted to Mr. Christie in his absence, and his compensation, and his mineral rights, should be properly safeguarded. He was entitled to have a rehearing with the plans and sections of the jetty and all these works presented for consideration. He did not think Mr. Christie had made any unreasonable request. He would not discuss the various points at length, but would content himself with making this general statement. He begged to move that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.
MR. DUNDAS WHITEseconded. He said he did not think it was necessary for him to add much, but it seemed to him that special care ought to be given to the proposal to close one of these East of Scotland ports, and to enable one of the railway companies to set aside the obligations imposed under an Act of Parliament. This port was constituted in 1876, the Leven Harbour Company being the undertakers. Then it was passed on to somebody else, and from that somebody else it passed in 1889 into the hands of the North British Railway Company. From that time the railway company had neglected the obligations by which their rights were accompanied, viz., to keep the harbour open and in a fit condition to be used by vessels. They neglected to do that, and the harbour gradually silted up. Then the proprietor of the soil, from whom they bought, insisted
1220
upon their fulfilling their statutory obligations, and went to the Court of Session. That Court pronounced against the railway company, and issued an order to the effect that the place should be kept properly, and that the proprietor should be entitled to keep it in order himself and charge the railway company. The company did not appeal from that decision, but came before the House of Commons with a Bill, and by a clause got rid of their obligations, altogether overriding the decision of the Court of Session. The proprietor had had no opportunity of stating his case, and under these circumstances he supported what the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs had said. He believed there was one precedent in a similar case, but he need not go into it; he thought this was a case in which the House might very well refer this particular clause to a Joint Committee in order that it should receive particularly careful attention. He begged to second.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."—(Mr. Younger).
MR. COCHRANEsaid he appeared for the first time in opposition to the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs and he was glad that it was on a matter of personal and individual rather than of national importance. The hon. Member had referred to previous occasions in which attempts had been made in this House to refer Bills to a Joint Committee, and he candidly stated that there was only one in the history of Provisional Orders in Scotland on which such a reference was made. He thought that was a case where the Edinburgh Tramways Company had applied before the Commissioners for ''loas," but it was refused and when they came before this House it was granted. In all the other cases no similar permission had been granted. His hon. fiend had quoted the Lord-Advocate, and he thought that right hon. Gentleman had adopted a very sound argument when he said that no rehearing should take place except under special circumstances. Lord Balfour, who was then Secretary for Scotland, used similar terms, as also did Sir Robert Reid, now Lord Chancellor, and other

1221
authorities, who said that no Bills should be sent to a Joint Committee unless there was substantially a special case, and new matter had arisen. This Provisional Order now under discussion came in the ordinary course before the Commissioners who consisted of Lord Falkland and Lord Strathmore and two Members of this House who were very much respected. They heard all the evidence for four days, and went into all those points, and he ventured to say that no special circumstances had arisen which demanded a re-hearing, no new facts had been brought forward and no new point bad been raised which was not considered by the Commissioners. Last of all, these four Commissioners were unanimous in, arriving at their decision. His hon. friend said that no notice was given to Mr. Christie, but when objections were raised before the Examiner of Bills, an impartial authority, he declared that the Standing Orders had been complied with. Then as to whether the notice was given or not, the North British Railway applied for various powers to deal with this harbour as they wished, to sell it or to do what they liked with it. The Commissioners cut down those powers and said they must make roads, give some land to the borough, and do various other things. The greater included the less and, if the railway company applied for the fullest powers their notice might be held to cover the more limited powers which were confersed upon them by the Commissioners. The question whether Mr. Christie still had some claim was a legal point which the House was hardly competent to deal with. The Commissioners had decided that his case should be kept open and if he could establish his claim the railway company undertook to pay him compensation under the Lands Clauses Act, giving him the full value of his right plus 10 per cent. The Bill did not abolish the harbour. It only closed the dock and for reasons which appealed to everyone in the neighbourhood. Owing to the situation of the dock, within twenty yards of the main sewer, it had been condemned by the public health officer who had been health officer for Seventeen years, and who said the dock was a
1222
perfect cesspool and was injurious to the health of the locality. The town council said the basin of the dockyard was a filthy nuisance.
LORD BALCARRES: That is not the fault of the dock which was there fifty years before the sewer.
MR. COCHRANEdid not think that made any difference. The dock was he longer required for its previous purpose. The enormous docks of Methil had grown up on which the company had spent millions of money. The Commissioners and the public health authority and the borough authorities were satisfied that Leven Dock ought to be closed and the Leven branch of. the Miners' Union had also declared that they desired to see it closed. Only one individual held out and he had been offered full and fair compensation if he could prove any claim to it. No case had been made out for sending the Bill to a joint Committee.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)said it was a very small point that had been brought before the House. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire had described with great clearness the situation, and he had very little to add to his statement of the facts of the case. Mr. Christie was the only objector to the Bill, and it was in his interest that the Motion was brought forward. There was no ground of objection on the part of Mr. Christie on the ground of notice. The Examiner of Bills had decided that point and it was perfectly clear. The Commission had heard Mr. Christie's case, which was one of objection to a clause less favourable to his interests than the clause as it at present stood. His case was not that the clause was less favourable but that new facts had been brought forward which were not covered by the notice and which had not been before the Commission. As a matter of fact, neither of these objections held good.
MR. MOONEY: Was Mr. Christie allowed to be heard on the hew clause which was brought forward on the inquiry stage of the Bill?
MR. SINCLAIR: He elected to stand out.
MR. MOONEY: Did he apply through his counsel, Mr. Scott-Dickson, to be heard on the matter, and did the Committee sitting in Scotland refuse to hear him, or did he allege that there was no power to deal with the clause as it was not contained in the notice?
MR. SINCLAIRsaid he had his opportunity of being heard and refused to take it.
MR. YOUNGER: My information is that Mr. Scott-Dickson refused to go on, because he was not seized of the facts. He had no notice of any kind. The agreement was made behind Mr. Christie's back, and he was not in a position to go on.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid he understood it was not made behind his back. The company would have been very glad to treat with Mr. Christie as they had treated with other parties, but Mr. Christie chose to refrain from taking the opportunity which he certainly had of coming to an agreement in the matter. As to Mr. Christie's legal rights, the Commission had come to no decision. Unless there was very grave reason, and there was no such grave reason in this case, the Motion should be rejected.
MR. MOONEYsaid it was only to preserve the reputation which had always belonged to Private Bill Committees that he intervened. As he understood it, the reason why the decisions of Private Bill Committees were so unanimously upheld was that any person, no matter how remote his interest, if he could prove that he had an interest which would be affected by any Bill, got the fullest and fairest consideration before any Committee. He understood that Mr. Christie alleged that he was injuriously affected by the Bill as originally proposed. The Committee sat and inquired into the clauses of the Bill, and at the last moment new clauses were brought-forward, and Mr. Scott-Dickson, on behalf of Mr. Christie, protested that the Committee were going outside the deposited plans. He should be very sorry to interfere with the decision of a Committee sitting in Scotland to decide a purely Scottish question; but, if they had departed from the ordinary course, laid down
1224
by that House, he thought they ought to exercise their revising power, which he admitted only ought to be exercised on rare occasions, and allow the complainant to go before a Joint Committee. He did not think, from their knowledge of Mr. Scott-Dickson, that he would have made the statement attributed to him that the clause inserted in the Bill went outside the deposited plans if he had not thought that was so; but, if the right hon. Gentleman could assure him that Mr. Scott-Dickson was under a misapprehension, he would not support any Motion to send the Bill to a Joint Committee. If, however, there had been a departure from the ordinary procedure, he did not think it would add to the high reputation possessed by Private Bill Committees to allow any individual to go away with the idea that he had been unfairly treated. It would be better to stretch a point and allow that person to appear before a Joint Committee rather than he should think he was suffering under a grievance. Under those circumstances, if Mr. Scott-Dickson was correct, he should vote in favour of the Motion; but if the right hon. Gentleman could assure him that the statement was made under a misapprehension, he should not support the Motion, because he was in favour of delegating these matters to the local people who knew all the circumstances.
MR. MORTONsaid that one of the safeguards against lobbying which the two Houses had established was the very strict regulations as to notice. He understood the railway company were under a statutory obligation to maintain the harbour and dock and were also by the decree of the Quarter Sessions required to restore it to a state of efficiency for public use. In face of that it certainly seemed extraordinary that without the consent of those interested they were going to take the harbour or dock away—to sell or do anything they liked with it—and give no recompense to the owner. He agreed that if anybody felt a grievance—and especially when the ordinary procedure as to notice had been broken—they ought to be as lenient as possible and give redress by allowing them in cases of importance to go before a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons, and have their case heard. He was very

1225
anxious that the strict rules made by both Houses as to the giving of notice and the handing in of plans and other information should be adhered to for the protection of everybody and the prevention of lobbying which would surely occur if they allowed those rules to be broken with impunity.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid he did not think it was a question of relying on the good faith or character of Mr. Scott-Dickson, or any other counsel engaged in the case. The question really was whether Mr. Scott-Dickson had fair notice of the objections he had to meet. There was no doubt that two authorities in their separate spheres had decided that he had fair notice. In the first place, the Commissioners were decidedly of the view that he had. He was fully heard by them and they came to a unanimous decision. There was the further point whether the notice given by the company in these proceedings covered the form which the clause ultimately took. That was a matter which was referred to the Examiner of Bills, who decided that the notice given to Mr. Christie covered what had been done by the Committee. There was really no doubt on these two points.
MR. MOONEYasked if a protest was made by Mr. Scott-Dickson against the competency of the Committee to insert this clause? Was there any ruling given on that point?
MR. SINCLAIR: Certainly. I have just said so.
MR. MORTON: Was the plan referred to deposited with the Secretary for Scotland in time?
MR. SINCLAIR: Yes.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid supposing a man who was interested in some property had not had notice of a Private Bill, if his counsel appeared it was quite clear that it had been waived. Counsel might or might not proceed upon some further point, but if he appeared at all any prior question of notice was
1226
waived. The hon. Gentleman opposite had made a mistake in stating that there was no provision here for compensation for Mr. Christie. Subsection (9) of this very clause, said—
"In the event of Robert Maitland Christie or his successors making any claim in respect of, or interest in, the site in two years, the. company is to give him full compensation."
MR. MORTON: It is said they are going to close the harbour and dock and this man does not want it closed.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid they were not going to take the harbour away but simply to close up the dock. There could only be three people interested in the property. First of all, there was the owner of the dock—the railway company. Then there was the individual who came forward and said: "My predecessors sold this dock site to the railway company for the purpose of a dock, and if it is not going to be used for a dock any longer I claim to have a right in the soil." That was a very curious contention, and he could quite understand that when the Parliamentary notices were originally given no one thought that some individual, owing to some understanding which, he claimed, existed at some remote period was entitled in reversion to have the property back. The question of notice was disposed of and the question of irregularity was disposed of by the careful Way in which the officials saw that every interested party had had the proper notice. Who else could be interested in the property? The ordinary persons who lived there and owned property in the neighbourhood were represented by the local authorities who were parties to the Bill. In these cases arrangements were sometimes made by way of concession. Roads were made and pieces of land were given up, but these concessions were not shown on the original plans. It was absurd to say there was anything irregular because all the parties interested had met together and made a sensible arrangement which was included in the Bill. Mr. Christie was to have compensation if he proved his claim and anything fairer or more reasonable it would be difficult to understand. After all the criticism that

1227
had been passed on the railway company about points which were not in the Bill it was almost time they allowed these important works, which the railway company was going to carry out, to be authorised.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSentered a word of expostulation against the time of the House being occupied upon the pleading of a private right on such slender grounds. A most extraordinary claim was put forward by the man who sold the dock, and was paid in cash and shares. The dock was thoroughly useless and antiquated, had only a very small draught of water, was not more than an acre in extent, and during the last six years hardly a vessel had come into it except for one firm. It was an attempt by a landowner, through his personal friends, to extort a larger price from the railway company.
MR. YOUNGER: I have never seen Mr. Christie in my life.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he was glad that fact had come out. He had never heard a more flimsy case in his life. He had thought this was a case of an attempt to obtain compensation for which there was no title, and that opportunities were being used which ought not to be used to prevent the passage of Bills in order to promote private interests.
MR. MOONEY: May I ask whether the hon. Member is in order in attributing motives to Members of the House? I have no connection with and have never seen Mr. Christie.
MR. SPEAKER: The intervention of the hon. Member showed that the observations of the speaker were made without knowledge. I understood him to withdraw them.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: Certainly. I am rather pleased that any observations I made were the means by which this fact was brought out.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: May I ask whether the hon. Member is entitled to make insinuations as to the motives which move hon. Members in bringing a matter before the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not. I thought I had made that clear. The hon. Member for Glasgow is not entitled to make observations of that kind. When they were contradicted, I understood him to say he regretted he had made them, and that they were not in accordance with the facts.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I certainly withdraw immediately any remark which could be at all offensive. I said I was glad the opportunity had arisen in order that the facts might be made known.
MR. DUNDAS WHITE: The suggestion the hon. Member made was that those who opposed this were actuated by personal acquaintance and personal motives. I beg absolutely to disclaim both, and I ask him to withdraw his observation.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he had withdrawn the remark. What he ventured to submit was that the time of the House had been occupied at a late hour in the casting of a slur upon the operations of a Committee in Scotland which, in its discussions up to now, had been singularly successful. He thought that they ought to do what they could to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.
Question put, and negatived.
Bill to be considered to-morrow.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3.) Bill.—Leave given to the Select Committee to continue sitting in the absence of the Lord Monk Bretton.
Hastings Harbour Bill.—Brought from the Commons, read la; and referred to the Examiners.
Liverpool Corporation (Streets and Buildings) Bill—Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3.) Bill.—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Hylton be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Monk Bretton; read, and agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour of: Of the Wesleyan Methodists of Frogpool; St. Day; Stithians; Baldhu; Sunday School Teachers and Workers of the Gwennap Wesleyan Methodist Circuit. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (BUILDING GRANTS (APPROPRIATION ACTS, 1907 AND 1908, CIVIL SERVICES, CLASS IV., VOTE 1)).
  Further statement showing the cases in which the Board of Education have received applications from local education authorities for special grants for the building of new public elementary schools, and the stage which each case had reached on 31st October, 1908.
  Further correspondence relating to the trial of certain natives in Natal.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
  Return giving, by counties and provinces, the area, Poor Law valuation, and purchase money of (a) land sold, and (b) lands in respect of which proceedings have been instituted and are pending for sale under the Irish Land Purchase Acts; also the estimated area, Poor Law valuation, and purchase-money of lands in respect of which proceedings for sale have not been instituted under the said Acts.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
  Two Orders, No. 7,605 and No. 7,606, dated 21st November, 1908, permitting the landing at the Deptford Foreign Animals Wharf, of animals carried on board the ss. "Marquette" and "Minnehaha," respectively.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  Schemes for the regulation of hours of employment, intervals for meals and rest, and holidays of workers in charitable institutions approved by the Secretary of State, in pursuance of the powers conferred on him by Section 5 (2) (a) of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1907.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUNDAY LABOUR IN THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the prevalence of Sunday labour in the mercantile marine in so far as it applies to British ships when lying in port both at home and abroad; and to move that, in the opinion of this House, the subject warrants consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government with a view to measures being taken towards ensuring that those serving on British ships shall, so far as is reasonably possible, be relieved from work on the Sabbath Day.

  1023
  The question of Sunday labour and the necessity of one day's rest in seven is by no means new to this House, but so far as I am aware, with the exception of a few words that I said on this subject early in the session, when I was calling the attention of the House to the Return issued by the Government on the treatment of their merchant seamen by foreign countries, it has never been discussed in its particular relation to those who serve in our premier industry, the British mercantile marine. Whilst I am in sympathy with those who are labouring so earnestly in the direction of imposing limitations on Sunday labour in so far as it effects certain occupations ashore, I think it a duty to attempt to focus special attention upon the position of our merchant seafarers, to so many of whom rest on the Sabbath day is a thing that is very seldom known.
  My Lords, I do not seek for the amelioration of the seafarers' lot in respect to the Sabbath in any unreasonable way. Though many do not seem to see it, we cannot make regulations for seafarers in the same way as we can for any profession or occupation ashore. It is a service which demands special consideration, and legislation which can be applied with perfect ease ashore might, if applied to shipping, do incalculable harm to all concerned. In the case of British merchant ships exceptional circumstances are apt to arise in port where Sunday work can reasonably be expected of their crews. In the interests of shipowners I would certainly make provision for these exceptional occasions, but in the interests of seafarers I would, did the matter rest in my hands, make provision so that those who do this additional work should receive additional pay for it.
  Then, again, when British ships are on the high seas it would be absurd to suggest that everybody should be allowed to abandon work on the Sabbath Day. The ship must get along; therefore duty must continue, although, so far as I can gather, shipmasters always reduce the work to its lowest possible limits on Sundays when at sea. Having said that I ask for nothing but what is reasonable, I can, with perfect truth, assure your
  1024
  Lordships that Sunday labour on board merchant ships is rife, not only when they are lying in ports abroad but also in ports at home. Officers and seamen, particularly the officers, are worked to the utmost, and the blessing of one day's rest in seven is to them a rare privilege. I make no exceptions in classes or types of ships. In some of the biggest lines Sunday labour is just as common as Sunday labour in ships bearing the misnomer of "tramps." If it is not so when the ships are in ports at home, it is amply made up for when the ships go abroad.
  In one of the biggest shipping lines in this country, whose headquarters are not 100 miles from this House, I may tell your Lordships that the ships always work on Sundays when in ports abroad. I will take another of our biggest lines, where a smart and promising young officer wrote, in a most courteous and reasonable way, to the directors of the company, pointing out what a very great physical strain it was on officers that they should be expected constantly to work on Sundays whilst the steamers were loading or discharging in Mediterranean ports. The response he got was that, on arrival home, he was requested to resign on the ground that he was not satisfied with the conditions of his employment. I would ask your Lordships whether we are right in tolerating this, and whether we should not protect our seafarers against such treatment? Have they no right to say anything on their own behalf? Take another big Atlantic Line. I am reliably informed that cargo is often worked on Sundays when the vessels are in a home port and also at ports abroad.
  Coming to other firms, I find from the chief officer of a big steamer that—
  "Sunday labour is the rule and not the exception at home and abroad. There is no recognition of Sunday, so far as loading or discharging is concerned."
  Another officer says—
  "The Eastern trade is a very hard one, day and night, Sundays included. No one ever knows what it is in his ship to have an hour off."
  And he very rightly thinks that something to stop this state of affairs, so that an officer could get some time to himself, should be considered. Another officer says that abroad there is Sunday

  1025
  labour every Sunday if possible. During the last six months he has had eight Sundays in port, and worked on them all. I could quote you innumerable cases, but will content myself with giving you the opinions of one more gentleman following the sea. He is in command of a steamer and says—
  "Sunday labour abroad, I fear, will never be properly done away with, for this reason. The shipowners of England encourage it by paying dispatch money—that is, to stevedores, who, out of that money, of course, pay extra to their men who are working on Sunday."
  He says that if Sunday labour were done away with, also the ways and means for saving Sunday at sea for owner's benefit, he is certain that seafarers would live longer and not have as many grey hairs in their heads.
  I have in my possession the terms of a postscript appended to a letter of instructions which a certain large and well-known firm of shipowners forwarded to the master of one of their ships then lying in a port abroad. This postscript reads as follows—
  "You should arrange to scrape the ship's bottom on Sunday so as not to interfere with the work on ordinary days. I hope you have thought of this and got it done."
  This emanates, not from any minor or unimportant shipping company, but from one which figures very prominently in shipping circles. I wonder what your Lordships think of this postscript. I ask: Are we going to permit such things to continue? Are we not going to do anything in lightening the lot of men who have such limited opportunities of speaking for themselves? Are we to allow officers and men, even under the broiling sun of West Africa, to be creatures of toil on Sunday just as on any other day?
  Thanks to the Return which I was able to get from His Majesty's Government, shipowners cannot plead the stereotyped argument of contending against fierce foreign competition. From the Return I have mentioned, it is easy to see that most foreign maritime countries are far more solicitous about their seafarers than we are, even though we pride ourselves that the position is quite the opposite. Earlier in the session, when I was calling attention to this Return, I read to your Lordships extracts from it
  1026
  showing how the different foreign nations treated their sailors as far as regards Sunday work. I do not propose to take up time by again going through this, but in all the cases where there is absolute necessity for carrying on work on Sunday in every case the officers and crews receive extra remuneration. I think, my Lords, that anybody who studies the Return in question will realise that we are a long way behind other maritime countries so far as Sunday labour on board ship is concerned.
  Apart from the Return, I can clearly put the position by relating the experiences of two gentlemen serving in different large steamers. One says—
  "Re Sunday work; lying here (at Ibicuy) last Sunday we were working, although there is no hurry for her, as we do not leave here for Santos until the end of October. I asked the contractor, who is building the wharf, if he worked his men on Sundays. His reply was: 'No, unless there is an English ship here, and then she pays all expenses.' He also remarked that most foreign ships would not work on Sundays."
  The other gentleman, writing from an Italian port, gives his opinion in this way—
  "I thought that I would inform you about the altered conditions that prevail in Italy re Sunday labour. There is no Sunday labour now on board vessels in this port, and I can also vouch for Genoa and Civita Vecchia. Our broker informs me that it now applies to all Italian ports. One would hardly credit that where these things can be, and are, stopped in other countries, they are allowed to go on unchecked under British rule. In Alexandria, last voyage, we worked both Sundays that we were there, as every other British vessel does, as it counts one half-day to the ship, providing they work a full day."
  I propose to trouble your Lordships but little more in regard to this serious matter. But I would emphasise the fact that under ordinary conditions when at sea our seamen and firemen must work twelve hours per day, Saturdays and Sundays included. In the great majority of cases our merchant officers must work, roughly speaking, some fifteen hours per day. Surely, then, when they do reach port and Sunday comes round they have an undeniable right to that rest and relaxation which they so richly deserve and most certainly require, and which at the present time they certainly do not get.
  I am glad to say that there are some shipowning firms who set their faces

  1027
  against Sunday work on their ships. These firms deserve great praise, though I do not suppose they seek it. If only in justice to them, their colleagues should be forced to fall into line with them and be prevented from offering unscrupulous opposition both in the way of forcing their men to work on Sundays and in other despicable ways. It is no use appealing to conscience. Nothing will do it but compulsion, and that is why I hope this Motion will meet with the complete and unanimous approval of the House. It would be useless to introduce a Bill at the present time, but a consensus of opinion such as that which I now hope for would carry enormous weight, and would considerably facilitate our seeing the matter through to the end.
  There are two aspects to the question. One is the religious aspect, which I will not dwell upon, simply because I think that when we urge the proper observance of the Sabbath we should, in the first place, demand that people should be given the opportunity of observing it properly. In the remarkable "Message to the Nation" which was issued not very long ago by the heads of the three Churches in this country I was very glad indeed to see that, whilst the proper observance of the Sabbath Day was very naturally dwelt upon, the physical necessity of one day's rest in seven was also fully recognised. At the recent International Congress on the Lord's Day held at Edinburgh, Mr. Moore, secretary of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, speaking as the only representative of seafarers present, said—
  "The amount of Sunday labour in the merchant service is a grave national scandal."
  The Guild have especially brought this subject to my notice, and it is one which I can honestly say I have, never more gladly taken up. It represents an evil which, sooner or later, must be eradicated. I can only commend my Motion for your earnest consideration, and should your Lordships see your way clear to give it your support, it would, I can fully assure you, be received with feelings of deep appreciation and gratitude by those who serve in the mercantile marine of our country.
  Moved, "That the prevalence of Sunday labour in the mercantile marine,
  1028
  in so far as it relates to British ships when lying in port both at home and abroad, warrants consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government with a view to measures being taken towards ensuring that those serving on British ships shall, so far as is reasonably possible, be relieved from work on the Sabbath Day."—(Lord Muskerry.)
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the subject to which the noble Lord has called attention warrants consideration, not only at the hands of His Majesty's Government, but by everyone in this House. It largely depends, of course, on the way in which Sunday labour is construed. I have seen it on the West Coast of Africa, and the circumstances there make Sunday labour very often essential. But it is not universally essential. The noble Lord mentioned a great many cases, and we should like to have heard the names of some of the steamship companies concerned, especially the one which ordered the scraping of the ship on Sunday. I think it is perfectly outrageous to ask men who have been working all the week to set to work on Sunday and scrape the ship. Sunday labour is absolutely necessary in that part of the Empire to which I have referred. The Resolution, however, is worded in so mild a manner that there would be no harm in voting for it. We should like to hear what His Majesty's Government have to say on the matter.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, it is perfectly true, as Lord Mayo has said, that there are portions of the Empire where Sunday labour is necessary in regard to shipping; but, from personal knowledge, I know that the noble Lord who has brought forward this Motion is absolutely right when he says that there are large portions of the Empire, especially in the Mediterranean, where it is quite unnecessary that labour should go on on the Sunday. I hope that His Majesty's Government are going to answer the noble Lord in a sympathetic manner. It would be very remarkable if this country, which has always shown itself especially anxious that the Sabbath should be a day of rest, were to lag behind the rest of the world in this

  1029
  matter. I am no fanatic with regard to the observance of the Sunday. If it is necessary that work should go on, I say let it go on; but it is wrong for any body of employers to make their men work on Sunday when it is not necessary. First of all, there are a large number of men who object to Sunday work for honest religious reasons, and you have no right to force these men to work on the Sunday if they feel that it is contrary to their religious convictions. Then there is a very large number who feel that if they were on land they would not have to work on Sunday, and, therefore, they are aggrieved. This is not so much a grievance on the part of seamen, who often get extra pay; but the officers get no extra pay at all, and, from my own personal knowledge, work sometimes for fourteen and fifteen hours a day. Even in port they get no rest, and it stands to reason that if men are working always at high pressure they cannot be as capable of doing their duty as those who get a certain amount of rest. I believe myself that a good many accidents in connection with ships are due to overwork, and, therefore, from the utilitarian point of view, putting the religious view entirely outside, I hope that His Majesty's Government will give this question their serious attention.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I do not intend to occupy your Lordships' time for more than a minute, but as I work in one of our largest seaports I desire, with all my heart, to support the Motion before the House. I do so on the ground that British seamen in port have just as much right to Sunday rest as we who work on land. I think it is a curious anomaly that nations which are supposed not to regard Sunday with any great degree of reverence should have safeguarded Sunday rest for their sailors, while we, who are supposed to be a Sunday-loving people, take no measures whatever to prevent, as far as is reasonably possible, those serving on British ships from working on Sunday. There is undoubtedly a grievance, and any Government that will take this case in hand will earn the gratitude of a class of men through whose craft we derive as a nation a great part of our wealth.
  LORD LYVEDEN: My Lords, I should like to say, as regards the Motion moved by Lord Muskerry, that I fear it will not work at all smoothly. These things cannot be done by legislation, and should really be left to the discretion of the captains. Take, for instance, ships lying in open roadsteads like Jaffa. A ship may have to lie off there for several days owing to the weather. Suddenly a calm comes, and then, of course, it is a case of "all hands." It would be very hard if the day on which the calm came happened to be a Sunday and the officers and men refused to work owing to this legislation. I hope, therefore, my noble friend will not press the Motion, but will leave it to the discretion, of the captains.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR: My Lords, I rise to give my support to Lord Muskerry's Motion. I do not think the noble Lord would deprecate men working on Sunday when it was necessary, such as in an open roadstead where it would be dangerous to lose any opportunity, or on the coast of Africa. But is it not something of a national scandal that in ports where there is no such necessity for Sunday work the men on British ships should be required to work whilst those on ships belonging to foreign Powers which do not profess to reverence the Sunday as we do abstain from work. In the Return to which Lord Muskerry has referred instances are given of that. I therefore hope your Lordships will accept the Motion.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I wish to commence what I have to say to-night by a sort of protest which I have had for some time in my mind. I do not know whether your Lordships have noticed that there is an extraordinary family likeness between the Notices of Motion which the noble Lord is in the habit of putting on the Paper. The general proposition which the noble Lord brings forward is always a very excellent one, but the particular application which he wishes to make of that principle is always difficult and very often impossible. The presence of those two features on these occasions places the noble Lord in a very enviable position, and it places the person who has

  1031
  to return the matter-of-fact official answer in rather a difficult one. I see that the noble Lord nods his head; he evidently appreciates that fact, and I can assure him that I do. What happens is that the noble Lord is able to pose as the champion of everything which is noble and ideal, and the official mouthpiece is made to appear as the advocate of all that is base and uncharitable. Your Lordships may have noticed that of late a third character has appeared in these scenes, in the shape of the noble Earl on the cross benches, whose role, if I may say so, is to rub in that particular aspect of the case.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: Hear, hear.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I do not really complain of that, because I suppose it is all part of the game, and that in time one will get accustomed to it. But I myself have invariably found that I am in agreement with the noble Lord on the general principle of his Motion. It is only when, one comes to look into the matter more closely that one finds the enormous difficulty of applying it to the particular case brought forward. That has very frequently been so, and it is very much the case on this occasion. I am sure the Government and every Member of your Lordships' House would be willing to support any reasonable legislation for minimising Sunday labour, either ashore or afloat; but the difficulties in connection with this question when applied to shipping are, as has been pointed out, very large indeed. If the noble Lord could show what is at present by no means certain, that it is really desired by those who engage in this labour that there should be legislation on the subject, and if he could also show us some practical way of carrying out that object, I can assure him that the matter would have the most careful and most minute attention at the hands of the Department which I represent. I should like to call attention to one point in connection with this. It is not two years since the last Merchant Shipping Act was under consideration in this House. I was present throughout those debates, and I have since refreshed my memory by reading what took place, and I cannot find among
  1032
  all the mass of Amendments which the noble Lord placed on the Paper a single one which dealt with this point. If the matter was so urgent that was surely the time to deal with it; and as the noble Lord did not bring it forward then, I do not think he can blame His Majesty's Government for not having dealt with it since. What I understand with regard to Sunday labour is that it is made a matter of agreement between the employers and the seamen at the time of their engagement.
  LORD MUSKERRY: No.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZIEL: Well, that is my information; and, as a rule, those articles of agreement contain a stipulation that in case Sunday labour is found necessary a stated rate of extra pay, usually 6d. or 8d. an hour shall be allowed to the men.
  THE EARL OF MEATHWhat about the officers?
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I understand that a similar arrangement is the rule with regard to the officers. I do not say that it is universal, but I am informed that a similar arrangement is the rule, though, of course, the scale of extra remuneration in those cases is higher. We have had no fresh evidence before us since I answered the question put by the noble Lord in June last; and in the circumstances I am sorry to say I cannot return him any different answer. I hope, therefore, he will not press the Motion. But, as I say, if the noble Lord can produce any concrete or practical method of dealing; with the matter we shall be only too happy to consider it.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think everyone of your Lordships must sympathise in principle with what I understand Lord Muskerry desires to impress upon the House and the country—namely, that Sunday labour in the case of the crews of British merchant ships should be avoided as far as possible. But I am afraid that I must add to that that I sympathise also a great deal with what has just fallen from the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade. I was myself for four years

  1033
  President of the Board of Trade, and while my noble friend behind me and the subsequent speakers were impressing upon the House their objections to Sunday labour I was thinking how, if I had been President of the Board of Trade now, I should have proposed to Parliament to deal with it. I confess I see no way whatever. One thing is quite certain, that on board ship much more than on land it is necessary sometimes that Sunday labour should be done. There may be cases frequently, such as those referred to, where it is absolutely necessary, in the interest of the safety of the ship and of the work being properly done which the ship is sent out to do, that there should be Sunday labour. Therefore, I am sure Lord Muskerry would not propose that a law should be passed that no Sunday labour beyond the ordinary work of the ship should be done by the officers and crew. But if my noble friend would not propose that, what could he propose? All I can see is that the Board of Trade should endeavour, by any suggestions they can make to the parties concerned, to check Sunday labour as far as possible by requiring that where it is demanded extra pay should be given for it. I do not think it is really practicable to do more than that, and therefore, I hops my noble friend will not press this matter to a division.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, in reference to what has just been said
  by the noble Viscount, I would point out that all the Mediterranean ports are perfectly safe. There is absolutely no necessity for Sunday labour there; yet Sunday labour does go on there on British ships though not on foreign ships. Then I come to the suggestion made by Lord Lyveden about leaving the matter to the discretion of the captains. If a captain exercised his discretion and stopped Sunday labour he would be told on his return that there was no further need for his services. That is well known. As to what Lord Hamilton said about extra payment, I have heard on occasions of members of the crew being paid extra for Sundays, but I have never heard—and, as your Lordships know, I am in the way of hearing these things—that an officer has ever received a farthing extra pay for Sunday labour or overtime. The noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade suggested that I should bring forward some proposal for remedying this matter. I think His Majesty's Government should bring it forward. I am not asking for anything unreasonable. Sunday work is going on in the docks at Liverpool, London, and all over the kingdom. Is that necessary? I say it is not; and I shall, therefore, press my Motion to a division.
  On Question,
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 22; Not Contents, 47.

  CONTENTS.

  Newcastle, D.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Liverpool, L. Bp.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.)

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Langford, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Westmeath, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Muskerry, L. [Teller.]

  Armitstead, L.

  Newton, L.

  Cross, V.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) [Teller.]

  Hill, V

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lauderdale, E.

  Hood, V.

  Liverpool, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Lovelace, E.

  Mansfield, E.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Cathcart, E.

  Russell, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Cromer, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Braye, L.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william

  Grenfell, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessbor-ough.)

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Herschell, L. [Teller.]

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

  Hindlip, L.

  St, Davids, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Farrer, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Glantawe, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  CHILDREN BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP)explained that his first Amendment was of a temporary character, and applied to those children who had been put out to nurse before the passing of this Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 31, after the word 'thereunder,' to insert the words 'Subject as aforesaid, this part of this Act shall apply to an infant whose nursing and maintenance has been undertaken for reward before the passing of this Act, in like manner as it applies to an infant whose nursing and maintenance has been so undertaken after the commencement of this Act, and as if any notice given under the Infant Life Protection Act, 1897, had been a notice given under this part of this Act.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  Verbal Amendment to Clause 3 agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend subsection (2) of Clause 17—
  "(2) For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to have caused or encouraged the seduction or prostitution (as the case may be) of a girl who has been seduced or become a prostitute if he has knowingly allowed the girl to consort with, or to enter or continue in the employment of, any prostitute or person of notoriously immoral character,"
  by omitting the word "notoriously" and inserting the word "known." He said the Amendment had been submitted to, and approved by, the Lord Chief Justice.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 11, line 6, to leave out the word 'notoriously,' and to insert the word 'known.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREwas advised that "notoriously" was the word wanted, as it meant generally known, whereas "known" would mean known to nobody in particular. But as the Lord Chief Justice had approved of the Amendment he would not press his objection.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid his proposed new subsection to Clause 38 was chiefly of the character of his first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 23, line 14, after the word 'person,' to insert the following new subsection: '(3) This part of this Act shall apply in the case of a child or young person who has before the commencement of this Act been committed to the care of a relative or other fit person by an order made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, as if the order had been made under this part of this Act.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend subsection (3) of Clause 58—
  "(3) Where a child, apparently of the age of twelve or thirteen years, who has not previously been convicted, is charged before a Court of summary jurisdiction with an offence punishable in the case of an adult by penal servitude or a less punishment, and the Court is satisfied that the child should be sent to a certified school but, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, should not be sent to a certified reformatory school, and is also satisfied that the character and antecedents of the child are such that he will not exercise an evil influence over the other children in a certified industrial school, the Court may order the child to be sent to a certified industrial school, having previously ascertained that the managers are willing to receive the child,"
  by leaving out the words "Court of summary jurisdiction" and inserting the words "Petty Sessional Court." He reminded the House that their Lordships had decided, in Committee, that Courts

  1037
  of summary jurisdiction unless they were Petty Sessional Courts should not have jurisdiction to order a child to be sent to an industrial school.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 30, line 29, to leave out the words 'Court of summary jurisdiction,' and to insert the words 'Petty Sessional Court.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved a number of drafting Amendments to Clause 74, the object of which was, he explained, to transpose the definition of Local authority from subsection (5) to subsection (7). It was thought to be more convenient that it should appear there than in the fifth subsection.
  Drafting Amendments to Clause 74 agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend subsection (10) of the same clause—
  "(10) The local authority responsible for the maintenance of a youthful offender or child in a certified school under this section shall be responsible for his maintenance in the school in which he is for the time being detained, notwithstanding that having been originally ordered to be sent to a reformatory school he is subsequently transferred to an industrial school or having been originally ordered to be sent to an industrial school he is subsequently transferred to or ordered by a Court to be sent to a reformatory school—"
  by omitting the words "in the school in which he is for the time being detained" and inserting the words "in the event of his transfer to another certified school." This subsection was only intended to cover those cases where a youthful offender or a child, having been sent to one school, was afterwards transferred to another. Their Lordships would see that the words in the subsection as it at present stood were open to a wider construction.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 43, lines 17 and 18, to leave out the words 'in the school in which he is for the time being detained,' and to insert the words 'in the event of his transfer to another certified school.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments to Clause 92 agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend the provision in Clause 105, that—
  "A child or young person in detention pursuant to the directions of the Secretary of State may, at any time, be discharged by the Secretary of State on licence—"
  by deleting the words "child or young." As this clause dealt with cases of prolonged detention of a child who had been guilty, perhaps, of some serious offence, the child when released would be a great deal over sixteen years of age. It was, therefore, desirable to amend the provision in the manner proposed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 59, line 25, to leave out the words 'child or young.' "—(Earl Beauchamp).
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the meaning of the new subsection which he proposed to insert in Clause 111 was clear upon the face of it. It was thought that there might be places which might not be able to make the necessary arrangements before the Act came into force, and this subsection would enable the Secretary of State to postpone the coming into operation of this section as regards those places. He could give the House a pledge, on behalf of the Secretary of State, that he would not use the power further than was absolutely necessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 65, line 2, after the word 'Treasury,' to insert the following new subsection: "(6) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that arrangements cannot be made for the purpose of complying with this section in any place by the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the Secretary of State may by order postpone the coming into operation of this section as respects that place until such date, not later than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and ten, as may be specified in the order.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments to Clause 114 agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to strike out of subsection (2) of Clause 118—
  "(2) Any constable who finds a person wandering from place to place and taking a child with him may, if he has reasonable ground for believing that the person is guilty of an offence under this section, apprehend him without a warrant, and may take the child to a place of safety in accordance with the provisions of Part II. of this Act—"
  the power there given to a constable to apprehend an offender under the clause without a warrant. He urged that the clause proposed to establish a very far-reaching procedure. He could not see why it should be necessary to arrest the father, but the clause gave a policeman power, not only to take charge of the child with a view to its proper education, but also to arrest the father and lock him up. It Was not a criminal offence to fail to send a child to school, and in his opinion the power given to arrest the father went far beyond the necessities of the case.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 66, line 33, to leave out the words 'apprehend him without a warrant, and may.'" (The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid that those who lived amid the arid heaths and waste lands of Surrey and Sussex knew how impossible it was to get hold of a gypsy. They were here to-day and gone tomorrow, and he felt sure he would be supported by the chief constables when he said that these people were the source of a great deal of the crime in those counties. If power to arrest without a warrant were not taken, the police would never be able to get hold of these men and their children. If the Amendment were agreed to the clause would be rendered nugatory so far as vagrants were concerned. He quite agreed that this was a new departure, but they had to deal with a very peculiar class in these nomads, who were commonly known as gypsies, but had not much of the old glamour that surrounded gypsy tribes. They were, for the most part, loafers and vagrants from the great towns, and more particularly from London. He hoped
  1040
  their Lordships would be content with the modification of the clause about to be proposed by the Lord Steward, which would relieve those who were engaged in a trade or business during certain parts of the year.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPalso argued that the Amendment would make the clause of no effect. One of the objects in arresting the father was to make him pay. If he got away, there was no power to make him pay.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved the insertion of a new subsection, which he said was the outcome of the promise given to Earl Russell by the Lord Privy Seal at an earlier stage that the matter to which the noble Earl called attention should be considered.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 66, line 36, after the word 'Part,' to insert the following new subsection: '(3) Without prejudice to the requirements of the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907, as to school attendance or to proceedings thereunder, this section shall not apply during the months of April to September, inclusive, to any child whose parent or guardian is engaged in a trade of such a nature as to require him to travel from place to place, and who has obtained a certificate of having made not less than two hundred attendances at a public elementary school during the months of October to March immediately preceding, and the power of the Board of Education to make regulations with respect to the issue of certificates of due attendance for the purposes of the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907, shall include a power to make regulations as to the issue of certificates of attendance for the purposes of this section.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  EARL RUSSELLexpressed the gratitude of those for whom he was acting to the Government for drafting the new subsection, which entirely met his particular opinion. He moved, however, to amend the Amendment by inserting the words, "or business" after the word, "trade." The expression "trade" might possibly be taken to mean some specified or particular trade recognised by a trade union.
  Amendment moved to the Amendment—
  "After the word 'trade' to insert the words 'or business.' "—(Earl Russell.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPaccepted the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREasked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he was satisfied that the words as now drafted covered the case of a tinker who was travelling about the country looking for business. Such a man could not be said to be at the moment actually engaged in a trade or business.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPthought that such a case would be covered. The Home Office, however, would consider the point, and, if necessary, the wording could be amended in the other House.
  LORD MONKSWELLnext moved a new clause, which, he said, was simply a transfer of Clause 21 of the defunct Licensing Bill to this Bill. He believed the principle had the assent of every Member of their Lordships' House, and, therefore, it was unnecessary to say anything on the merits.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 66, after Clause 119, to insert the following new clause: '(1) The holder of the licence of any licensed premises shall not allow a child to be at any time in the bar of the licensed premises, except during the hours of closing. (2) If the holder of a licence acts in contravention of this section, or if any person causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, any child to go to or to be in the bar of any licensed premises except during the hours of closing, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding, in respect of the first offence, forty shillings, and in respect of any subsequent offence, five pounds. (3) If a child is found in the bar of any licensed premises, except during the hours of closing, the holder of the licence shall be deemed to have committed an offence under this section unless he shows that he has used due diligence to prevent the child being admitted to the bar. (4) Where any person is charged with an offence under this section in respect of a child who is alleged in the charge to be under the age of fourteen, and the child appears to the Court to be under that age, the child shall be deemed to be under that age unless the contrary is shown. (5) Nothing in this section shall apply in the case of a child who is resident but not employed in the licensed premises or in the case of premises constructed, fitted, and intended to be used in good faith for
  1042
  any purpose to which the holding of a licence is merely auxiliary. (6) In this section the bar of licensed premises means any open drinking bar or any part of the premises exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor."—(Lord Monkswell).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend the proposed new clause by omitting subsection (4), the point as to age being already provided for in the Bill, and inserting, as the final subsection, a provision that the expressions "licence" and "licensed premises" had the same meaning as in the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906.
  Amendment moved to the Amendment—
  "To leave out subsection (4), and to insert the following new subsection: '(7) The expressions "licence" and "licensed premises' have the same meaning as in the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to leave out the words "Before making any order under this Act with respect to," at the beginning of Clause 122, and to insert other words. He explained that the object of this and the three following Amendments was to make it quite clear that sentences under Clauses 103 and 104 were not to be invalidated by subsequent proof that the child on whom the sentence was passed was not really a child or young person—that was to say, if a mistake had been made in the age the sentence should still be held to be valid.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 69, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words 'Before making any order under this Act with respect to,' and to insert the words 'Where a person is brought before any Court, whether charged with an offence or not, and it appears to the Court that he is.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments to Clause 128 agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPexplained that a gap had been left in Clause 130 in the definitions of "police authority" and "police fund," the Police Act of 1890 not applying to the City of London. The Amendment was drafted to supply that deficiency.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 72, line 22, after the word 'fund,' to insert the words 'as respects the City of London, mean the Common Council and the fund out of which the expenses of the City police are defrayed, and elsewhere.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved an Amendment in Clause 131 consequential upon the new clause which had been inserted on the Motion of Lord Monkswell, the object being to give the proper references to the Scottish Licensing Acts.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 75, line 34, after the word '1864,' to insert the words 'and the reference to the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906, as a reference to the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, provided that the expression "holder of a licence" means holder of a certificate under the last-mentioned Act.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to amend subsection (17) of Clause 132—
  "(17) The provisions relating to exemptions from Part I. of this Act shall include any religious or charitable society which shall pay any person for keeping an infant, or any person so employed, provided that such society shall have obtained from the Local Government Board a certificate that it is a fit and proper institution to be exempted from the provisions of that part of this Act,"
  by leaving out all the words after "The provisions relating to exemptions from Part 1 of this Act shall" and inserting the words in his Amendment which had been suggested to him by the Irish Office as better than those which their Lordships had been good enough to insert, on his Motion, at an earlier stage.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 81, line 10, to leave out from the word 'shall' to the end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'extend to any person who undertakes for reward the nursing and maintenance of such infants only as are boarded-out
  1044
  with him by some religious or charitable society or institution approved by the Local Government Board for Ireland.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Privilege Amendments agreed to.
  Moved "That the Bill do now pass." (Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. [No. 233.]
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.