Sitting of 15 July 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Great Yarmouth Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Lisburn Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

To be read the third time To-morrow.

Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill [Lords] (King's consent signified),

Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Westminster City Council (Superannuation, etc.) Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

Ardrossan Harbour Order, Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,

Read a second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Affairs in Persia (Safety of British Life and Property).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can furnish any information as to the present state of affairs in Persia; whether he is satisfied as to the present safety of British life and property in that country; and what steps he intends to take to secure it for the future?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): His Majesty's Minister at Tehran has reported that the Fedai and Bakhtiaris have entered Tehran. The latest news is that the Royalist resistance in Tehran was practically at an end last night, and negotiations were in progress with the leaders of the Fedai and Bakhtiaris for the surrender of the Persian Cossacks. Except for one case of alleged looting of a British house by roughs, and unimportant damage to a
  2284
  few houses from artillery fire, the persons and property of foreigners have not so far as His Majesty's Minister is aware suffered. Some apprehension has been felt by foreigners in Tehran, but hitherto neither the British nor the Russian representative has come to the conclusion that any special measures for protection are necessary, and no Russian troops have been ordered to advance to Tehran, though they are in readiness at Kazvin. The situation at Shiraz is disquieting, and arrangements are being made to hold in readiness at Bushire a small British force to increase the Consular guard at Shiraz in case of need, to protect His Majesty's Consulate and foreign lives and property. The general situation is, of course, one of great disturbance and uncertainty; where there is danger to British or foreign lives and property at places which are within our reach, we shall of course do what is possible to protect them. But it is urgently to be hoped that the rival factions in Persia will now work out some settlement, which will render special measures of protection unnecessary.

  Rowland Hill Benevolent Fund (Ireland).
  Mr. W. DELANYasked the Postmaster-General whether the payment of £5 out of the Rowland Hill Benevolent Fund to the widow of the late John Egan, postman, at Clonaslee, Queen's County, is to relieve the Department from all obligation to make a grant to Mrs. Egan, more particularly as she has a family of five small children wholly unprovided for, and that her late husband served the Post Office faithfully and with an unblemished record for 26 years; and, under these circumstances, will he reconsider her case?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): The Superannuation Acts at present make no provision for the widows of Civil servants. The Bill now before the House will, however, make such provision. There is, I regret to say, no fund at my disposal out of which an official grant could be made to Mrs. Egan. Grants made by the trustees of the Rowland Hill Benevolent Fund do not prejudice the claims of Post Office servants to grants from official funds.

  Irish Land Act (Land Purchase Annuitants).
  Mr. J. B. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the number of land purchase annuitants or payers of interest in lieu of rent

  2285
  who were in arrears with their instalments on 1st December, 1908, and have not yet paid up their arrears; what steps have been taken to enforce payment in such cases; and whether he will state the number of annuitants or tenant purchasers paying interest in lieu of rent who have been deprived of their holdings in consequence of the non-payment of arrears since the passing of the Irish Land Act of 1903?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. R. R. Cherry): Out of £734,412 collectable from 60,549 purchasers under the Irish Land Act, 1903, in respect of half-yearly instalments which fell due on 1st December last, £3,601 remained unpaid by 463 purchasers on the 1st instant. As regards interest in lieu of rent, £1,590,447 was collectable in the year ending 31st March last from 165,991 persons who had signed purchase agreements. Of this sum £17,446 remained unpaid by 2,203 persons on the 1st instant. Legal proceedings are pending for the recovery of these arrears. Thirty-three holdings have been sold since the passing of the Act of 1903 for non-payment of annuities, and the Land Commission have recovered possession of six other holdings on the same ground.

  Stubber Estate, Aghaboe, Queen's County.
  Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired the lands of Kilbreedy, Stubber estate, parish of Aghaboe, Queen's County; if so, can he state to what persons the Commissioners purpose allocating the same; have they received resolutions passed by the Aghaboe branch of the United Irish League requesting that the lands be distributed amongst the evicted tenants and uneconomic holders in the locality; and can he say what course the Commissioners propose adopting?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have not yet acquired these lands, but proceedings for their acquisition are pending under the Evicted Tenants Act. The Commissioners have received the resolutions referred to, but are not in a position at present to make any allotment of the lands.

  Dog Tax (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will consider the desirability of granting the whole amount of the Dog Tax in Ireland to the local county councils, and by that means
  2286
  make it a more popular tax, and not have it so often evaded as at present?
  Mr. CHERRY: It would not be possible to grant the whole of the Dog Tax to county councils without dislocating the petty sessions system in Ireland. It may, however, be observed that the amount of the Dog Tax and of the surplus paid over to local authorities has greatly increased within the last 20 years. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that the tax, as at present collected, is unpopular or that it is often evaded.

  Coal Beds, County Longford.
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, will he cause the Geological Survey Department for Ireland to make a thorough and practical inspection of the country in the parish of Dromard, county Longford, for the purpose of finding out the nearest place the coal beds in the district come to the surface in order that the coal may be utilised; and a similar survey and inspection of Sleive Galry, in the parish of Ardagh, county Longford, in view of the belief that a coal measure lies under the mountain and juts out near the surface south-west of the village of Ardagh?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Department of Agriculture will make arrangements to have the districts in question visited with the object of ascertaining whether there is a possibility of coal being found.

  Tipperary Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
  Mr. LUNDONasked whether the Tipperary (No. 2) District Council have applied to the Local Government Board for the services of an arbitrator for Part II. of the scheme formulated by the Tipperary (No. 2) District Council in connection with the Labourers Act; and, if they have, what is the cause of the delay in appointing him, and how soon may it be expected the appointment will be made?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Order appointing the arbitrator in this case was signed on Monday last.
  Mr. LUNDONasked whether the loan for Part I. of the scheme formulated by the Tipperary (Mo. 2) District Council in connection with the Labourers Act has been applied for; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in forwarding the first instalment to the council so that the building of the cottages may be put in hand before winter sets in?
  Mr. CHERRY: There has been no delay on the part of the Local Government Board in this case. The council's application for sanction to the loan was received by the Board on the 3rd instant; the loan was sanctioned by the Board on the 5th instant, and the council so informed on the 6th instant. The Land Commission was recommended to advance the first instalment on the 8th instant, and, in accordance with their practice, it will be issued to-day.

  Kilmurry, Castleisland, Eviction.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Sergeant Long, of Patrickswell, county Limerick, assaulted Mr. P. J. Kearney, vice-chairman of the Tralee Board of Guardians, at the recent eviction by the police of Mr. Walsh, of Kilmurry, Castleisland, county Kerry; whether he is aware that Mr. Kearney, being the guardian for the district, was permitted to be present by Commandant Ball so as to look after the life of old Mrs. Walsh, who was lying ill in the house, and that the police sergeant nevertheless prevented Mr. Kearney being present, and, though not denying the assault, refused his name until Inspector Barrington had to be specially brought to compel him to disclose his identity; and whether he proposes to have inquiry made into this conduct on the part of his police officers?
  Mr. CHERRY: My right hon. Friend has received from the hon. Member a complaint as to an assault said to have been committed by Sergeant Long, and is making inquiry with regard to it.

  Cost of Extra Police (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will take proceedings to protect the innocent ratepayers for the future from the punishment imposed upon them by extra police taxation for crimes that they not only take no part in, but detest and abhor, namely, cattle-driving, the acts of a few irresponsible parties and thoughtless young boys?
  Mr. CHERRY: Additional police have been appointed to certain counties under the Constabulary Act of 1836 in consequence of their unsatisfactory condition. There is no alternative under the existing law, but to charge for the men so sent. There has, I am happy to say, been a very considerable decrease in cattle-driving, but the responsible police authorities are
  2288
  not yet prepared to recommend the withdrawal of the extra police. I trust that the ratepayers will show their detestation of the crimes which have been committed by assisting the Government in every way to prevent their recurrence. In this way they will also be assisting themselves by hastening the time when the extra police will be removed.
  Mr. J. C. FLYNN: Is not the use of the word "crimes" rather a misuse in this case?
  Mr. CHERRY: The word is used in the question.
  Mr. H. BELLOC: Is there any other civilised country in which a whole district is thus made to pay for the misconduct of a few?
  Mr. CHERRY: It exists in England, where the district pays the whole cost of the police. In Ireland the district only pays for the extra police.
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPS: But are people punished for crimes which they have not committed?
  Mr. CHERRY: Nobody is punished for a crime which he has not committed.

  Carrying Revolvers (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why persons, fully protected by police escort, are allowed to carry arms and show them publicly in town and country, to the danger of the public peace; and will he give directions that the constables in charge of such persons get orders to prevent them from showing or drawing out revolvers without necessity?
  Mr. CHERRY: The police have no power to prevent any person, whether protected or not, from carrying arms or from showing them publicly, but they can and do take action when arms are used or exhibited to the danger of the public or the disturbance of the public peace.

  Labourers Act, 1906 (Application to Urban District).
  Mr. REDDYasked whether agricultural labourers residing in urban districts are entitled to the benefits of the Labourers Act, 1906; and whether urban district councils have any power to acquire tracts of land in the neighbourhood to be divided amongst agricultural labourers living in their districts?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Labourers (Ireland) Acts apply only to rural districts. Urban district councils have no power to acquire land for division amongst agricultural labourers living in their districts.

  Stawell Estate, Cork (Evicted Tenants).
  Mr. CREANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have refused the claims of James Hayes and John Crowley to be reinstated as evicted tenants; whether satisfactory proof has been given that they were evicted from their holdings on the Stawell estate, Kilbrittain, county Cork; and, if so, whether their cases will foe reconsidered with the object of granting them other holdings or compensation if land cannot be provided for them?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have decided after inquiry to take no action in these cases, and they are not prepared to depart from such decision.
  Mr. CREAN: Is there any reason for it? Are they not genuine evicted tenants?
  Mr. CHERRY: No reasons have been given.

  New Floating Docks (Self-Propelling Machinery).
  Mr. RENWICKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the two new floating docks will be fitted with self-propelling machinery, to enable them to be transported from one port to another; and whether there is any precedent for similar craft having been sent to sea during the winter months on the East Coasts of England or Scotland?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The reply to both parts of the question is in the negative. With regard to the last part, however, it is, of course, well known that floating docks have frequently encountered very bad weather when being towed to their destination.
  Mr. RENWICK: Am I correct in assuming that one of the docks will be in Portsmouth Harbour with a view to being transferred to other ports on the coast?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should like to have notice of that.
  Mr. RENWICK: Have the responsible advisers for the construction of these docks looked into the question of pumping machinery for propelling the docks?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member may be sure that all these questions have been considered.

  Submarines.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many completed submarines are there in the British, German, French, and United States navies?
  Mr. McKENNA: British numbers are 52, including C11. The numbers for the other countries are as given in the Dilke return, except that three have been added in the United States.

  Battleship Construction.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the Government, whilst calling two years the actual period of construction for armoured ships, is still unprepared to anticipate the date of commencement as in Germany, and thus forestall almost certain delays?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to excuse me from anticipating the discussion on the Vote which is to take place this month.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Will the Admiralty cease to be a party to the hoax on the public that these ships take two years to build, whereas they can be finished in much less time?
  Mr. RENWICK: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the date when Vote 8 will be taken?
  Mr. McKENNA: That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

  British and German Torpedo Destroyers.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will grant a Return showing the coal capacity of British and German torpedo-boat destroyers, built and building, arranged in tabular form to show the number of vessels in the respective fleets with a capacity for more than 160 tons, 159–140 tons, 139–120 tons, 119–100 tons, 99–80 tons, 79–50 tons, and less than 50 tons?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have not the official information with regard to foreign ships which would enable us to give the Return asked for.

  Assembling of Fleet in Thames.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked what purpose is served by the assembling of the Fleet in the Thames?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Lord Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of London, invited a visit from the fleet on its return from the manœuvres, and the invitation was cordially accepted by the Admiralty. The visit affords an opportunity for an unusually large number of the public to see the fleet.

  Royal Marines (Rank of Deputy-Adjutant- General).
  Mr. MEYSEY THOMPSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what is the reason for making the deputy-adjutant-general of the Royal Marines a supernumerary major-general, considering that he is the only officer of the rank who is employed by the Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: The practice is in accordance with Orders in Council dating back to 1837, and is calculated to ensure an even flow of promotion in the upper ranks of both branches of the corps.

  Unestablished Customs Service and Pensions.
  Sir GEORGE KEKEWICHasked the Secretary to the Treasury why men promoted to the establishment in His Majesty's Customs are allowed to count for pension only half their unestablished service, seeing that their unestablished service is exactly similar in character to their established service following; that the practice of the Treasury is to count unestablished service for pension in such circumstances; and whether he can see his way to act in their case on the ordinary practice of the Treasury?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Charles Hobhouse): The cases referred to have been dealt with strictly in accordance with the principles explained in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 28th June and 27th April last.

  Feeding School Children during Holidays.
  Mr. P. CURRAN (for Mr. William Thorne): asked whether, if any of the education authorities children's care committees decide to feed the children during the holidays, they will be surcharged for the amount of money spent?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Bums): If a local education authority incurred expense in respect of the provision of meals for
  2292
  children attending a school during the time when the school was closed for the holidays, it would rest with the auditor to-determine, in the first instance, whether the expenditure was legal or not. If he considered it illegal, it would be his duty to disallow it. I may add that, as at present advised, I am not aware that the education authority would be legally empowered to defray any such expenditure as that referred to.

  Open Air Schools.
  Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Board of Education if he can state the education authorities that have up to the present established open-air or forest schools; and whether he can see his way to recommend that the education committees of the large cities and towns make similar experiments?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): Open-air schools were established during the year 1908 by the local education authorities for London, Halifax, Bradford, and Norwich. The Board are always ready to entertain applications for the recognition of schools of this character under Article 44 (g) of the Code.

  Brymbo (Denbighshire) Church of England School.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Education whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been taken by the promoters of the new Church of England school at Brymbo, Denbighshire, to provide suitable permanent school buildings; whether he is aware-that the present position involves unnecessary public expenditure and is inimical to the interests of education in the district; and whether he can give an assurance that the Board will deal with the points at issue with the view of securing an early termination of this protracted educational conflict?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have communicated with the managers as to the condition of the buildings of this school, and they have informed me that the matter shall be brought under their consideration at an early date.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: What is meant by "new" Church of England school?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am responsible for the answer to the question, and not for the question itself.

  Railway Amalgamation (Departmental Committee).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether on the Departmental Committee recently appointed by him to consider matters relating to railway agreements and amalgamation there is any representative of the Irish railway employés and Irish traders; is it intended to examine witnesses from Ireland; and will the Irish interests mentioned have his consideration?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): The Departmental Committee, as I have already stated, is intended to be authoritative rather than representative, but, apart from this, a Vice-Regal Commission is now sitting to inquire into the present working of Irish railways and by what methods it can be improved. In view of these circumstances, special representation of Irish interests on the Departmental Committee would hardly seem necessary, but they will not be precluded by their terms of reference from taking evidence with regard to Ireland should they so desire on any particular point.

  Scottish Poor Law Medical Officers (Dismissals).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Lord Advocate whether he will grant the Return asked for with reference to dismissals of Poor Law medical officers in Scotland, and the trouble thereby entailed on the poor?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): If my hon. Friend will move for a Return showing in how many and what parishes during the past three years Poor Law medical officers in Scotland have vacated office, and what period in each case has elapsed before the appointments have been permanently refilled, the Government will offer me no opposition.

  Small Holdings in Kent (Skeyne's Farm, Edenbridge).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the owners of Skeyne's farm, Edenbridge, have offered the Kent County Council the option of purchasing the said farm for the purposes of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act; whether if he can state if the council is negotiating for its acquisition;
  2294
  if so, how far has the matter proceeded; and whether he is aware that applications for the land have been made by members of the Edenbridge Land Club, Limited, who are fully capable of guaranteeing three years' rent as required?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): The Kent County Council were unable to entertain the offer to purchase Skeyne's farm, inasmuch as the owners wished to include in the sale a large house adjoining the farm which is not suitable for small holdings. Nor could the council acquire the farm on lease, as it had been already let for ten years. We understand that application was made on the 9th inst. for the land by the secretary of the Edenbridge Land Club, and we would suggest that full information as to the financial resources of the club should be sent to the county council.

  Prison Industries (Brooms and Brushes).
  Mr. RENWICKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a contract for the supply of brooms and brushes to a London gas-company has been entered into recently by the Prisons Commissioners; and whether, seeing that such brooms and brushes are made by prison labour, and in view of the effect of such competition upon artisans in the brushmaking trade, steps will be taken by His Majesty's Government to stop such competition by prison-made goods in future?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Gladstone): The contract in question is in accordance with the principles laid down in 1895 by the Committee on Prisons with the assent of representatives of the Trades Union Congress, and I see no reason for any departure from the conclusions then arrived at. The greatest possible care is taken not to sell goods made in prison below the market price, or to interfere in any way with wages or the employment of free labour.
  Mr. RENWICK: Can the prison authorities dispose of all the brushes and mats made?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: That is a very wide question. Naturally, they seek orders. Perhaps the hon. Member will let me know more definitely what he wishes to ascertain?

  Valuing Rateable Property (Ireland).
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state whether £325,133 was the cost of valuing all rateable property in Ireland under the Act of 1852, or whether to obtain the cost of valuing the whole country some, and, if so, what, sum should be added for property previously valued under the Act of 1846 and not revalued under the subsequent Act; does this sum apply to Treasury expenditure alone; and, if so, what was the cost to local authorities in addition; and what was the total value of Ireland as shown by the valuation under the Acts of 1846 and 1852?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: £325,133 was the cost of valuing all rateable property in Ireland under the Acts of 1846 and 1852. To ascertain the cost of the valuation made under the latter Act a considerable deduction would have to be made from the sum named. This total cost was met by the Treasury in the first instance and afterwards refunded to them by the local authorities. The total rateable value of Ireland was roughly £13,000,000.

  Income Tax (Isle of Man).
  Mr. ALFRED KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to allow British subjects resident in the Isle of Man to claim abatement of Income Tax on small incomes under the Finance Bill now before the House of Commons in the same way that they do at present?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: British subjects resident in the Isle of Man are in precisely the same position in regard to taxation levied in the United Kingdom as are British subjects resident in the other parts of the Empire outside the limits of the United Kingdom. There would, therefore, be grave objections to adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion, the effect of which would be to discriminate unfavourably against residents in other British possessions.

  Small Property Owners.
  Mr. LYULPH STANLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to extend the exemption he has promised to the small occupying owner to the numerous class of small property owners in towns who let the cottage they own and rent one for their own occupation?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I regret that I cannot see my way to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On what principle does the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between the two categories of small owners?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: One is a case of the occupying owner, and the other is a case of a person who owns.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is occupation the sole claim to exemption?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the claim for exemption?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There are a great many exemptions under the Finance Act.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will he tell us what is the reason for a claim for exemption?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already stated that.

  Undeveloped Land and Ungotten Minerals.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any calculation as to the total area of land which will be subject to the duty on undeveloped land?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am unable to say what will be the total area of land subject to Undeveloped Land Duty.
  Lord BALCARRES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has estimated the amount a; between two and three million acres?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; I am not aware of that.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state what proportion of the revenue of £350,000 anticipated from the duty of id. in the £ on capital value of undeveloped land and ungotten minerals will be derived from the tax on undeveloped land?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am unable to give a precise estimate as to the proportion of the total revenue which will fall under each head.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: How does the right hon. Gentleman arrive at the figure of £350,000?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The estimate was made in the usual way.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In order to arrive at any estimate, was it not necessary to make an estimate of the undeveloped land and of the ungotten minerals? Is there any reason why we should not have these estimates?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The estimate was taken in these two cases together, and amounted to the total sum of £350,000.
  Lord BALCARRES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the Ungotten Mineral Duty will produce as an estimate £175,000.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; I am not aware of that fact.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Chancellor before answering these questions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have done so.

  Site Value (Sporting Purposes).
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in valuing the site value of land used solely for sporting purposes, the value of such rights is to be taken into consideration?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is in the affirmative.

  Worcestershire Yeomanry (Forage and Equipment).
  Mr. BALDWINasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the hay at first supplied to the horses of the Worcestershire Yeomanry during their recent training was quite uneatable; and whether he will caution the contractors concerned?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The General Officer Commanding reports that with regard to the hay which was at first supplied to the Worcestershire Yeomanry during this year's training, some trusses were rejected, not because they were uneatable, but because they consisted of hard hay, and the regiment preferred soft hay. All trusses rejected were willingly exchanged by the contractor. No further action is considered necessary.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the county associations to do their own contracting?
  Mr. HALDANE: No; that cannot be done. The question is founded on a total misunderstanding. In camp these things are supplied by the Commander-in-Chief and the staff under him. The change has been made from the old system in order to ensure complete preparation for war.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to draw a distinction between hay which is uneatable and the hay which the horses refuse to eat?
  Mr. HALDANE: If the hon. Member will inquire of any officer of experience in regard to the matter he will find the answer is not unreasonable.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I have had a good deal of experience myself in buying hay at the time of the South African War—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must reserve his remarks until a proper opportunity.
  Mr. LYULPH STANLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make general inquiry into the subject, because it is obvious that there are general complaints as to the supply of oats and hay to Yeomanry regiments?
  Mr. HALDANE: I am quite aware that there have been a good many complaints, and there will be until the system is established.
  Mr. BALDWINasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the horse rugs supplied to the Worcestershire Yeomanry during their recent training were of very inferior quality; and whether he will take steps to see that the Yeomanry are supplied with as good rugs as are supplied to the Regular Cavalry?
  Mr. HALDANE: No complaint has been received in the War Office concerning these horse rugs. There is no reason to suppose that they were of inferior quality, as they were new and of the latest pattern introduced for the service, no distinction being made between the Yeomanry and Regular Cavalry in this respect.

  Discharged Soldier (Michael Bourke).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Michael Bourke, late private in the Leinster Regiment, enlisted in 1897, discharged February, 1908, length.

  2299
  of service 10 years and 166 days, cause of discharge medically unfit for service through tuberculosis, war service in South Africa, two medals, character very good, pension 8d. per day, application made for increase, 1909, not granted; and whether, owing to the state of this man's health and his inability to do any work, and that the pension is unable to keep him, this case will be further considered, with the view to grant such increase in the pension as will enable him to live outside the work-house?
  Mr. HALDANE: The Medical Board, by whom this man was invalided, reported that the tuberculosis which caused his discharge was the result of exposure while on manœuvres at Aldershot in August, 1907. His medical history sheet in no way supports the statement that the disease was due to war service in South Africa. In these circumstances his present pension of 8d. a day is the highest rate which can be awarded him under the regulations.
  Mr. JOYCE: Am I to understand that this man who gave more than 10 years, the best years of his life, in your service, is now going to be allowed to starve?
  Mr. HALDANE: This man has got a pension of 8d. a day, which the Regulations lay down as the amount of pension to be given to a man who has been invalided under such conditions.
  Mr. JOYCE: May I ask whether you charge him Income Tax on that 8d. a day?

  Committee of Imperial Defence (State of Navy).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister whether the inquiry of the Subcommittee of Imperial Defence into the state of the Navy has extended to an investigation on the spot into the efficiency or sufficiency or otherwise of stores, war munitions, and coal; and whether any decision has been arrived at as to the communication of the results of the investigation to the public?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The results of the investigation will in due course be made public, and the exact scope of the inquiry will then become apparent.

  Technical Training of Blind.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a meeting on Sunday last, in Trafalgar
  2300
  Square, attended by hundreds of blind persons who demand better facilities for the technical training of the sightless and workshops for their employment; whether he is aware that of over 20,000 blind adults in the country not 3,000 are provided for in existing workshops; and whether he can promise an early opportunity for the passage of the Bill which has been introduced to afford the assistance required by the blind?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of the demand that has been made from time to time for the provision of better facilities for the technical training of the blind. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware the Royal Commission of 1889 reported against State aid in this connection, and recommended that the care and training of the blind should be left to private benevolence. I can only repeat the assurance given by my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, to a recent deputation from the Trades Congress, that the Government regard this question with sympathy, and that they will give their consideration to any representations in support of State aid for the industrial training of the blind that may be made to them. I am afraid I cannot hold out any expectation of facilities for the Bill mentioned in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. CLYNES: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the very severe handicap under which sightless persons labour in regard to any opportunity of earning their living, and whether, inasmuch as he is unable to afford any facilities for the further progress of the Bill, and in view of the proved insufficiency of means for providing for them by charitable effort, he can suggest that some action should be taken to assist these blind persons through the State Departments?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered that already, and said that the Government "will give their consideration to any representations in support of State aid for the industrial training of the blind that may be made to them."

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the inquest on Mrs. Wilson, aged 68, of Water-street, Manchester, which shows that her death was accelerated by starvation; and whether, in view of the distressed circumstances of many

  2301
  old people below 70 years, he can promise any special provision for grants or pensions to prevent any such case recurring?
  The PRIME MINISTER:I have not been able to obtain any official information as to the case to which the hon. Member refers, and I am afraid that at the present moment I can give no such pledge as he suggests as to the extension of old age pensions to persons below 70 years of age.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the Prime Minister say when the promised Bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act is likely to be introduced?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say at this moment. Will the hon. Member put down a question?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in several cases old people of nearly 70 have died from starvation from the fear that if they went to the guardians they would be deprived of their old age pensions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of that. I am very sorry to hear if it is the case. I am very sorry to hear that there are such cases.
  Mr. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the protracted opposition to the Budget Bill delays the progress of all useful legislation?

  Naval Committee of Inquiry.
  Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister if he can state the result of the investigations of the Naval Committee of Inquiry?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee has not yet finished its deliberations.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when those deliberations will be complete, and whether we shall ever get a Report?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The deliberations have not been unduly prolonged. The taking of evidence only concluded ten days ago, and if the Committee's judgment is to be of any value they must have some time to consider the very important points which have been raised.
  Major ANSTRUTHER - GRAY: Will there be any Report?
  The PRIME MINISTERShave already stated there will.

  Prolonged Sittings of the House (Police on Duty)
  Mr. MOONEY: May I ask the Home Secretary if he is aware that some police constables engaged in the House were on duty for 18 hours yesterday and this morning, and had to return to duty after only a short absence this morning; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiries with a view to having arrangements made whereby constables on duty in the House shall be relieved at a reasonable time?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I am aware of the facts. I have been myself on duty for 24 hours. It is quite clear that relief arrangements cannot be organised to meet the exceptional conditions of very long sittings. When such occur, the practice is for the constables to get time off. They have short rest intervals during the sitting and get Is. a day extra.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is it not a fact that during the sitting last night certain constables were relieved, whereas others were kept on duty the whole of the 18 hours, and did not get the relief because they were back here on duty at 12 o'clock this morning?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: That is a question of which I have no knowledge. If the hon. Member will speak to me about it, I will look into it. The disadvantage of these long sittings has to be considered relatively to other privileges enjoyed by the police.

  Submarine Disaster.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Can the First Lord of the Admiralty give any information with regard to the lamentable accident to two submarines of His Majesty's fleet?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will give the House the latest information I have in regard to this deplorable accident. Submarine C 11 was in collision with the merchant ship "Eddystone" last night, and was sunk. The wreck has been located by sweeping 4½ miles north-west of the Haisborough lightship, off Cromer, in 15 fathoms of water. The Commander-in-Chief at the Nore, who had previously dispatched assistance on receipt of the news, has been directed to undertake salvage operations. Two battleships and two salvage lighters and several torpedo-boat destroyers are on their way to the scene of the wreck. C 17, another submarine, which was also in

  2303
  collision with another submarine at the same time in trying to avoid the steamer, has been badly damaged, and is being towed to Sheerness. No lives were lost in C 17, but I regret to have to inform the House that, in C 11, 11 men weredrowned, and only three were saved—Lieutenant Brodie, Lieutenant Watkins, and able-seaman Stripes.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these vessels are supplied with safety apparatus?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should have to inquire into the circumstances of the particular case. I presume they were.

  MR. W. THORNE.—(SUSPENSION.)
  Mr. G. N. BARNES: I desire to ask your ruling and your advice on a matter of procedure arising out of an unfortunate incident in last night's proceedings, as a result of which I submit that one of my colleagues, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne), has suffered an injustice. I will just state the facts.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have nothing to do with the facts. I cannot listen to ex parte statements from the hon. Member. Whatever took place took place with the Chairman of Ways and Means in the Chair, and, of course, he is the sole judge of the proceedings. I understood the hon. Member was going to ask my advice as to what subsequent proceedings he could take. I could give him that.
  Mr. BARNES: Then I desire to ask your advice as to the form in which I can raise this matter, with a view of getting the minute recording the proceedings, that is, the suspension of the hon. Member for West Ham, expunged from the Journals of the House. How much notice should I have to give of it, and in what form could I raise it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can put down notice of a Motion to expunge that part of the Journal to which he objects. Of course, he would have to find his own time to bring it on, or he would have to ask the Government to find time for him to do so. That is one course open to him. Another course is that where hon. Members do not approve the decision of the Chair, whether I happen to be in the Chair or the Chairman of Ways and Means, they can give notice of a Motion to censure the Chair for the particular decision.
  Mr. BARNES: I have no desire or intention of resorting to the last method, but might I ask the Prime Minister if he would be disposed to grant time to discuss a Motion in accordance with the first method?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better first put his Motion down, and give the Prime Minister an opportunity of seeing it.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: Is there any procedure in the House for the protection of hon. Members beyond the mere withdrawal of any statement made by an hon. Member? In the event of a serious accusation being made against an hon. Member of the House beyond the withdrawal of the accusation is there any procedure whereby hon. Members can be further protected? Several of the public have expressed their views this morning, and the impression on their minds is that, although the accusation is withdrawn, there is still a charge to the detriment of an hon. Member of the House, and I should like to know, in case of any future occurrences, whether there is any procedure whereby the House itself can do justice to an hon. Member?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have no knowledge of what occurred. The Official Report is not yet published, and the reports in the papers may or may not be reliable. My mind is not affected in the least by anything which I have seen. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether the hon. Member can receive any protection beyond calling for a false charge to be withdrawn. I am not aware of any. Anyhow, whatever is done should be done at the moment. An appeal should be made to the Chair instanter, and the matter decided then and there. It is impossible to reopen these questions after they are once decided.
  Mr. BARNES: Might I ask—there have already been embellishments of the incident in the gutter Press—has the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) any redress in a legal sense?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I should want a considerable fee for advising the hon. Member on a point of law.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can make a statement as to the business next week, and as to

2305
what is to be the Supply business on Thursday; and also whether the Government has now fixed a date for the bringing on of the Navy Estimates, when the question of naval strength can be brought up for discussion?
Mr. ASQUITH: On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week we propose to further proceed with the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
On Thursday we shall take Supply, Foreign Office Vote, Class 2, Vote 5.
On Friday we shall take a further stage in Committee on the Irish Land Bill.
As to the further question which the right hon. Gentleman puts to me, I said a day or two ago that we would take the Navy Vote in the week beginning 26th July. I cannot at this moment say definitely whether it will be on Monday or Thursday, but it will be on one or other of these days.
Mr. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously intend to take the very important Committee stage of the Irish Land Bill on Fridays, on which days it will have less than five hours discussion, instead of seven hours if taken on other days?
The PRIME MINISTER: As regards this particular Friday, it is the most convenient course I can propose in the present state of business.

REPRESENTATION OF SOUTH KILKENNY.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that I have received the following letter:—
High Court of Justice in Ireland, King's Bench
Division—Bankruptey.
Dublin. 13th July, 1909.
SIR,
I am directed by the honourable Mr. Justice Boyd to inform yon that Mr. Nicholas Joseph Murphy, of Bally-hale, county Kilkenny, grocer, baker, and publican, was adjudicated a bankrupt in this Court, on the 10th day of July, 1908, and that the order of adjudication has not been annulled, which fact I am to certify pursuant to sections 41 and 42 of the 35 and 36 Victoria, c. 58.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
H. F. GILSON, Deputy Registrar.
In accordance with that, I have to announce to the House that the seat for South Kilkenny is thereby rendered vacant.

SUPPLY [14th Allotted Day.]
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. CALDWELL) in the chair.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1909–10 [Progress.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[CLASS 4.—VOTE 1.]

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,648,792, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including grants for the building of new public elementary schools and sundry grants in aid."
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): In rising to open the discussion on the Education Estimates of the year, I may draw attention to the fact that, owing to the peculiar Parliamentary situation of the last three Sessions, there has been no full discussion of the whole education work undertaken by the Board of Education. The interest of the House has been diverted rather from the subject of education to the religious controversy by which that question has been surrounded, but the amount of interest taken in education in this country cannot be well gauged by the interest taken in the subject in this House. To begin with, the Board of Education is now one of the greatest of the spending Departments, and a rough estimate of the amount of public money spent on public education in this country shows that we have cognisance of an expenditure of something like £28,000,000 on elementary, secondary, and higher education, and, over and above that, of a sum of probably £8,000,000 to £10,000,000 spent by other authorities and other persons. These Estimates affect no less than 3,000,000 parents and about 6,000,000 children. The improvement which has been made in the elementary education system during the last five years has been mainly machinery improvement rather than improvement in the curriculum. The secondary and technical branches of the work, which were formerly under the control of South Kensington, are now treated as two different departments. In the old days technical education was too technicalised and too little in touch with the practical affairs, necessities, and actual circumstances of life. It has been the

2307
objector the Board of Education, therefore, to generalise secondary education, and, so far as it comes under the control of the Board, to make technical education more practical, and to have a closer bearing on the duties likely to be performed by the young men and women who pass through these classes. The improvement has been led, as might have been expected, in the North of England, where classes have been definitely graded. In some of the great towns in the north the improvements made there are likely to have a very direct bearing on the great local industries as time goes on. The attempt to grade classes has been done with the object of providing three sets of pupils passing from the elementary and other schools. There is, first of all, the set of pupils leaving school at 13 or 14 years of age who have completely finished their day-school career, and who, whatever education they receive after that, are bound, in the circumstances of their working life, to take it in evening classes. There is the second set who leave the secondary school at the age of 16, spending a longer period of their school life in day-schools, and are able to take advantage of technical classes later on with an entirely different equipment. They are, indeed, on a different plane from those attending the evening classes on continuation work. Then, last of all, we have to provide for a third category, namely, those who are going to pass through a university course, and are able to devote time to day-work up to the ages of 19 or 20.
The urban problem differs somewhat from the rural problem. Both of these questions have been faced in the last 12 months with increased vigour, and, I hope, increased intelligence. Certainly the inspectors who have been working in the technical branch have devoted to their work not only the enthusiasm which has marked them throughout their career, but a closer degree of knowledge of the necessities of the industries in the localities in which they work than has ever been brought before to bear upon their duties. In the urban areas not only have we provided for men, but we have specialised classes for women, and I hope that in the next two or three years it will become apparent that the classes for women are well worthy of the attention of working women in the great towns of the South of England as well as in the North of England. In agriculture we have not been able to make great progress, but there is one remarkable fact which is worth
2308
mentioning, namely, that garden classes in elementary schools have been enormously on the increase, and I believe that during the last few years we have trebled the number of these classes which are now carried on in these schools. There has been considerable development—and I can assure the Committee that there will be more in future—in technical classes which can be attended by those who intend to enter on an agricultural career—young farmers and young labourers who at the present time have to spend long and laborious days in the fields or farm houses, but who are prepared to devote one or two evenings a week to the specialised training which can be provided in our technical classes. The cumulative effect of all this technical training on the young men and women of our country must show itself sooner or later. Certainly we are touching the problem of the unemployable, if only to a small extent, yet with increasing vigour every year. The great employers have been giving considerable help in many parts of the country to those who organise the technical schools. Messenger boys for instance are induced more and more to take advantage of the classes in the evening. Some great employers like the General Post Office not only give direct inducement to their messenger boys, but put a certain amount of pressure on them to take advantage of our classes, and many employers all over the country have made it a condition of service in their works or their great business establishments that the boys should attend a certain number of classes every week, and apprentices in works have also been able to take advantage of the facilities offered to them. Many employers, especially in the north of England, are allowing their young workmen time off during working hours so that they can attend these day classes conducted in the great technical institutions of our great towns. The inspectors of the Board are not only taking a keen interest in the curriculum, but they are also acting as missionaries in what is one of the most useful forms of educational work initiated during the last few years.
Turning to the second category of schools I cannot help expressing satisfaction, and even more, hope. The secondary schools of England and Wales have shown a most marked improvement both in numbers and character during the last few years. Progress has been noted

2309
in several directions. First of all the number of schools aided by grants and the number of pupils attending those schools have gone up year by year since 1902. The 272 secondary schools of that year have increased to no fewer than 800, and even since 1905–6 the increase has been at the same rate. I think in 1905–6 there were only about 600 secondary schools in this country. Now there are over 800. About 60 new secondary schools are being added every school year, and the number of pupils is increasing to an even greater extent. The increase during the years 1902–5 was about 6,000 per annum, and the increase now has risen to over 10,000 per annum. So that the total number of pupils in secondary schools is now over 134,000, or very nearly 135,000. The grant which has been given to secondary schools has of course increased very considerably. It is impossible to expect the local authorities to spend much of their money on the expenses of secondary schools unless they receive a larger measure of State aid. The grant has gone up during the seven years from 1902 to the present time from £129,000 per annum to over half a million; and this great increase in pupils, in the amount of money spent on the schools, and in the number of schools in the country has been marked at the same time by a raising of the standard of the teachers employed in those schools, by an increase ill the length of school life of the pupils who attend those schools, and by an incalculable improvement in the curriculum and the efficiency of those schools. I think we may look back with satisfaction on the increase of the secondary schools over which we have control. But there are secondary schools towards which we make no grants, and which also have come under the supervision of the Board of Education. They are now inspected as well as recognised for efficiency by the Board, and I am sure that the visits of the Board's inspectors to these schools have been of the greatest benefit not only to the schools but to the teachers who are brought into contact with the inspectors and get the benefit of the experience which they have gained in other schools.
The increasing accessibility of secondary secondary schools of England and Wales being taken advantage of to a great extent, on which I will say a word later on. But the importance of the increase is all the more marked when one considers the immense number of girls who now pass
2310
through these secondary schools. That is a change altogether modern, and it is marked not only in the schools which coma under our supervision, but also in the higher branches of education. The education of women is being encouraged to a greater extent every year. The number of girls who pass from these schools has increased even at a more rapid rate than the number of boys. The average increase in the last four years with the boys has been somewhere in the region of 4,000, and the average increase with the girls has been somewhere in the region of 6,000. This is, of course, to some extent due to purely professional reasons. It is due to the fact that a larger number of women are employed in the elementary and secondary schools of this country than of men, and also to the fact that there is an increased belief in education for girls; there is less pressure on girls to be withdrawn from schools in order to embark on a wage-earning career. The Board have now under consideration plans for giving more practical value to the secondary education of girls, especially in the domestic arts, the art of household management. There has also been a considerable incentive given to these secondary schools by the fact that the Board now encourages, and to some extent requires the passage of young teachers through the secondary schools before they embark on a training college career, before they start their teaching career in the elementary schools. But combined with all these, there have been other causes which have certainly affected for the better secondary schools of which we take cognisance. The bulk of the State-aided schools, about 712 out of 798, are now entirely free from denominational restrictions. They are under effective public control, and are open without payment of fee to a proportion of working-class children. It is true that there are still about 80 which do not receive the higher grants which these conditions carry with them. They are still on the lower scale, but that is due to their failing to meet one or more of these conditions, and that particularly applies to many of the Catholic schools of the country. The religious question has in very few cases outside the Catholic schools created any serious predicament. Already nearly all the Catholic schools themselves have been able to comply with the conditions laid down in the regulations, and are now in receipt of the full grant of £5 per child.

2311
The preliminary education of elementary school teachers, in so far as it is touched by the secondary schools, is a matter of direct concern to the Board which controls so many of the elementary schools of this country. The old-fashioned pupil teacher is now rapidly disappearing. He is practically extinct, and I think we have reason to be grateful for the fact that his career is closed. It was impossible to expect the pupil teacher, devoting half his time to teaching and half his time to being taught, and taught moreover by teachers who were themselves overworked, to do anything like good work during his training college career. The modern pupil teacher is of an entirely different kind. He shares the secondary school life of the children who are destined for other professions, and it is hoped that in that manner it broadens the interests of the young teacher's work. He is a whole-time pupil until 16 and a half-time pupil until 18, and if, as is likely enough, he becomes a bursar instead of a pupil teacher, his education is uninterrupted until 17 years of age. He is then free to begin to learn the mere technique of his profession with his examinations, fortunately for him, well behind.
These bursars are drawn from every grade of society. I would like to assure some of my hon. Friends who sit on either side of the House that the bursar system, so far from having excluded the children of the working classes from the teaching profession, has apparently encouraged them to enter it in larger numbers, and by far away the largest proportion of young bursars are drawn from artisan families. Very large numbers of them are drawn from labourers' families.
Mr. CLIVE BRIDGEMAN: Agricultural labourers?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes; some of them from the families of agricultural labourers. I am going to touch upon the question of agricultural labourers presently. I think that the value of these bursars in close contact with the secondary schools cannot be over-rated. I am sorry to say that the number during the past twelve months does not appear to have increased as rapidly as one might have hoped. I think probably that is due to the fact that there is a mistaken idea that the teaching profession is completely overcrowded, and likely to remain overcrowded. I am quite well aware that there are at the present
2312
moment a large number of teachers out of work, just as other people are out of work. But I believe that some changes we have set on foot during the last twelve months will fully absorb this surplus, and it is certainly my desire that the teaching profession shall not be placed in the position of having to walk the streets, unable, from their training and position, to take up any other profession, and yet at the same time not able to devote themselves to the service of the State. I think probably next year, or the year after, changes will be seen with respect to the unemployed teachers; and the smaller classes for which we are providing, and the higher qualifications which we believe to be necessary, will mean the fuller employment by the local authorities of these very teachers. I trust, therefore, that the mistaken idea that there is not a chance of getting work after having passed through the training college course will rapidly disappear.
Again, the advantage of the time spent in secondary schools is certainly much greater if the intending teachers enter it at an earlier age. Many of them enter at 14, but at the age of 12 the pupil can certainly take much fuller advantage of the facilities offered to them. The desire to use these secondary schools has tended to a certain extent to exclude children in the remoter rural areas from entering the profession, and the difficulty is one which the Board are considering as closely as they can in order to see whether it can be overcome. It certainly would do the teaching profession no good if those who wish to enter it from the rural area had any unfortunate difficulties placed in their way. Some of the best members of the teaching profession at the present time have been drawn from the small villages of this country. Then we have done what we can to improve the curriculum of the secondary schools. That curriculum used to be too scientific—a fact, I think, which was almost entirely brought about by the artificial way in which grants from South Kensington were distributed. The curriculum in the secondary schools has been made much more elastic; it has been freed from rather hide-bound technical limitations, and as far as can be seen it is all over the country proceeding on a broader and better basis. The advantage which has been taken by the working-classes of the opportunity to place their children in these schools may well be considered by this House. In the year 1907 my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty

2313
(Mr. McKenna) practically set free a large number of places all over the country. In that year no less than 27,000 working-class children took advantage of the privilege then offered. That number went up to 33,000 in the next year, and this year the number is very nearly 42,000. Every one of those children obtains a secondary education free of cost to themselves. It does show to some extent a degree of sacrifice on the part of their parents, many of their children having been allowed to remain not less than two years. There is always a tendency on the part of parents to get their children to work earlier than is good for them from an educational point of view, but the parents of these children have definitely sacrificed three or four years in order that they might continue to attend the secondary schools.
I believe that the provision of secondary school places has to some extent placed a burden on secondary schools in the country. Accordingly the proportion of only 25 per cent, will not be the measure of the proportion of free-place children in these schools after three or four years have passed away. But we have made up for the heavy expenditure by giving very much larger grants than we have ever before offered. I could not see my way at the present moment to in any way modify the conditions under which they enter. The only thing which might be kept in mind by those who control these schools, as well as by the parents, is that the free-place child and the fee-paying child should be exactly on the same basis not only in regard to the teaching which is given, but also in regard to the conditions under which they are taught. It is just as bad for the school as for the child if the latter has to go on receiving secondary tuition for which it is not fitted, whether it be a free-place child or a fee-paying child. I hope, therefore, that those who control the schools will endeavour to bring home to the parents that it is of no use their children attending secondary schools unless they are able to take advantage of the education which is there given. The last difficulty to which I would like to allude in regard to secondary schools is the fact that the school life of the secondary scholars is much too short. It begins too late and it ends too soon. I know that this is a commonplace of prize-day speeches, but it is none the less perfectly true, and it is borne in upon the Board of Education with every month that passes. We are now endeavouring by all the means
2314
at our disposal to induce the parents to send their children earlier, and to a certain extent we are bringing pressure to bear on the local authorities to carry that inducement into the homes of poor children. Many of the local authorities have done much to secure to longer school life by requiring guarantees from the parents for the continuance of their children's attendance throughout the full course. That is all to the good. They have also provided for the linking up of the schools. This, I think, has a direct bearing upon the technical classes by linking up the schools more closely with local industries and with the opportunities for further education after the secondary school life is over. I would like to say one word on the subject of full inspection, which has been undertaken by the Board's inspectors during the last three years. Full inspections were undertaken by the Board's inspectors to give guidance, warning, and advice, as well as encouragement, to the teachers and governors of these schools. These full inspections have resulted in a thorough survey of the whole life work of the schools from top to bottom. It was rather a long process, and could only be undertaken by the best inspectors in the employ of the Board. During the last three years we have conducted no less than 932 full inspections. It is not necessary, I believe, to make an inspection of secondary schools' with the same regularity as in the case of elementary schools, for the simple reason that the generations do not pass through so quickly, nor do the conditions vary so rapidly. But those inspections are bound to have done an incalculable amount of good to the schools which have been inspected, and many of the schools which have not received a penny of grants from us have welcomed the visits of our inspectors for these reasons.
I turn to the very much larger subject of elementary education, larger in the sense that it covers more pupils, more schools, and more teachers. One of the first changes which has been made during the past two years is that the Board has pushed on more rapidly with the reassessment of school accommodation in existing schools. Nothing can be worse for the health of the children, especially in large schools, than to be crowded together in rooms too small for them to breathe in, with nothing like enough space for them to work in, and with no adequate cubic area from which to draw air. Although many parts of the country have been

2315
assessed we have accelerated this pace, so that at the end of 1909 the reassessment of the whole of the schools of this country will be in a fair way to completion. This has resulted in some places in the necessity for the erection of new schools, a necessity which, I need hardly say, I do not regret. Then we have also had a review of unsatisfactory school premises. In the presence of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for the War Office, it is pleasing to remind the recollection that in 1893 his father, whose name is closely associated, as it deserves to be, with the educational progress of this country, issued a very large number of warnings as to the unsatisfactory condition of school premises. I think, during the short time that he was in office he issued no less than one-third of the warnings that were issued for a period of about 10 years. Those warnings were quite justified on the authority of many Gentlemen both in this House and in the other House who were connected with voluntary schools in this country, against which the warnings were thought to be aimed. They have been forced to confess that the warnings were justified and that the reflections had not been unjust, having regard to the purpose for which the Department was set up.
After 1902 many local authorities spent large sums of money on the improvement of school premises. It was necessary they should do so. I think their money on the whole has been well spent, but even at the present time there are over 970 in England and Wales which are under condemnation either absolutely or conditionally. I think the local authorities might well set about putting these premises in good order as soon as possible, and as well as the local authorities, trustees who are responsible for the denominational schools. We find that there are something over 2,000 more which are seriously unsatisfactory. That is to say, that out of something like 20,000 in England and Wales over 3,000 are not in good satisfactory sanitary condition. We cannot allow that to go on. Those schools must be put in good order, and in many parts of the country the progress which has been made has been altogether too slow. We trust, therefore, there will be no attempt in this House from either side to delay the process. The next important matter, which we hope has also received the assent of nearly every Member of this House, is that with regard to staffing. Since 1898 the staffing scale has remained practically
2316
unaltered in every elementary school. It was never a good staffing scale, but it certainly had become quite obsolete. There was a large number of abuses, and especially a number of unqualified and untrained teachers receiving employment in many great areas. They were known as supplementary teachers. I think they were once described by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland as having no qualification for a position in these schools except that they were 18 and declared they were vaccinated. Some of them did good work. We are not prepared to say deliberately that none of them can be employed anywhere. It was impossible to say they were of the same staff value as certified and trained teachers. It has been, and is, our deliberate policy to reduce the supplementary teachers of the elementary schools of this country.
At the same time, it is a matter of the utmost importance to reduce the size of the classes in the elementary schools. It is shocking to think that in one of the greatest cities in the north of England there are no less than 330 classes with over 60 pupils on the roll. Everyone who-knows the inside of an elementary school knows that it is almost impossible for the teacher to give his best work to over 60 pupils at a time. The whole secret of good teaching is certainly individual attention. It is absurd to believe that the attention of the teacher must be taken up most of the time with the discipline of 60, and perhaps sometimes 70, children, which alone would absorb the whole of the attention. Everyone sees great classes in great London and provincial schools, and the thing which always appears marvellous is how such good order is preserved. It is a very difficult thing to keep 10 children in order, but to keep 70 in perfect order and at the same time conduct the teaching which must be carried on in the various classes in the schools is one of the feats of which the elementary school teachers may well be proud. Some of them have been asked to do too much. I have here two samples. One in the Midlands, and one further north. In Derby we have in one case 84 babies, as they are called, packed in desks for 50. The whole of those were under an uncertificated teacher. In an urban district in the further north we find 89 infants in the charge of one uncertificated teacher. That is a waste of public money as well as being a waste of human material. Those large classes we believe must be reduced, and I feel anyone who takes a great interest in the education

2317
of the children in the elementary schools has long ago come to the conclusion that we cannot allow large classes to be under the control of uncertificated teachers, not only without detriment to the children, but as well with great loss to the local authorities.
The whole of the Opposition to Circular 709, I believe, has come from those who do not wish to spend more local money on our schools. My hon. Friend the Member for West Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. S. Montagu) has been tireless in his applications to me for some way out of that difficulty. Agricultural Members on both sides of the House have made representations equally strong. Their feeling I believe to be that they would be very glad indeed to raise the standard of the school, reduce the classes, and employ better teachers, provided the State made large contribution towards the cost. I should be one of the last to say that I thought the State was making sufficient contribution towards the cost of elementary education, but to give a grant in respect of this reform would be deliberately unjust to the best authorities, for remember that the standard which I have set up is not a fantastic standard evolved out of my head or created by educational enthusiasts, but it is a standard which is surpassed by many of the educational authorities in this country. To make a grant in respect of a reform to level up the worst authorities to the best would be deliberately giving a bonus to the authorities which had remained in arrear on the educational programme for the last few years. That could not be done. The good authorities have set an excellent example, and in particular I may name the county authorities of Wales. They set an excellent example, and previous to the circular they realised that they must have the best teacher and the smallest number in the classes if the schools were to be worth the enthusiasm expended on them. In Wales, I believe, there is only one, or there may possibly be two, counties which fall below this standard. I have been told by the Chairman of the Education Committee in each of those cases that they are prepared themselves, although they look for Exchequer assistance sooner or later, to embark on the extra cost of those reforms without delaying them any longer. I do not know whether it is fair to ask the English counties to follow suit, but I can only say it is my desire to obtain as quickly as possible a large amount of State assistance, not for this particular reform, but for the whole
2318
services of elementary education. We have had sent in to us during the last-few months only 41 official estimates from various authorities concerned. Twenty-seven of those have come from counties out of 63, 11 have come from county boroughs out of 74, and only three have come from boroughs or urban districts out of about 190. I think we may, therefore, take it that those who have not sent in estimates either do not make any serious complaint against the reforms which we have initiated or will not be put to extra expense by those reforms. We have made a careful examination of all the estimates sent in up to the present time. I find in the case of the counties the cost works out in terms of rate more heavily than in the case of county boroughs or urban districts. The heaviest amount will be borne by the county of East Suffolk. Other counties rate down to the fraction of a penny, but in East Suffolk these reforms work out at about a penny rate. Devon worked out, as far as we could tell, at 39 of a penny. This may be a heavy burden for the county ratepayers to bear, but I can only tell them, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told them, that if our financial proposals go through there will be set free next year a very large sum for the assistance of local authorities, whether in education or other services has not yet been decided. But whether that assistance is for education or other services, I take it, it makes no difference to the county ratepayer.
A change has also been made in respect of the grants which are to be given to schools which take in only children under five. For many years past it has been the custom in many schools in this country to hurry children into the higher division of the elementary school, and they have had a direct financial inducement to do so. Under our old scale we deliberately gave 5s per child more for children in the upper classes of the schools than we gave in the infant division of the school. That meant that a very large number of children were put into the upper classes, and that their time was wasted in those upper classes. A proposal which was made, I think it was in 1905, to alter this state of things broke down owing to the opposition of a few local educational authorities. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Anson) probably knows more of that than I do. This year we have made a revision which will cost none of the local authorities anything whatever. We have decided that we will reduce the old grants, the ordinary grant

2319
from the price at which it now stands, to a flat rate of 21s. 4d. for children over five years of age. That is to say, there will be no distinction made between infants and older children; therefore the financial inducement to rush children up to a higher class will be withdrawn. In order to do that without incurring further cost we have reduced the grant for children under five to 13s. 4d. I should be only too glad, for social reasons, to have children under five in crêches controlled by our municipalities. Without doubt children under five in school had their time wasted. It was not the best place for them; they were really better off in their own home or in the open air. They were crowded together, and seated in desks none too hygienic, and had to maintain an uprightness which certainly is not natural to a child under five. I do not withdraw from the position of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education that provision ought to be made in some way or another for children under five, but until the local authorities can embark on the heavy expense of municipal créches I think we may well say, although there may be some necessity for occasionally putting them into the elementary school, we ought not to offer any financial inducement to the local authorities to do so. The change in this grant will throw an additional burden on the Exchequer, and that, I am sorry to say, is the only extra money I have been able to extract from the Exchequer during the past 12 months.
We have also had the staff of our Board at work on three important syllabuses. First of all, I think I might mention the temperance syllabus, which we have issued comparatively recently. We found that in many of the elementary schools in the country the teaching of temperance was done by amateur and peripatetic teachers, who, in many cases, were not well equipped for the work they did, and, quite possibly, in some cases, did harm as well as good. We are very grateful to them for taking up this work at all, but we believe that by compiling a modern syllabus, which has been done by two of the best medical officers the Board of Education have ever had, namely, Dr. Newman and Miss Campbell, we will be able to show the lines on which the teaching of temperance can be better done. That syllabus, I hope, will be largely taken advantage of by local authorities, and, I trust, will have in the future a direct bearing on the moral character of the children who pass through the schools. Our medical officers, Dr.
2320
Newman and Miss Campbell, have also been at work on a physical exercises syllabus, which we hope shortly to issue. They have also taken in hand a syllabus for use in schools by girls—first of all, girls from the age of 7 to 11, then girls from 11 to 14—on the simple and homely subject of the care of babies.
I would like to say a word on the subject of medical inspection. Before the Act was passed two years ago there were less than a dozen authorities who did anything in the nature of medical inspection. Now the whole of the 328 authorities have made a beginning with this excellent work. They are taking it up with considerable enthusiasm and success. I am assured from all parts of the country that the old opposition to medical inspection has rapidly broken down, and we hope sooner or later that the work done in these schools, supplemented, as it will be in many districts, by medical treatment, will have a marked effect on the physical qualifications of the pupils. There are many sides of medical inspection work which might be dealt with in greater detail, but I do not propose to say anything further on the subject at the present moment.
I will now refer to training colleges, and the part which has been played by training colleges in providing openings in this great public service for men of all denominations or of no denomination. It has long been one of the blots on our educational system that a monopoly, or practically a monopoly, of training colleges was in the hands of one denomination. The denominational training college has undoubtedly done fine service in the past, but it has placed great obstacles in the way of Nonconformists who wished to enter the teaching profession. The number of training colleges was too small, and in 1904, I think, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Anson) was responsible for first offering a grant of 25 per cent, towards the building of local authority training colleges. We have increased that grant to 75 per cent. We are now prepared to give 75 per cent, of expenditure, which is not excessive, to local authorities who themselves put up undenominational training colleges, and great advantage has been taken by local authorities of that offer. Already in various parts of the country some of the best buildings that teachers have ever passed through have been erected by local authorities, and many more are in process of construction. The total number of places in these colleges is likely to increase. There are already

2321
sanctioned, beyond those in existence, no less than sixteen hundred places in colleges to be erected by local authorities. Denominational colleges at the present time—Church of England, Roman Catholic, and Wesleyan training colleges—educate well over four thousand three hundred pupils; local authority colleges educate and train well over three thousand; undenominational-colleges which are not local authority colleges or university colleges train over eight hundred; and university colleges train over three thousand. The total number of places in day training colleges is now six thousand five hundred, nearly all free from denominational tests, and in residential colleges it is about 5,400. In other words, apart altogether from the arrangement and compromise arrived at last year with the denominational colleges, well over half the places in the training colleges of this country are free from denominational control. Last year an arrangement was arrived at by the Bishop of St. Albans and myself to set free one-half of the places in the denominational training colleges for those who are not members of the denomination to which the college belongs. We were surely entitled to make that condition when we knew that we were paying no less than nine-tenths of the upkeep of those training colleges. That arrangement has been confirmed again this year. I should like to say publicly to the Committee that a grave mistake has been made by Mr. Graham Wallas, who has written to some extent on this subject, when he states that the 50 per cent, arrangement made last year has been whittled down this year. Exactly the same condition applies this year as applied last year. The 50 per cent. of places are absolutely free from denominational tests this year as they were last year, and they are so stated to be in the Regulations that have been circulated. That is to say, out of a total of nearly 12,000 places in our training colleges, we have secured that 9,500 shall be open to all candidates, irrespective of denominational considerations; and in the future no new training college can be established unless it is quite free from these restrictions. Then we have also encouraged, as far as we could, the erection of hostels in connection with our day training colleges. When so many young teachers are passing through the day training colleges it is not for their good, if they are not living at home or with guardians, that they should be in lodgings at that early and critical time of their lives. At the present time the
2322
number of hostels, although quite inadequate for the work, is well over a score; and we are doing all we can to secure that all women students in particular should reside in hostels rather than be in lodgings while they are in day training colleges.
I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall) will have been glad to notice that teachers who pass through training colleges have had a much easier curriculum devised for them. I do not mean easier in respect of the subjects they have to cover, for certainly they are required to do their work now more thoroughly than ever before; but the mere artificial work of passing examinations has been reduced to a minimum. In the old days a candidate was required to pass an examination for admission as a pupil teacher; then there was another examination at the end of each year of his pupil teachership; and then another at the end of each year of his training college course. He lived in a whirlpool of examinations; he was no sooner out of the orbit of one than he was in the orbit of another. Those have now been replaced by two simple examinations, not six or seven, or eight or nine, as in the old days—one examination at the end of the secondary school period, and another at the end of the training college course. I believe that that works thoroughly well, and I am assured, by those who have a closer technical knowledge on the subject of the training of teachers than I have, that good results are being obtained under these conditions with far less strain on the teachers who pass through training colleges. We have done something towards improving the conditions under which they obtained practice in teaching. We have added hygiene to the list of subjects in which they must qualify, and a new syllabus in hygiene is now required to be included in the curriculum of every training college, except only in the case of students who are taking degree courses. The pressure on these students is so great that I do not see how we can add to their burden; but the Board has under consideration means whereby this and other subjects shall not be omitted from their training career. We have also provided that they shall have a course in the teaching of physical exercises, so that that teaching in our elementary schools may in the future be much better done than in the past, and done, moreover, on scientific principles. The preparation for the work

2323
of teaching domestic subjects, such as cookery, laundry work, and housewifery, requires far too long to be included in the ordinary course for women students. Much has already been done for them, and it is hoped young teachers will be encouraged to pass through some separate training schools which are being encouraged in various parts of the country. We provide a special grant for this purpose, and we trust that that special grant will lead to larger numbers of teachers qualifying in these subjects.
Now I come back to the subject which alone excites a large assembly in this House, namely, the subject of religion. I ventured on an experiment this year which has not met with support, either in this House or outside, except from a very small number of people. I must say I think it necessary that something should have been done, and ought still to be done, in the direction I have outlined, even although it has not met with general approval. I quite recognise that it is very difficult to fly in the face of public opinion, and I am not prepared to add to the trouble which already surrounds my office if I can avoid it. We provided in our regulations for Bible instruction being given in training colleges, including two sets of colleges —denominational colleges first, and undenominational training colleges. Something like it is already given in the denominational colleges. We have no official knowledge of the tuition given under this head there; it is said to be good, and I am prepared to accept that assurance. Of the undenominational colleges, already several give simple Bible instruction, and they have always done so. I am not relying only on the one example of Borough-road, probably the best known training college in the country, and Stockwell, which is more or less associated with it; but I might quote the local authority training college run by Swansea. Swansea, with all its faults, has included this subject in the curriculum of its students, and London University even, in the Goldsmith's College, the largest training college in the country, has deliberately adopted this experiment during the last few years. The new local authority colleges and the university day colleges, however, do not give tuition in the teaching of this subject. It is possible under the law, and it is also possible under the very elastic limit which I have provided under the charters of the universities. My own personal view is well known. I believe that if Cowper-Temple
2324
duties are to be undertaken by teachers they can be better undertaken if the teachers are prepared for them. Whatever is worth teaching at all is worth teaching well. But the strong dislike which has been expressed of this regulation is, I believe, not to the tuition itself, but to its being forced on the local authorities. There may be much to be said for that. I am anxious to secure the co-operation of the universities, and the expressions of opinion which I have had from them recently lead me to believe that if we press on with this regulation that close co-operation and sympathy which I wish to encourage may be impeded. If they are uneasy, I wish to run no risk in that direction. Secondly, I say quite frankly that many of my own political Friends, whose views in the main I share, heartily dislike this regulation. I think they are unnecessarily nervous, but I wish to avoid adding to the area of religious controversy. The attention which has been given to this small matter—really a minor matter—compared with the very weighty, expensive, and valuable reforms of the last few years is an example of the ease with which a religious row can swallow up every other subject. These practical difficulties, small as they may be, are magnified by sentimental anxieties. I have therefore decided not to put the regulations into operation. The religious controversy is dormant, but it is still dominant. The dual system is still the source of our educational disorganisation, of incessant friction, expense, and jealousy. I do not know that we are likely to pass out of that unfortunate atmosphere. I make no prophecy, but there is only one way out of it, and that is the way that leads to absolute religious equality, and which frees the State from all denominational responsibilities.
One word on the subject of museums. The country knows that the art museum at South Kensington has been extended at very great cost. Something like half a million of money has been spent in the erection of this building. Now people are beginning to realise that our collection of art objects is the finest not only in. Europe, but in the world. I am glad to think that since the opening of that building that the number of people who have visited it has been enormously on the increase. But we have still nothing but an old temporary building, in which our valuable science collection is housed. I hope it may be possible in the near future to give that great collection a better building in which to be exhibited, and to give those who lend

2325
and give to that museum some security that the objects which they give will be well preserved and well exhibited. I do not apologise to the House, although I may have detained hon. Members for a long time, for dwelling upon these matters, for I think that it is necessary that we should occasionally take stock of our educational progress. We are securing now better teachers for our pupils, smaller classes for the pupils; the extension of tuition in moral subjects like temperance is greater every year. Domestic training is being made more real and is likely to have a greater effect on the girls that pass through our schools. Physical training will affect boys and girls alike. Handicapped as we are by the heavy cost of this development, I believe we are still making substantial progress. We may still devote some part of our time, and a very large part of our money, to the schools in which no less than 6,000,000 of our children are constantly being educated; for therein is decided, not only the fact of individual happiness, but the fate of the nation itself.
Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very full, clear, and interesting statement which he has put before us. It needed no apology for his making such a statement, and I am glad that he has returned to what was the invariable practice until four years ago—that the representative of the Board of Education or the Education Department in this House, when he asks for millions of money, should tell the House what is his policy, what he has been doing, and what it is proposed to do in the future. I am. glad the right hon. Gentleman has reverted to a salutary practice, which I hope henceforth will not be departed from. The right hon. Gentleman has made a conciliatory speech upon religious subjects. He has touched upon them lightly, and I do not wish to touch upon them at any length. He has recounted to us the reasons why in this, what I believe would be a very salutary provision in his training college regulations, he has taken the action he has. I am sorry to find that his view that those who will be expected to give religious teaching, denominational or undenominational, should learn how to teach before giving it, has not proved acceptable to a large number of the supporters who sit behind him, and that his action in this matter is a reversion to the historical parallel of the Duke of York, who marched 10,000 men up to the top of
2326
the hill and then marched them back again.
I do not wish, however, to dwell in a discussion which is mainly educational on matters of religious controversy. But I do-not wish the right hon. Gentleman to think that, although we fully recognise the conciliatory character of the administration of his Department, we have nothing to complain of, as there are cases of oppression in Wales and the West Riding of Yorkshire. There is the case of the school at Penmacho, in which the local authority has differentiated most unfairly, to the educational disadvantage of the school, between that school and other schools in charge of the council. There is a secondary school at Dewsbury in the West Riding, where the local authority, in clear defiance of section 4 of the Act of 1902, has insisted upon an alteration in the religious syllabus of the school. I am sorry to find that the Board of Education have not insisted upon the observance of the law, and that the governing body of the school have been compelled, from pecuniary reasons, to alter their scheme. There are these and other cases in which we feel that the Board of Education has not used the powers at his disposal to insist upon the observance of the law.
But I should like to dwell upon the more purely educational side of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman spoke with satisfaction of the increase in the number of secondary schools now receiving grants from the Department. I rejoice with him that that number has increased, but when we consider the great number of new schools which have sprung up, and in receipt of assistance from the Department, it is fair to ask: Do these represent a genuine addition to the secondary education of the country? The Board of Education Regulations on secondary schools set up—and very properly—a high ideal of what a secondary school ought to be. Such a school ought to give an education beginning at an age not exceeding 12 and carried through progressive courses of instruction up to and beyond 16. Now, this is the general expression of the opinion of the Board. Of course, in respect of the assistance from the Board, the amounts vary very considerably, for the schools themselves vary infinitely in type. But I wish to allude to cases which have been prominently before the public. There is the case of Bradford. That municipality has been very active in educational matters. It is a borough where the

2327
arrangements for feeding necessitous children were carried into effect more judiciously than any other town that I can discover. The Board of Education suggest, or intimate, that the boys and girls who go to secondary schools at the age of 12, or, under special circumstances, at the age of 10, should remain there until they are 16. Now at Bradford the average age of commencing is 10; the children sometimes go when they are nine. They leave the school at or before they are 14. In 1908, 840 children left the municipal schools, of whom COO were under 14. That is not due to any heavy requirements in the way of expense, because 53 per cent, paid no fees at all. In the municipal schools there are nearly 1,600 scholarships; 226 allowances were given to children who only stayed two years, and 25 to children who took a four years' course, or a course ranging from three to four years. That is the case of the municipal schools of Bradford, in contrast to the grammar school, and which, according to the inspector, was doing excellent work.
The municipality has been extremely liberal in providing secondary education for the children in the town. But though that education is free, it is evident that the parents attach very little value to it, or they would make some sacrifice to retain their children in the schools for a longer period than 14. Not merely is it not valued by the parents, but, according to the report of the inspector, it is not very valuable to the children under the circumstances under which it is given. The inspector says that the pupils get more harm than good. They are spoilt as artisans and not educated into anything else: a good workman becomes an inferior clerk. This, then, is the result, disastrous result, of the heavy expenditure, liberal treatment, and great effort on the part of the municipality. What is the cause of this? It is due partly to the indifference of the parents to the education of their children. They are unwilling to make the sacrifices involved in keeping their children at school after the age of 14. There is another cause of failure. The Board has laid down very expressly their notion as to what a governing body should be. They desire, although the Regulations require that the governing body of a school that is earning a grant should contain a very large number of representatives of local institutions, that the govern-
2328
ing body should be so constituted as to be able to give full time and attention to the school. They have prepared an instrument of government which, I believe, it is open to any school to adopt. In the case of Bradford the school inspector describes the government as wasteful and bureaucratic. I think it may well be regarded as both. The school is governed not by the local authority as a whole, but in some respects by the staffing committee of the local authority, and in some respects by the school sites committee of the local authority. It means, in effect, that the government of the school is really in the hands of the organising secretary —of an official of the municipality. What the inspector says is that the school would gain enormously by close contact with educated people, really concerned with the personal side of education, who would take an individual pleasure, pride and interest in the working and progress of the institution. The reason that I press this is—it is a very old story so far as my recollection goes—the local authorities decline to create a governing body which can give undivided attention to the school on the ground that their system of government by the municipality elected by the people is the more democratic system. Is it really democratic to so constitute a governing body that it will waste the peoples money and spoil the education of the children? Truly it is better to forego some of the verbal characteristics of the democratic body and to provide such a government for the schools as will ensure that the money of the people is properly spent. The Board of Education has this matter very largely in their hands. It can now make much larger grants than it did in former days. I sincerely hope the Board will take it in hand, not only the case of Bradford but in other schools where what I must describe as a false conception of democratic government is allowed to militate against the proper conduct of the schools and the proper education of the children.
Are these really secondary schools in the full sense of the word? The history of them is that there were higher-grade elementary schools, but since the Act of 1902 they have been converted by the local authorities into secondary schools, and they are taught, I take it, by teachers who have the training of elementary teachers. The teacher is no longer confined to the elementary school, but is allowed also to teach in our secondary schools. That means that the teacher will press for pro-

2329
motion to the higher-grade schools from the elementary schools. When we are told that by interfering with these matters we are depriving the working classes of the privileges of secondary school teaching, I answer we are doing nothing of the kind. What we are doing is, we are really preventing a fraud from being put upon the people by allowing them to be invited to come into schools which are masquerading as secondary schools. I confess I regret this change in the ambition of the elementary teacher—this desire to teach in secondary schools. The position of an elementary teacher in a town is one of the highest responsibility and importance. I hardly know anyone, except the manager of a factory or a great employer of labour, or a minister of religion, who has such a wide opportunity of bringing good to his fellow-creatures, and who so largely influences his whole surroundings, as the elementary teacher in a great centre; and this social ambition to move from the range of the elementary teacher to that of secondary teacher is due to misconception on the part of the teacher and on the part of the whole teaching body. I regret this, because I think it is mistaken ambition on the part of the teacher and on the part of the whole teaching body. I regret it also because it shows a tendency to ignore distinction which we were at some pains to create between the elementary and secondary school. When the child passes from one school to another, it is desirable he should pass into a different educational environment, and learn something better and higher and in a different way. This change in the ambition of the teacher of the elementary school of going to secondary schools which are not really secondary schools is a misfortune, and I think it is an unfortunate thing that in the endeavour to popularise secondary education he should do something which is calculated to lower its standard. There is another effect which I think the right hon. gentleman should consider. There are certain regulations for the teacher and there are very high standards of attainments for the teachers of secondary schools. But what is the good of a high standard for teachers of secondary schools when the man or woman who has gone through the training for an elementary school can come and occupy the position of a teacher in a secondary school? What is the good of having a different standard for the two when the same people can do for both? There is this further objection. There is no doubt great truth in the prefatory
2330
memorandum which appears in some of the secondary schools. It is very true that it is desirable that the teachers in secondary schools should be trained to their work, but what inducement do you offer? You let in men trained as elementary teachers, and there is no obligation on the part of the schools to employ specially trained teachers. The Board does nothing to prevent untrained teachers from being employed, and the only inducement offered to the trained teacher was the appearance upon the register, and the register has now been done away with, and no new one is substituted.
I do not wish to dwell upon that now except for one thing. The register was done away with under a Bill of administrative provisions which was described as an agreed Bill. The First Lord of the-Admiralty who was then at the Board of Education went so far in the discussion on the second reading as to say that it was not only an agreed Bill, but that he would strike out any clause which I wished to have struck out. I suggested one or two clauses, but if I had had any idea that the register contemplated in the Administration Provisions Bill was not going to be given effect to, and that suggestions were to be made to every class and body of teachers that they should come in and demand representation upon the Registration Council seeing that it was obvious that in this way you were reducing the whole thing to a nullity, then I am bound to say I should have taken a very different view of the clauses which I should have wished to have exercised from the Bill. I should like, before passing altogether from that, just to allude to what the right hon. Gentleman said about inspection. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that inspection should be to the advantage of the schools, and not with a view to obtaining any control over the working and the government of the schools. There is no doubt at this moment some anxiety on the part of a large number of schools, an anxiety which prevents them from offering themselves for this inspection. But it is not altogether unjustified by the attitude of the Board in the past, and if the right hon. gentleman can give us some assurance that inspection does not involve control over the working of the schools, I am sure many schools would offer themselves, and I think it is desirable that they should offer themselves, for inspection to the Board.

2331
The right hon. Gentleman then passed on to the subject of elementary education. He spoke of the improved accommodation and improved staffing of the elementary schools and of the change in the mode of grants which I rejoice to see is now being carried into effect. That change is, I believe, identical with the change brought into shape when I was in office, but which for financial reasons was stopped by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. With regard to the exclusion of children under five, I recollect receiving a deputation from a number of distinguished ladies on this particular subject, and I was informed that infants will not get on for long together without being allowed to roll upon the floor, and it was a matter which I did not venture to dispute, although I thought that if all the infants rolled at once it would be subversive to school discipline. As regards staffing and accommodation, I thing nobody can possibly dispute the fact that these changes tend to ensure that both should be adequate. In the matter of accommodation, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in rural schools it is necessary to be so insistent in this matter as in town schools. It must be borne in mind that this bears more heavily upon rural schools. The rural schools are smaller, and therefore more costly to maintain in proportion to their numbers; and teachers are less easily procurable. We have had within the last 24 hours a most interesting report upon continuation classes, and this bears very considerably upon the position of rural schools. I confess that at the present moment I am not sufficiently informed in regard to this report as I could wish, but I think it contains a very great deal which will need the careful attention of the Board. I have looked chiefly at the part which concerns rural schools, and I notice with some regret that the Committee were not at all disposed to allow them to recognise, as regards school attendance, any difference in the limit of age in respect of rural schools. There is no doubt that the whole system of our education has a tendency to bind children to town life rather than to country life. They say:—
"There is a belief that village boys who stay long at school get a distaste for the country, and take the first opportunity of migrating to the town. Such apprehensions are no doubt to some extent justified, and the result is a national loss that cannot be regarded with equanimity."
There is also a Report of the Board of Agriculture from which, I think, it is quite
2332
clear that the Board is not as willing as it should be to recognise the work of the Board of Education in this direction. I think it was recognised both by the report of this Committee, as well as by the Committee upon continuation schools, that our rural education does not tend to keep the children on the land. It is said that this can be got over by a change of curriculum, but I doubt this. Gardening is an industry which keeps children in the open air, and so is bee-keeping. Another topic recommended is rural hygiene, and I notice that commercial correspondence is also on the list of subjects. It is idel, however, to contend that these things will teach the boys to follow the plough or mind sheep, or do the many things that only use and habitude formed in early life can teach. These subjects do not develop those tastes which would dispose the boys to follow the profession of an agricultural labourer. The school age in towns should be kept up partly for the sake of the children's health, partly because if you follow most carefully the career of the children who leave school in towns you find that they often go into temporary employment in which they are not wanted after the age of 17, and then they have to begin life afresh. In the country a boy who goes on to the land generally stops there, and therefore the reasons which point to the raising of the school age in the towns are not reasons which apply to the country. There are reasons in the country for terminating the school age at an earlier period which need the very careful consideration of the Board of Education. The Report to which I have alluded instances the case of Switzerland in which the school age is higher, but there I notice this significant sentence:—
"The whole school is closed during the busy agricultural months."
So that while agriculture is going on the children are employed in it, and when it stops they go to school. Now that is a different system to what exists here. I do think it would be to the advantage of our rural schools if you had some control over the children which would set them free to work on the land if the boys were inclined to that sort of work. I think we might get this control by adopting this method of continuation classes, which seems to me to be a matter of the utmost importance, and one which should be considered by the Board of Education. We have had this matter before us year after year. I think the difficulties may be got over,

2333
and it is quite possible that these classes could be established without any compulsion at all. It is really vital to our educational system that the teaching which the children have received should not break off short when they leave school, and it can only be kept on through the instrumentality of these continuation classes. The only exception in which this education is at present continued is where the boys are under the influence of an employer who sends them to the various technical institutes which are to be found in the towns but not in the country. I hope the President of the Board of Education will take this Report into his very serious consideration. I feel sure that having regard to all the right hon. Gentleman has told us today of the working of our education machinery we are progressing. I listened to his speech with feelings of satisfaction and hope. I set aside all those contentions which during the last few years have divided us, and on purely educational lines I think the Department are working on right lines subject to those criticisms which I have ventured to make. We always look forward with interest to the speech of a Minister who, while he is at the head of the Education Department, has the control of a family circle which represents the next generation. It is a large family and a very interesting one, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has shown that he is fully alive to his responsibilities.
Sir GEORGE WHITE: We have all listened with the greatest interest to the statement which has been made by the President of the Board of Education. The whole of the details which he presented so graphically to the Committee show quite plainly that the Board of Education in the various phases of its work is doing an extremely large amount of good service for the advancement of education throughout the land. I think my right hon. Friend will be ready to bear testimony to this, that those of us, or the great bulk of us, who felt it necessary to make criticisms upon a certain Regulation issued by the Board of Education are in the main men who are practically and actively engaged in educational work. If we did venture to make criticisms upon that Regulation it was because we thought it was unnecessary, and we feared that the introduction of such regulation? would retard rather than advance the interests of education. I do not propose to enlarge upon that side of our discussion to-day, because in the most frank way, and for the best possible
2334
reasons, my right hon. Friend has withdrawn this circular. I shall, however, say a word or two upon it before I sit down in order to justify the position which we took up in regard to it. I assure my right hon. Friend that we are much more interested in all that shows advancement in educational work than we are in bringing forward anything that may cause a religious squabble. I have had to wait upon the light hon. Gentleman in my representative capacity more than once in regard to that circular in order to point out from a financial point of view the large additional expense it would cause in some quarters, but I have always taken care to emphasise my entire belief in the educational qualities of that circular, the necessity for its introduction, and the value of the educational results which it was bound to bring out. The enlargement of the area of accommodation which the Board of Education is attempting to carry throughout all the schools by providing 10 square feet per child is an improvement which has very long been needed in many of our schools. Again, the size of the classes which the right hon. Gentleman has also referred to is a very great educational improvement. In many of the large towns the result has not been very serious, because they have endeavoured to work up to that standard for a very long time past. At the same time, it has been my duty to point out, and I emphasise it again to-day, that there is some danger when these progressive educational requirements are put forward which entail large expense upon the localities, that the general educational result will not be exactly what the Board of Education desire and are aiming at, because with the heavy burden put upon the rates naturally the education authorities look about to see if there is at hand some other mode of cutting down their expenditure to meet the new requirements of the Board. With that qualification I can give the most unqualified approval to the action taken by the Board of Education. I should also like to follow the hon. Member for Oxford (Sir W. Anson) in what he said with regard to the Report of the Consultative Committee. I was here till nine o'clock this morning, and I have not had time to do more than run over some of its leading features, but I am quite sure, from the active interest which he takes in all social questions, and especially in those which are immediately affected by education, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Runciman) will find great scope for action in his study of that Report, and I hope also

2335
we shall find legislation initiated by it. I have to do with some large bodies of young men in night schools, and I realise constantly the enormous waste of money and effort which results from the failure of our elementary education to work any permanent influence upon the lives of a great many young men. I constantly come across cases of young men of 18 and 19 who attended elementary schools until they were 13 or 14, and who can scarcely write, and in many instances who cannot write at all, because they have never had any occasion to take up a pen from the time they leave school until, as I have more than once told them, they begin courting and want to write a love letter, and they find they are unable to do so. The fact is practically the whole of their instruction in the elementary school is lost because they leave school before they realise the value of the instruction given them. They have the tools put in their hands, but they have not been induced to use them for their own self-improvement.
I have no hesitation in saying I strongly advocate a system of compulsion being introduced in regard to continuation schools. I think it will have to apply both to employers and the young people of the country alike. Employers must be prepared to give some opportunity to the young people to attend these evening schools. They cannot expect them to closely attend all day long, eight, nine, or ten hours to their work in the factory or business, and then take up study or self-education in the evening. The difficulty can only be met by some concessions on the part of the employers to enable the young people to continue their education. In my judgment it is the most important field open to the Board of Education; it is a field in which they can do the greatest possible service to the nation, and I am sure there is much suggested in the Report which will attract the attention and the energies of my right hon. Friend and those who work with him at the Board of Education. Personally, I look forward with great anticipations to many good results coming from that Report. Speaking from my own personal experience, I am not quite sure whether we are even keeping up the age to which our boys and girls should continue in our elementary schools. There is certainly a falling off in the number of those passing from the elementary into the secondary schools. I have endeavoured in the past few days to trace the reasons for that falling off under my own
2336
educational authority, and I attribute it largely to the conviction mentioned by my right hon. Friend that the teaching profession is overcrowded. A very considerable number of instances came under the observation of my own committee where parents believed the teaching profession, was overcrowded, and did not care to risk their boys and girls going to a secondary school for a four years' course, as they would have done, to be trained for elementary teachers, because they did not see any prospect of their being employed when their secondary education was terminated.
I am very glad my right hon. Friend has made the statement he has in regard to this matter. I feel it will go abroad and encourage parents not to take such a gloomy view of the prospects of their boys and girls getting into this noble profession. I am only going to say one or two words in regard to the regulations which have been withdrawn. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend will believe me when I say that it relieves my mind very much indeed not to have to criticise these regulations in the way I might have had to do had they been continued. I will give just briefly, however, the reasons that moved many of us to feel this was in a sense an innovation which could bring nothing but trouble even to my right hon. Friend. I confess I have cast about for reasons that should have induced him to take this step, for I know both he and his predecessors have been troubled enough with the religious difficulty. We look upon this, first of all, as an attempt to force the hand of the education authorities throughout the country by a power which does not exist in regard to the elementary schools themselves. The Act of 1870, so far as the elementary schools are concerned, made it no part of the duty of the inspector to inquire into any instruction in a religious subject. It made the grant quite independent of these things, and we could not see why it should be introduced for the first time as a compulsory matter for the college authorities. I know the simple, and what appears to be the all-sufficient, answer is that in the bulk of the denominational schools Cowper-Temple teaching is carried on, and why should you not fit the teachers to give this instruction. I submit, however, that the art of teaching is given to all teachers; they are instructed in the art of teaching, and I do not understand why there should be any peculiar art required to teach the history of Joseph from the Bible any more than to teach the life

2337
of Julius Caesar. If it is simply a question of training the teachers in ability to give this instruction, it seems to me they have that training already; but, if it is for anything more than that, then it trenches upon matters of conscience, which I think are very dangerous, and far better left alone. Then there is the danger to the teacher himself. The teacher would have placed upon his certificate the fact that he had gone through this instruction in Bible teaching or religious instruction, and I would point out that these terms are used interchangeably, although they may mean two very different things. But what about the teacher who had not undergone this training'? You would be placing that teacher at a great disadvantage. You would make him liable to be misunderstood and he would rest under a sort of ban in the eyes of a great number of people. The regulations therefore would have raised a disqualification which we did not think was just or right to the teacher.
The simple fact is the undenominational teaching which has gone on in a very large number of our schools ever since the Act of 1870 has been carried on in a very satisfactory way, and I do not think hon. Members opposite who are interested in denominational and Bible teaching, as I myself am interested in the teaching of the Bible in our schools, will contend that the denominational teachers who have had special denominational instruction in the colleges have taught the simple Bible instruction of the Cowper-Temple clause any more efficiently than those who have not undergone that instruction. I have never met in my long experience any difficulty in regard to this matter, or anything which has impressed upon me in any form or shape the fact that teachers should have been trained by special religious instruction in these denominational colleges to give that Cowper-Temple teaching which is necessary and suitable to the capacity of the child. Then, finally, I come to the question of the position of the great university colleges in regard to these regulations. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there are more than 3,000 people now being trained in these colleges. At present they are not required to give this teaching. There is nothing, however, to prevent them giving it if they like. Our point is, they should not be obliged to provide the teaching in the colleges any more than the local authorities should be compelled to provide it in
2338
the schools. I am glad to know my right hon. Friend admits there would in all probability have been a difficulty which would have been a source of injury to the cause of education. I venture to assure him and the Committee that our only interest in this matter was not to raise up a fresh educational difficulty but to endeavour to prevent one arising. We believe fresh difficulty would have been caused if these Regulations had been pressed.
The statement the right hon. Gentleman has made has been most interesting, and, I think, from an educational point of view, most satisfactory. There is one other observation I desire to make, and that is in regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford upon the position of our secondary schools. I confess, as a school board chairman and one interested from the first in higher education, that I could not follow his reasoning in regard to the position of higher-grade and secondary schools. The higher-grade school provides a very good secondary education apart from the classical side, and I do not think we need in our ordinary secondary municipal schools to deal to a large extent with the classics. In all centres of population we have our grammar schools, which deal with the classical side of education, but so far as ordinary secondary education is concerned our municipal secondary schools are equal to other schools of like standing. I had the honour recently of calling the attention of my committee to the fact that four of our pupils had gone from the secondary schools direct to the Universities of either Oxford or Cambridge.
Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I never suggested that classical learning should be introduced into the secondary schools.
Sir GEORGE WHITE: I am aware the hon. Gentleman did not suggest it, but otherwise he failed to show what is the main difference between his idea of the secondary schools and the majority of the municipal secondary schools. I am quite sure the great bulk of these municipal secondary schools are giving as good an education as the ordinary secondary schools, so far as it is suited to the capacity and the prospects of the boys and girls who attend them. I hope, therefore, there will be no attempt to convert these schools into a type which will take them out of the line they are intended to provide for. Many of their headmasters are men of university standing, and I think many of them have had even a better training, so far as mere teaching goes, than some of

2339
the secondary masters; but there is room for both these types of school, and I am very glad, and I am sure the Committee will be pleased, with the account my right hon. Friend has been able to give us of the progress of secondary education. I hope he will foster it on lines which will keep it popular and make it serviceable for the boys and girls, who mainly come from elementary schools, and who otherwise would not be able to get that secondary education which they will find so valuable in after life.
Sir FRANCIS POWELL: I should like to take this opportunity, having been chairman of the committee of what is now known as the Victoria and Albert Museum, to congratulate the House and the right hon. Gentleman upon the opening of that Museum, which was a most auspicious event. The ceremony was the more interesting, and the more encouraging, because we have reason to hope, from the reception given by the President of the Board of Education to the deputation, headed by Lord Curzon, that the Indian collection will not be broken up. We are all indebted to Lord Curzon for the able and convincing statement he made in connection with this matter. I also wish to acknowledge the action of the Government in regard to the conduct of this Debate. I am sure all friends of education will agree that the practice which has obtained in the last few years of conducting this Debate in a fragmentary manner—to use a schoolboy's phrase, in snippets—has not been to the advantage of our cause. It is far better the Government should have an opportunity of making a full statement of their policy, and that the House should have an equally full opportunity of discussing the Government statement. I hope I may be permitted, as hon. treasurer of Leeds University, to express my regret that Lord Ripon is no longer with us as our Chancellor. We are under great obligations to him for long-continued service, for his advice when advice was required, and for energetic action when movement was called for by the circumstances of the hour. I observe that Leeds University is one of the institutions which is to get a Government grant. I regret the grant is so small. I hope that in future years it will be considerably augmented. In recent years a Report has been issued regarding these Treasury grants, but I hope that they will be much larger than recom-
2340
mended in that Report. I think there is too much tendency to restrict the liberty of the governing bodies of these institutions. If these great universities are to do their work, they must have full liberty and every opportunity for development, according to the necessities of the day and the circumstances of the case. It must always be remembered that they are universities, and not large schools; and unless the governing bodies are determined to maintain a high position, I fear the work of these provincial institutions will be in vain. I desire to say a few words on the subject of day training colleges. We ought to be careful to avoid the danger of an undue multiplication and unwarrantable extension of these colleges. No doubt, in years gone by, there has been a scarcity of accommodation which has proved a great educational defect; but I hope we shall not go to the other extreme. The tendency of each local authority is to look too much to its own dignity and its own importance; and a result of the present want of co-ordination may be that we shall find in a few years we are burdened with colleges beyond the necessities of the case. Every excess is injurious to the cause of education, because it involves money outlay, and I am confident that in the future the question of money will become most grave and serious; and there will not be that tendency to liberality and generosity which has been displayed in days gone by.
Then I come to the regulations with regard to secondary schools—with reference to the 25 per cent. and the restrictions in regard to religious education. I think they are almost impossible of application in our residential schools. I am connected with the governing bodies of two large such schools, and we find it impracticable to adapt our system to the present regulations. I hope these restrictions will be either removed or modified. The issue, in my judgment, in the ordinary way of new schemes for schools by the Charity Commission, is a matter also requiring attention. According to the evidence before the Committee which considered this subject, the schemes were seldom instituted on the initiative of the Department. They were framed at the request of the localities, and I believe that movement on the part of localities is better than initiative on the part of the Central Department. Several of these schemes came under my observation. There is in them too great a tendency towards uniformity. More freedom is necessary in our educational institutions. In the old schemes, there was

2341
usually a clause defining the object and scope of the scheme and the purposes of the endowment; that secured variety, it also secured adaptation to the wants of the place, because these schemes were made after a full consideration of local requirements. With the permission of the Committee I desire to add a few words affecting day schools. There can be no doubt there is a feeling in the public mind that the teaching given in these schools -does not sufficiently prepare the young people for their after pursuits in life. I saw among the papers recently published one dealing with the training of teachers in domestic subjects. That is a step in the right direction. It will do much to make the schools more popular, and it will bring the teaching given in them more on the lines which, I venture to suggest, are a proper preparation for the future. But it is not only future life that ought to be regarded in our elementary day schools. If the scholar is eventually to pass to a higher place in the scale of society, it is in the early stage there must be some change made in the education of the boy or girl. That was clearly pointed out in the Report of Mr. Bryce's Committee, which, I regret to say, has been too soon forgotten, and the teaching of which has been far too much neglected. As regards the number of teachers in these day schools, I have nothing to add except to make the remark that I have seen in Wurtemburg, in Bavaria, and in other places on the Continent school classes very much larger than are usual here. I found 60 was a common number, and 80 a not uncommon number. It we quote Germany freely in one direction, I think we should also be at liberty to quote it with equal freedom in another. We ought to congratulate ourselves upon the success of recent legislation with regard to the provision of meals for children, and with reference to the attention paid to their health. I have had some particular information on this subject, and I am sure that anyone who took part in the Debates and urged forward these reforms cannot be otherwise than greatly satisfied with the result of their labours, and with the great pains taken by the local authority to put this legislation into force. I come next to Chapter 10. I believe the words have been struck out, but I hope the spirit of them will never depart. I trust the time will never come when anything is done to impair the efficiency of Biblical teaching in our elementary schools. In
2342
my judgment, the need for that teaching does not diminish; it increases as the temptations to which our young people are exposed multiply. Their difficulties become more abundant, and I am quite sure if they are to leave our schools so impressed by the teaching therein that they gather from it inspiration of an elevating character, and find everything which leads to purity, to virtue, then that education cannot have been in vain. There is no doubt, and I am speaking from experience, that the working people of this country, as regards religion and as regards everything else, desire a real and solid education. They wish for information and they wish for truths, and that information cannot be communicated to them, and those truths cannot be enunciated, unless by a teacher who is thoroughly instructed in those subjects. I am not referring for the moment to the religious side of the question, but I am referring to this solely in regard to the education of the teachers who have to communicate this knowledge, so that they should themselves be well informed and well instructed in that which they have to teach and apply the art of teaching to, including the subject matter to which I am referring, and which I believe to be one of the most important subjects that can engage the attention of our fellow countrymen, be they young or be they old, be they rich or be they poor.
Mr. JOHN MASSIE: I would join in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the deep and varied interest of his statement and on the chronicle of educational progress which he has been able to put before us. I would congratulate myself also, if I may, that it is not my duty to-day to plead with him for the withdrawal of those instructions—those Regulations to which so much exception has been taken. Their withdrawal will be a gratification, not only to Nonconformists but, with them, to all other classes of educationalists. We have never questioned the motives of the right hon. Gentleman in proposing those Regulations—his motives have been entirely praiseworthy and transparently sincere. We will bear with gentle resignation his mild strictures upon our nervousness and sentimentality. We are only too glad that the menace to educational peace and contentment has been removed from the scene. But the Regulations to which I have referred did not exhaust my object in venturing to intervene to-day, and I hope that the Committee will not think it

2343
unimportant or useless if I spend a few minutes in drawing attention to an aspect of the educational situation which does not leap to the eyes of the public, and perhaps does not leap to the eyes of some members of this House. It is only in elementary education, only in that sphere, that there are statutory enactments which impose conditions of grant. There is another sphere—the sphere of education other than elementary—in which there are no statutory conditions. Acts of Parliament, judgments in the courts, the provisions of the Board of Education, have severally in their own way tended to widen that area, which is free from statutory conditions, and that area has largely encroached on the area of elementary education. It has, indeed, in many cases become a substitute for it without these statutory conditions. It is under regulations, not under statutes. There is no statutory law which enforces public control or religious liberty, and gradually, as I have said, the statutory region has been lessened.
May I illustrate what I mean? Under the Act of 1870 there was care for pupils from infancy up to the age of 18 and in evening schools beyond. The Act of 1902 excluded from the elementary area—and that is from the statutory area—evening schools, pupil teachers' centres, higher-grade schools, the various institutions and departments connected with science-these were all thrust out of the area of elementary education, and so outside the area of statutory enactment. Then, as regards the change in the age of leaving, the Cockerton judgment reduced that age to between 16 and 17; the Act of 1902 reduced it to between 15 and 16. The secondary regulations of the Board of Education have suggested, first, 14 years of age as the age for secondary education, then 12, and then 10. This year it suggests no limit downwards; it says that the age for secondary education may go down, and does go down, very much below the age of 12. Créches, nursery schools, sanctioned by the Act of 1870, were soon disallowed by the auditor, three being fixed as the lowest age. Now the Board of Education seems to be trying to raise that age to five, and there are public demands to place it at seven. Thus a large number of the children of this nation are being elbowed outside the statutory protection under the Act of 1870. They are being pushed into regions other than elementary education, where they are
2344
under Board regulations and prefatory memoranda. May I point out what is lost in this way? There is no statutory enactment imposing the duty of providing accommodation; there is no statutory mandate enacting that public control shall be a condition of grant; there is no statutory conscience clause; there is no statutory Cowper-Temple clause; there is no statute imposing that there shall be a third of the governors representative; there is no statute enjoining an audit of accounts of aided schools, or surcharge upon the aided schools; there is no statutory Kenyon-Slaney clause giving laymen and clergymen the same power together in regard to religious teaching; and there is no statute limiting the fees that may be charged at secondary schools. According to the Act of 1870 that limit was 9d. a week.
Thus I think I have shown that there is. a wide area outside statutory law, under regulations entirely—regulations which may be changed from year to year, and which are at the pleasure of a bureau. They are not brought before Parliament, and they are apt to slip through, by being merely laid upon the Table. So that the region of secondary education is not a ladder, so far as I have described it, between elementary education and the university. It is rather coming to be another ladder, a complete ladder, side by side with the elementary education ladder and going beyond it, upwards; a ladder from infancy to the age of 18, outside statutory law, which imposes conditions of grant, leaving these conditions to the discretion of the Board of Education. This may be called elasticity, but it might also be called bureaucracy. Certainly it is true that educational details must and should be left to the Executive, the Board of Education, but the great principles which regulate the education of the country should not be left to the Board, but should be enforced by statutes. There is one lamentable consequence of this parallel ladder, the elementary ladder not being followed by the secondary ladder. The secondary ladder stands side by side and it tends to generate class distinction between elementary education and secondary education. The old Scottish practice, whereby the laird's son and the farmer's son, and even the labourer's son, learnt their lessons in the same classroom, is on the way to get out of sight when elementary and secondary education are, so to speak, in water-tight compartments. Let me ask, How

2345
many secondary schools have within their walls scholars representing 25 per cent. of free places? I daresay it would be unwise to insist on that in connection with certain schools, but I would ask, How far is the regulation generally obeyed? Then, again, in these secondary schools, which receive public grants, how general it is for a majority of representative governors to be on the governing body? As to this class distinction, which I am sorry to think has grown up, I hope the Committee will allow me to quote a short passage from a journal, which is by no means a party journal, and represents no party in this House or outside it, except the educational party. I mean the "Journal of. Education." It says:—
"The Board of Education has been accused by some of its opponents of adopting a democratic policy by declining to admit the necessities of social grades in the country, but ill the last edition (dated July. 1909) of the regulations for secondary schools, social distinction is definitely implied. We read that the education of the secondary schools may be advantageously begun at an age much below twelve, and, in fact, by means of Kindergartens and preparatory departments is often made to cover education from its earliest stages. From this dictum we may gather that secondary education is not that which comes between primary and university, but is a grade to itself, covering the whole childhood to the university age. Of course, this is in accord with common usage, but it undoubtedly stamps secondary education as a privilege of those classes of the community which are rich enough to forgo the use of the public elementary schools. The genuine democrat insists that secondary education is the stage that follows primary education. The law has stepped in to prevent primary schools from continuing to invade the preserves of secondary schools. It does not seem apparent why the law should not also forbid secondary schools to poach on the grounds of primary schools. If secondary schools were forbidden to take pupils under twelve years of age, we should, at least, have a logical scheme."
One word as to the public funds which are being used in this region other than that of elementary education, the funds which are being used for grants at the discretion of the Board of Education. Let us see what public money is involved. The grants in 1903–4 were £964,000, in 1907–8 they had risen to £1,618,000, and the estimates before us for 1909–10 give the grants as £1,916,372. These grants are concerned with secondary schools, pupil teachers' centres, training colleges, and the various institutions teaching science. If you add to these the grants to the universities, the whisky money, the rates for secondary education outside statutory conditions, you will find that something not much short of £4,500,000 annually is at the discretion of the Board of Education, not under statute, but under regulations which may slip though by being put on the Table, or may be granted in Estimates perhaps in one sitting. What solid statutory guarantee have we for efficiency, and what statutory
2346
guarantee have we for the principle of public control or religious liberty? I am not finding fault here with the regulations of the Board of Education, but I am saying that they are not statutory, and therefore not permanent. I am very much afraid that the trouble which has come to us in elementary education is also brewing for us in secondary education—trouble from vested interests, from the religious difficulty, from the lack of public control, and from the waste of public money—and I cannot help feeling that it is time the House and the country should know all the circumstances of this case. But it is rather hard to get a certain class of information which used to be at our disposal. If you want to know the changes in the code it is of no use now to look, as you used to be able successfully to look, for the tabulated list at the end of the code, which still is found in the Scottish code. Then, again, in secondary education there is a prefatory memorandum, of which, of course, the writers for the Press take advantage, but the prefatory memorandum to the regulations does not necessarily include all the changes which occur in the regulations, and one has known, as in the present instance, of cases when the prefatory memorandum was somewhat inconsistent with the regulations in the body of the code.
But my chief point is that statistics that used to be available now cease to be available. They are not published, because they are not collected by the Board. Questions are asked in the House, and the President is quite innocently unable to answer them. I have myself asked a question of the President of the Board of Education, in answer to which he has been obliged to say that there are no statistics available at the Board. I have not asked very recondite questions, but questions have been asked of this nature: Can he give the number of parishes in which Church schools only are available, and in which the school authorities have arranged facilities for Nonconformist parents to have their children taught their own faith? There were no such statistics. Another question asked was what was the total amount expended by managers of denominational schools during the past three years from subscriptions and sources other than rates and taxes? There were no such statistics available. It is very advisable in connection with the controversy about the admission of children under five to have statistics of children at each year of school age. These were possible to be obtained once. You

2347
cannot obtain them now. The statistics given are aggregates from 3 to 5, from 5 to 7, from 7 to 12, and from 12 to 15, and the statistics in reference to the several ages from 12 to 15 are very important in investigating the ages and the number of children leaving school early. In reference to staffing, we used to be able to compare the quality of the staffing in council and voluntary schools, particularly in Anglican and Catholic schools, how many certificated teachers there were, how many uncertificated, and what were their respective salaries. But no such statistics can now be obtained. Then, as to public control, It is very interesting to know whether that is more efficient than private or denominational control. We used to be able to compare the particular advantages or disadvantages of both systems, but now there are no statistics which enable one to draw comparisons between council schools and voluntary schools as to the provision for cooking and gardening and other subjects, as to pupil teachers' training, as to the quality of the staffing, as to the numbers in attendance, and as to the grants, whether they are higher or lower. No longer are there separate statistics for us to use in investigation and comparison of these matters; you merely get an aggregate number in reference to the district. Then, lastly, in reference to religious statistics, we used to be able to know how many children there were in Anglician schools and in Catholic schools, and other schools of the kind in the respective areas. Now you only get aggregate statistics of the whole of the voluntary schools. But surely it is important to know how many Protestant children in any particular district are being driven to Catholic schools, and how many Nonconformists, especially in Wales, are being driven to Church schools. Why should not these statistics be continued? Why should such things be covered up? Is it to avoid odious comparisons? Is it in the interests of any particular kind of school? I cannot in my heart hold the President personally responsible for these matters. He cannot keep an eye on everything. He would need the eyes of an Argus to keep an eye on everything. Yet it is only to him that I can appeal on an occasion like this, and I take the liberty of drawing his attention and the attention of the House to the growing dangers to which I have referred. I think they have long called for public statement.
Mr. S. H. BUTCHER: I think the President of the Board of Education had good reason for feeling pride in the record of educational success which he has been able to tell us of, and of the intellectual movement which exists all over the country in the schools, and in an increasing degree I believe in the local authorities themselves. So far as I can form an opinion, I think that, in respect of those matters which he dealt with in his speech, he has carried out a wisely progressive policy. In one matter I deplore the change which has come over him in the last few hours. There, in my judgment, his policy was too-progressive and too educational for the bulk of its followers. The proposed Regulation, which has now been dropped, would have made it obligatory upon all training colleges to give a course of training in religious instruction to those who intended being teachers. But it would not have made it obligatory on the teachers to attend any course of religious instruction. That was entirely optional as regards them, and, moreover, the Regulations would not directly or indirectly have required them to give any profession of faith. It would not have imposed upon them any test, direct or indirect. All it would have done would be to require that in those who are now engaged in religious education there should be a qualification of knowledge. That qualification, I observe, is almost a disqualification in the eyes of some persons. The knowledge that the teacher will acquire in this course of instruction is looked upon with nervous apprehension lest he should get by some indirect method some advantage hereafter in his profession by reason of his knowledge. It seems to me that, from an educational point of view, this is really a deplorable thing. The first argument put forward by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Sir George White) came practically to this: "What has the State to do with giving, or in this case merely inspecting the means of giving, religious instruction? It is not the State's business, and it is not the business of the Department. Why, therefore, should they be called upon to do it?" Is not the simple answer to that question that the State has delegated to the local authorities the duty of giving religious instruction or not giving it? It has delegated that to their discretion. The local authorities have almost over the whole of England resolved to give that instruction and the provision which is to be knocked out would merely recognise the existing

2349
state of things. It would have been the natural sequel to the action of the local authorities themselves. We were told by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that we must not force the hands of the local authorities, but if the local authorities think that the children should receive simple Bible instruction, is it unreasonable that the State should say, as the natural and logical consequence of their action, that we require that the teachers who are to give the instruction should know their subject?
The next argument used was that the teacher's certificate would put him at an advantage compared with those who do not attend the instruction. I do feel that you can be too nervous in your apprehension that there may be some interference with religious liberty. I understand the line of those who say that there should be no religious instruction given at all. That is perfectly intelligible, but I do not understand this other argument. It is really unintelligible to say that religious instruction should be given, but given under conditions that the ignorance of the teacher is almost a necessary result. It should be remembered that in recent years the proportion of teachers who are instructed in religious knowledge is growing constantly less, and I think it was a statesmanlike and right proposal to ensure that those teachers should themselves be taught beforehand. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk argued that they have already learned the art of teaching, and that that art is one and indivisible. In other words, if a teacher is taught how to teach, he is able on that abstract knowledge of the art to know, on the one hand, how to teach mathematics, and, on the other hand, French, the Bible, or any subject. That is not so. There are different methods, and a man who has learned to teach mathematics may know nothing at all about teaching the Scriptures. What is more, the training of a teacher is only one part of the thing. You want some knowledge as well as some training. You cannot teach a subject in the abstract. You want some knowledge of it, and it is that knowledge which seems to me so requisite in the case of a religious teacher. I would ask why there should be one department only in which ignorance is recognised as equivalent to knowledge? Is it because that it is a less important department of the education of the young? Nobody on the other side would say that. Is it because the subject of religious or
2350
Biblical instruction is so easy that anybody can teach without either knowledge or training? It is, I believe, very deeply in the minds of some people that the Bible is so simple that everything in it is so easy that you require no knowledge or training to teach it. I think that is the very reverse of the truth. There is hardly any subject so difficult to teach well and intelligently as elementary instruction in the Bible.
I have so far been speaking of the training of teachers in religious instruction. I pass to the larger question of the training of teachers and the means by which the Department proposes to encourage that which they themselves admit is one of the most important parts of their duty. It has already been alluded to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University, but I must go into a little more detail about the teachers' register. It is a question which directly affects a very large number of teachers in the country. It affects also everyone who intends to become a teacher. What has been done? There was a teachers' register which was abolished in 1908. The old register was by the admission of everybody based on unsatisfactory principles. It was proposed in the Education Bill of 1908 to abolish that register. That proposal met with great opposition. Then in the administrative provisions of the Bill of 1907 a clause was inserted providing for a new register to be framed by Order in Council. The clause which was inserted was the result of rather long and careful negotiations between the representatives of all branches of education, elementary, secondary, and so on, and between Members on both sides of the House. It was inserted in the Bill after consultation with the Board of Education. What happened next? Ever since that was carried in 1907 there has been a long and acute correspondence carried on with the Board of Education, and the whole controversy has turned on the meaning of the words in the clause which provides that the new Registration Council which was to be entrusted with the duty of making a register should be representative of the teaching profession.
Let me put as shortly as I can what has happened. A body of men and women delegated from 12 educational associations drew up a scheme, which was submitted to the Board for the formation of this new council. They provided for the representation on the council of all grades of education, primary, secondary, and tech-

2351
nical, that there should be men and women and that there should be head teachers and assistant teachers. They interpreted the words I have read to mean that the council should be representative of the teaching profession as a whole, but that they did not mean that there should be direct representatives of every group and every section of teachers, and of the teachers of every possible subject. It was on that point that this futile correspondence has turned. I do not say that the scheme was perfect, nor did those who framed it say that it was perfect. They admitted that it might be modified in many respects. But the Board's criticism of the scheme was that there was a large number of teachers of various special subjects, and groups of teachers who had received no direct representation at all on the new council. It was stated that claims had come in from teachers of art, music, handicrafts, and cookery, from kindergarten teachers, teachers of the deaf and dumb, teachers of physical instruction, shorthand, gymnastics, and book-keeping, that their own particular society or subject should be represented on the council. These, what I can only call trivial and obstructive objections, were pressed by the Board of Education upon those delegates who had framed the scheme. The framers of the scheme thought that all they could do was to take names out of the teaching profession and form a body which should be broadly representative of the whole. They did not wish to keep out of their rights the teachers of the various subjects, but they said they must ignore cross divisions and form the scheme on main lines, otherwise they would get a perfectly unworkable body. By way of providing for the case of those omitted, they pointed out that there were two provisions in their scheme which would have served their purpose. On the one hand, there were nominees of the Crown on the body they proposed to constitute, and there were also to be co-opted members. Therefore they said: "Let the Order in Council, if you like, require that there should be sub-committees appointed, and that there should be consultations with experts as to how the council may look after the interest of all those teachers in the minor groups." From March to December, 1908, this correspondence went forward. It was finally given up in despair, and the Board, I am sorry to say, quite unlike the ordinary character of the President of the Board, showed really a mastery of dilatory tactics
2352
which would have done credit to one of the local authorities in trying to evade the orders of the Board itself. I think their correspondence was quite unworthy of a great Department, and I do honestly say that anybody who looks into these objections cannot but feel that they were trivial, and that any body of men who wanted bonâ fide to work out the duties of the council would have found these objections simply vanish before them. The thing now stands indefinitely hung up, and in the last letter which the Board wrote to the chairman of that body they speak of the clause which was put into the Bill of 1907 really as leaving the door open to the possibility of there being at some future time an efficient teachers' register, if and when proposals were made which carry with them the whole teaching profession. The general upshot of it all was that the whole thing was thrown on the teacher. That most important matter on which every educational authority was agreed, that you must have a teachers' register if you were to encourage the training of teachers, is hung up because the conditions which the Board imposed for framing the council were such as to make that council impossible, for two reasons. First of all, the council would be utterly unwieldy from the start, and, secondly, there would be such a disproportionate representation between these minor teachers and the great body of teachers in the country that the council would not represent the profession as a whole. I would appeal strongly to the President of the Board—and I know that I am speaking the mind not of this or that person, but of all the great educational bodies of the country—and I would ask him to take up the matter of the Board and to do what was really imposed on the Board by Act of Parliament. It is not for any outside body to frame an Order in Council. That duty could only be carried out by the Board itself. These men have done their best; they have made suggestions. It is for the Board only to form a scheme and to readjust, as they alone can, the rival claims of these different classes of teachers.
There are two more questions which I wish to touch upon, and as to which questions have been asked already I think in Parliament, and they have been put off for a very long time, though I believe that the President of the Board has been very anxious to solve them. The first question is as to the fees that have already been paid since 1902 when the old

2353
Teachers' Registration Council was formed. These fees were paid by the teachers to get on the register. Repeated questions have been asked in Parliament as to what is to be done with these fees, and what is their amount. We know that the unexpended funds of the total fees paid are about £2,970, and these have been made over by an Order in Council to the Board of Education, I think in 1908; but they are now in the hands of the Board of Education. The teachers say: "Are we to be repaid, or what are you going to do with this money?" The only answer has been: "We cannot do anything with the fees until the Registration Council has been formed," and then, when you say: "Form the Registration Council," the answer is that that cannot be done until the conditions specified have been satisfied. I think we ought to have an answer on this point. The other question with which I am concerned is with reference to certain persons who have been in the public service, and who, I do not think, should on that account receive less consideration. These are three members of the staff of the Teachers' Registration Council who became member of the staff in 1902. That is to say, for nearly six years they were members of the staff. They are the registrar, the chief clerk, and the assistant clerk The two first, the registrar and the chief clerk, when they received their appointments, had no hint whatever that the appointment was to be a temporary one, nor did anybody imagine that it would be temporary. It was thought that the registrar was a permanent registrar, and that the council, whose servants they were, was to be permanent under Act of Parliament; and, what is more, on one or two occasions it was admitted by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reference to the Registration Council, that the actual phrase "permanent employment" was at that time used. There is also the assistant clerk, who was engaged as a temporary clerk. All these men, by this unfortunate series of accidents, were done out of their jobs. Now they know, and I—speaking for them—am aware that they have got no legal claim on the Treasury, and that, strictly speaking, they could be dismissed at pleasure. But I do press it upon the President of the Board that they have a very strong equitable claim, and I would ask him to do one of two things: to get some compensation for them for the loss of their appointments or else to get them some
2354
new appointments in some other Department of the public service. A memorial to that effect has been signed by Members on both sides of the House, and I am sure that the President of the Board will admit that the names of those who signed it were weighty and influential. I am not going into any other of the large range of subjects opened by the President's speech, but I hope that before the Debate is over we may have some answer to these matters which I have mentioned.
Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES: As one of the Welsh Members, I desire to express my satisfaction with the lucid statement made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman), and my general concurrence in the administrative policy which it implies is that which the Government has been carrying out. I was specially glad to hear him pay a compliment to the Welsh local authorities with reference to the high standard of staffing arrangements which they maintained. If I have heard him aright, Wales is the place in which the regulations of the Department in regard to staffing are best carried out. As the hon. and learned Baronet the Member of the University of Oxford (Sir Wm. Anson) has made on many occasions very severe strictures on the administration of the Education Act by the local authorities, and in reference to one matter has, I thought, somewhat unnecessarily dragged that matter into discussion this afternoon, I commend to him the statement, which he did not challenge, of my right hon. Friend. It supports absolutely what we have said on this side of the House, and what I have said when I sat on the other side of the House, that whatever animadversions may be made on the policy of the Welsh local authorities in regard to the treatment of voluntary schools, they have so guided their actions that the efficiency of not a single secondary school, of not a single elementary school, has been materially damaged by the action which they have taken. I cannot go into the whole of it to-day, but as far as the staffing arrangements are concerned I commend to the hon. Baronet that part of my right hon. Friend's speech in which he dealt with the conditions of the country in regard to the maintenance of the high standard of staffing. I was also very glad to hear my right hon. Friend as to the withdrawal of the regulations in regard to religious instruction in the training colleges. Personally I cannot say that I took so strong a view in regard to that regulation as has

2355
been expressed by more than one speaker on this side of the House to-day, and in fact I agree with a great deal of what the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford said in regard to this regulation. It does appear to me that it is advisable, if you are going to give undenominational religious education in any of the public elementary schools, that in the training colleges opportunities should be afforded for the students to be taught how best to carry out the regulations on the subject; but at the same time, while I see no objection whatever to a public authority or a training college seeing that some kind of instruction such as was contemplated by them shall be given, yet there is all the difference in the world between their being allowed to give that instruction in their own way and their being compelled to give it according to the terms of the chapter on religious instruction.
As an illustration of what I mean, the only sentence in my right hon. Friend's speech to which I took exception was that in which he said that Swansea, with all its faults, saw that in its training colleges the religious instruction which is contemplated by this Chapter 10 is given. I should like my right hon. Friend to amend that sentence, and to make it say that Swansea, with all its merits, adds to its other titles to commendation the giving of religious instruction in training colleges. That is the only sentence which I can criticise in my right hon. Friend's otherwise admirable speech. What was done in Swansea does not involve in the least the evils which we are afraid of if this Chapter 10 had been put into force in exactly the form in which it exists. There is all the difference in the world between saying that a local education authority shall provide in its training college a course of training which will prepare students to give such instruction and explanation of the Bible as are suited to the capacities of children and giving them an opportunity of doing so if they like. What the Swansea educational authority, as I understand, objected to in this Chapter 10 was the fact that it was made mandatory, and being made mandatory that gives an inspector of the Board of Education power to go there and see the kind of education that is being given. What the local educational authority wishes, and I believe what all the other educational authorities in Wales wish, is to have as much autonomy as possible in regard to their system. I imagine
2356
if they are left alone things will work very well, and I am perfectly certain whatever good objects my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education may have in introducing this Chapter 10 would be better attained by allowing the Welsh local education authorities freedom of action in this matter, and opportunity of learning from experience the wants from time to time and the general views of the ratepayers whom they represent. In any case, I am very glad that my right hon. Friend saw his way to cancel this Chapter 10. I wish to call his attention to another part of these new regulations in regard to the training of teachers. It is only an illustration of the necessity of transferring as soon as possible the question of Welsh training colleges to the Welsh department. I think I am right—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—when I say that at the present moment all matters connected with the Welsh training colleges do not belong to the Welsh branch of his office, but have to come to him through other channels. I should like to take this opportunity of suggesting to him that this is a department of work which might be transferred to the specific Welsh branch of his Department. A very good illustration of the necessity of that is afforded, I think, by the special conditions applicable after the 10th August, 1910, to the students of the training colleges being prepared for the examination forming the recognised stage towards university degrees. The matter is too technical for me to go into in any detail here, but the right hon. Gentleman or any Member of the Committee will see on page 52 that there is a list of examinations given, and that appended to the list, which I think is not new for this year, is a new set of special conditions applicable after 1st August, 1910. I have already told my right hon. Friend that considerable exception is taken to these special conditions, and my impression is that if the gentlemen in the Department who have drawn up this set of conditions had known our regulations for matriculation examinations for the University of Wales, and had been better acquainted with the circumstances of the Principality, they would have modified these special conditions with regard to, at any rate, the Welsh training colleges. I am content for the moment to call my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that we do take exception to these special conditions, and I would respectfully suggest to him that inquiry should be made

2357
through officials of the University of Wales or the National Colleges, or the Welsh Board, as to whether those conditions ought to be applied to the students of our Welsh training colleges.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
I do so for the purpose of calling attention to the regulations affecting secondary schools, and especially with regard to the way in which they bear on Catholic secondary schools. The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement, expressed satisfaction at the fact that several Catholic secondary schools were earning the grants. Yes; that is so, and so far as it goes it is eminently satisfactory. But our quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman is that he will not allow new Catholic schools to come in to earn those grants. I have the case of a school of this kind in Cheshire, close to Birkenhead, in which during the four years from 1904 to 1908 the sum of £4,500 was spent in building and improvements, and in October last there were more than 114 children in the school. They applied for the grant, and the right hon. Gentleman refused it. I am not complaining. In doing so the right hon. Gentleman doubtless is acting strictly in accordance with the regulations. But our grievance is that these regulations absolutely stop these grants from being earned by any new Catholic school which was not on the grant list before 1907–8. I am quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman himself is not personally responsible for these regulations. He inherited them from his predecessor, who followed more the policy of the sword than of the olive branch. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman, as he himself will remember, very kindly received a deputation from members of my own communion on this very point; but I am bound to say his kindness ceased with the reception of that deputation, and he was unable to give us any hope at all of any change in this direction. I do sincerely trust that we may have some hope held out to us of a modification of these regulations. I do not want to use strong language, but really it appears to me to be extraordinary tyranny and narrow-minded bigotry that, while these grants may be earned by some of our schools which were efficient previous to 1907–8, no new schools should now be allowed to come within the present regulations to earn these grants. One other point I wish to allude to has reference to the question of the supply of furniture to
2358
non-provided schools. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman if he will kindly tell us what is the policy of the Board of Education on this matter. There have been several cases lately, notably one of a Catholic school at Liverpool. The local education authority, as I understand, wished to provide this school with furniture. They took the opinion of two eminent counsel, Sir Robert Finlay and Mr. Upjohn, K.C., and these two legal gentlemen gave their opinion that the local education authority were bound to supply this furniture. It is well known that the present Attorney-General gave his opinion, I believe before the present Government came into office, that the managers ought to supply this furniture, and, as far as I can understand, the present Board of Education have relied on the opinion of the-Attorney-General. This is a somewhat more important matter than it looks at first sight, because it not only affects the new schools, but it affects all non-provided' schools which come technically under the heading "New Schools." It is, therefore, a very big question, and what we respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman to inform us about is this: Is the policy of the Board of Education going to wobble from one side to the other or is it going to be based upon law or on politics? I hope the right hon. Gentleman later on will give us some information on this point. I beg to move.
Question proposed, "That the reduced sum of £6,648,692 be granted."
The CHAIRMAN: I have been privately asked several questions as to whether the Amendment will impose any restriction upon the discussion. It will not restrict it in any way.
Mr. JOHN P. BOLAND: I desire to support the reduction which has been moved by the Noble Lord distinctly with regard to the question of the provision of furniture in Catholic schools. I wish to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can give me any information with regard to the case of the Catholic school at Mountain Ash. I understand the local education authority has been informed by the Education Department that they are to provide the furniture for the school. I asked a question on this subject two or three weeks ago, and I am still awaiting a reply from the right hon. Gentleman. Possibly he will give me one to-night and so clear up this point, which the Noble Lord justly raised, about the

2359
provision of furniture in these Catholic schools. Before dealing with the question of elementary schools I should like to say that Catholic Members of this House do look upon these regulations for secondary schools with a great deal of disfavour, because, as far as we can see—and the Noble Lord put it quite clearly—if some of these new regulations are carried into force it is impossible for any new Catholic school in future to become entitled to the grant. I think that is an extremely important fact to all the Catholic schools of this country, and also to Anglican schools, but pressing with double effect on our Catholic schools. For the last two or three weeks I have had cause to put to the President of the Board of Education specific questions with regard to the treatment of St. George's Catholic school, Nelson, Lancashire. This has been a burning question in the district for some years past. I have a document here showing how the question arose. In February, 1897, the manager of the school was informed by the Education Board as follows:—
"I am risked to return the enclosed plan, which is now satisfactory for the accommodation of 180 mixed children and 98 infants."
And so the letter goes on. There are two or three other documents which I could read to the House. Briefly, the point at issue is this. The Board of Education try to maintain that this school had been erected and recognised purely as an infant school for 98 children. Our contention is—and we can substantiate it by documents which have been promptly put before the Board of Education—that this school has been recognised not only as one for infants, but also as a mixed school. That has been borne out by the signing of a time-table by His Majesty's inspector in the year 1904, amongst other proofs of our contention—that this school has been recognised all along as a school for mixed children as well as for infants, and it is impossible, in the face of all the evidence, to expect the managers now publicly to make a false statement of the views they hold, and to claim under section 8 of the Act of 1902 to have a new school erected. The matter is not only of importance to the managers, but as well to the children who are at present being educated in this school because our people have never given up the education of the children in spite of the difficulties which are surrounding this matter. The children, I understand, suffer naturally from not
2360
being in a school which is publicly recognised by the education authorities. The local education authority, so far as I am aware, wish to have the question decided in our favour. It is only because the Board of Education, so I am informed, is unwilling to go back upon a previous mistake of its own, and to admit that it has been wrong, that this burning question is still kept alive. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in a case like this, where the local education authority and the managers and the parents are all desirous of having this matter settled, that he should exercise his authority and let the matter be settled once and for all.
Then there is the case of the Catholic school at Nymphsfield in Gloucestershire. I listened to a sentence in the speech, I think, of the hon. Member for Cricklade (Mr. Massie), in which he said he was very anxious to learn the full statistics of the school population of the country as he wished to know in how many cases Protestant children were driven into Catholic schools, and Nonconformist children driven into Anglican schools. As to that point there is this example of Nymphsfield where a considerable number of Protestant children are being "driven" into the Catholic schools. In this little village there is a small council school occupied by about 25 children. The Catholic school has been erected within the last seven or eight years, and there are no less than 60 children now attending it, and amongst those there are some 25 or 30 Protestant children. Although the school is not recognised by the Board of Education, and although they are not driven to go, they go because the children are better taught there than in the council school. If the hon. Gentleman had the statistics giving the number of children attending those schools he would probably be driven to the conclusion, owing to the views he holds, that those 30 Protestant children were being driven into the Catholic school which they are attending because the education is better. In this case which has been brought before the House on several occasions a very serious injustice to my mind is being done, not only to the Catholic parents of the district, but also in the interests of education and to a greater extent in the interests of the boarded-out system of the Poor Law, with which this House is, I believe, thoroughly in favour. In this country village a boarded-out committee

2361
has been established, and some 20 or 30 children drawn from various parts of the country—Lancashire, London, and so on—being children of Catholic parents, are boarded out, and owing to the provision of this Catholic school are able to obtain that education which is so essential.
In spite of the efforts that have been made year by year, showing not only that this school is giving a good education, but is carrying out the wishes of the Poor Law authorities of this country by providing education for boarded-out children, in spite of the fact that this school has grown from 45 to 50, and now to over 50, the Board of Education still refuse to recognise that school, which is unable to earn full grants. We have thus the ridiculous spectacle of this school, with its 60 children, some 30 of whom are Protestant children of the district, and a number of boarded-out children from various counties of England, side by side with a small council school which at present has only some 23 or 25 children, and yet that school is recognised, while the infinitely more efficient Catholic school is not recognised. I do submit to the President of the Board of Education that this question, which has been put before four or five successive Ministers, has reached a point when it should be definitely settled, and that a school which has a good record for educational efficiency, and which was founded as a result of an application by one of the inspectors of the Education Department, that such a school should be supported. I do suggest that the time has come when this Nymphsfield school should be recognised. As regards this question of the Catholic school in Lancashire, into which I have gone at rather full length, it is a typical ease showing the anxiety and the, determination of the Catholic parents of this country in spite of all difficulty and in spite of the opposition they sometimes meet, and unreasonable opposition from the Education Department of this country, to maintain education for their children. This is, I think, a case in which the justice of the claim has been thoroughly made out, and I submit that this is a case where the Board of Education should not insist or. a previous mistake of theirs, which they are unwilling to admit, to refuse to recognise a thoroughly just claim.
Mr. RYLAND ADKINS: Before I deal with general matters of principle, I should like to say how cordially I concur with what has fallen from the hon. Baronet the
2362
Member for Oxford University (Sir W. R. Anson) and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Butcher) with regard to the question of a teachers' register. I desire to associate myself with all that has been said, and I look forward with great interest to some statement to show that this matter is not so bad as it appears to be at the present time. That register ought to have been formed long ago, and the delay is a regrettable public inconvenience. I would like, in the first place, to congratulate my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman) not only on his admirable exposition of the policy of his Department, but upon the result which, in many respects, he has attained. With regard to secondary, education, which after all, is a subject of supreme importance, although it does not lend itself to more exciting discussion, I am sure we have all welcomed two important statements he made with regard to it. One was the increase in the number of girls attending, and the other was the increase in the number of those who are fulfilling free places in secondary schools, while I believe all Members of the Committee will be exceedingly glad to hear that the number of those filling free places in secondary schools is now, I think, 42,000, yet, when we recollect what an extraordinary small proportion that is of the masses of the people of this country, we must all feel that secondary education, although it has-progressed during the last year to an appreciable extent, as a national matter it is still in its infancy. Forty-two thousand out of the vast population of this country are not enough, or one-hundredth part enough, to really affect the higher education of the English people generally. There is a great gulf, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Cricklade, between the few who have secondary education and the many who cannot. That gulf is not bridged by this number, large as it is. I hope in the next year, and the years afterwards, to hear of the progress of this particular branch at a far greater rate than that which has been evidenced in the year past.
I missed from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman any reference to that intermediate education, if I may so call it, between what is secondary in the fullest sense and that which is elementary. In one passage he referred to the well-known policy of his Board and of many educationalists that the course of secondary education should be at least a four years'

2363
course. We all of us see reasons for that where it is possible, but there are a great many parents in this country who would be able, by making a sacrifice, to allow their children to stay at a higher elementary or higher-grade school for one year or two and who would never be able to let them remain for four years. It depends upon the encouragement and guidance which the Board of Education and the local authorities give to that very large body of people whether the gulf between elementary and secondary education is bridged. While I entirely agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University that it would be most absurd that schools which are really higher-grade schools should masquerade as secondary schools, that is no reason why you should not have higher-grade schools, and to a larger number and under more careful arrangement than you have at the present time. I take this opportunity of calling the attention of the Committee to that gap in the imposing series of facts which my right hon. Friend laid before the Committee, and of expressing the hope that he will use his influence with the Department in seeing that such education is not neglected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cricklade pointed out, whatever have been the advances in secondary education of late years, there has been a corresponding compression and shrinking in elementary education, and unless that is remedied in the way I have now suggested, we may be losing almost as much in one way as we are gaining in another; the fact being that a much larger number of persons are affected by the restriction of elementary education, which may, in the long run, be of more importance nationally than the greater advantage given to the comparatively few.
With regard to another aspect of secondary education, reference has been made to the question of inspection by the Board of Education. Inspection of secondary schools is, of course, most desirable where secondary schools are receiving public money. It is most desirable that there should be inspection by those who represent the Government and the country. I hops that it may be increasingly possible, as the years go on, to have a considerable proportion of the highly trained gentlemen who are inspectors of secondary schools, those who have already themselves had long experience as teachers and masters in secondary schools,
2364
because in those inspections you want not only the point of view of the Government Department, but you want the knowledge, which can only be attained by personal experience in that kind of education. With regard to public schools that ask for no public money, and are in no way dependent upon any grant from this House, I agree with what has been said by the Member for Oxford University, that we ought to look very carefully at any proposal of the Government Department to inspect schools of that kind. Their independence is a very valuable variety of education. When you have inspection by any Government Department the more energetic and determined that is the more liability there is for it to try and follow up this inspection by interference and by intervention. When you are dealing with schools of this kind, which have no claim on the public purse, their independence ought to be most jealously guarded.
There is then the question, so happily removed from acute controversy this afternoon, of the proposed regulation with regard to training colleges. I have too much regard for the time of the Committee to be tempted into that fascinating field of dialectics upon which the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Butcher) entered when he was arguing with great charm and ingenuity the impossibility of teachers teaching the Bible unless they were trained in a particular way, and the desirability of their training being subjected to State supervision and State regulation. Many of us were strongly opposed to the proposed regulation, although we see that in its favour there are real arguments. In all these educational matters there are genuine arguments on both sides, and it is the weighing of the contending arguments which makes educational matters so difficult. But although there are real arguments in favour of the course my right hon. Friend proposed to take, I do not intend to discuss either those arguments or the weightier arguments which I believe are against it. I take the view that where you have an Act of Parliament like that of 1870, which forbade compulsory religious instruction in any form by the State, although it may be technically correct—there are very grave legal doubts whether the proposed regulation of my right hon. Friend was legal, and even if it was, I am certain it was not, in accord with the spirit of the Act of 1870—a matter so wide-reaching, so highly controversial, and of such doubtful legality, ought to be done,

2365
not by any Department, by by Parliament itself. Therefore, if I approved strongly on its merits my right hon. Friend's proposal, I should certainly oppose on every occasion the first possible precedent for a Government Department straining its authority in this way.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Hear, hear.
Mr. ADKINS: I am sure those who in the future may be Members of this House when the Noble Lord, whose genial interruption we note, may be more able to get his own way in educational matters, will take note of his disclaimer this afternoon of undue departmental activity. He and others who do not share the educational point of view from which I am speaking may agree in being glad that this proposal, although we appreciate the spirit in which it was made, is no longer before the Committee.
There is one other matter to which I desire to refer, namely, the famous circular, No. 709. I am one of those who believe that the contents of that circular are, educationally, of great advantage; and, knowing how many and how powerful are the enemies of education in this country, one is always glad when there is put forward any proposal, from whatever quarter it comes, which is really educational in its character. Therefore I desire to join with other Members in applauding the intention of that circular, and to a very large extent in praising its contents. But it is not enough in this country to make proposals which are educationally good, or even to alter them by means of Government Departments, with the sanction of this House. You must, as far as possible, see that the people who are to carry them out are in the humour to do it as sympathetically as possible, and make sure that you carry public opinion thoroughly with you. I am thankful to remember that my Constituency is one which, before the circular came out, had gone a long way towards arriving at the educational result at which the circular aims. No one who has anything to do with local government —certainly no one connected with such a body as the County Councils Association—can fail to know that in many parts of the country this circular has been received by local authorities and representatives of the ratepayers with anything but gratitude and pleasure. It is by no means the case that it is opposed and regretted merely by people who dislike and wish to limit education. Those of us who are trying to carry out Acts of Parliament dealing with edu-
2366
cation know that our power to carry them out well is seriously crippled if we have public opinion stirred and organised against us. I am exceedingly sorry that it was impossible for the Government, at any rate at the outset, to accompany the issue of that circular with a definite increase of grant to local authorities. I will not take up time by arguing the point upon which my right hon. Friend spoke so dexterously as to whether the particular staffing regulation did or did not deserve a grant specially for it. I do not fully agree with his argument that because Wales and one or two other localities have done nearly all that was asked without any grant, therefore it is not a subject which ought to have a grant for itself. I rather take the view that matters of staffing and the expense of teachers' salaries ought to be paid for partly from the Exchequer and partly from the local rates; and when you have a circular making compulsory that which previously had only been attained here and there, the fact that it was attained here and there—though I am very glad it was so attained, and I hope it will now be attained promptly throughout the country —does not dispose of the argument that there ought to be Government assistance towards raising the standard of elementary education. I may remind my right hon. Friend that the occasion of this circular was one which brings very vividly home to local administrators the financial aspect of the matter. There was a great deputation, representative of all parties and all parts of the country, which put before the Prime Minister the claim of local authorities to have further help from the Exchequer, not because they were doing less or cared less for education, but because Parliament had put upon them valuable and right duties of a new kind involving greatly increased expenditure. That deputation received from the Prime Minister words not without sympathy or without recognition of the equity of their claim; and certainly there was an element of sardonic humour, which some of us had not included in my right hon. Friend's shining qualities, when this circular came out a few days afterwards, practically saying, "Although we sympathise with you, we are sorry we cannot get money for you from the Treasury. But we will not cease to stimulate your educational good works, and here is something more you had better do at once, although it will cost you more." I am not arguing that the circular was bad —I say it was good—or that local authorities ought not to try to carry it out; I am doing what

2367
little I can in the local authority of which I am a member to see that it is carried out; but I say that it puts upon the Government increased responsibility and obligation to see that the Exchequer does assist local authorities as soon as possible and as largely as possible. Knowing as I do my hon. Friend's devotion to educational causes, and that he must recognise that education can only work smoothly where there is no widespread sense of grievance, I am sure that the fact that his circular is welcomed on educational grounds will not make him less anxious to meet us on the financial grounds and to discharge that increased obligation and responsibility. In conclusion, I am sure the Committee will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for the work of his Department during the year. This discussion shows that although there is great difference of opinion on many aspects of education, there is great unanimity in the interest for the cause of national education.
Mr. J. G. TALBOT: I wish to associate myself with the spirit of my noble Friend the Member for Sussex (Lord E. Talbot), who asked for that equality of treatment to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Runciman) referred with so much sympathy. I only wish that that sympathy had developed into action. I thought there was a very pathetic passage towards the close of the right hon. Gentleman's speech when he referred to the somewhat melancholy episode in our educational history which we all recollect, when we plodded through weary days and nights in the grave endeavour to pass an Education Bill. Why did that Bill fail? It failed just because the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had forgotten the great principle to which he has referred to-day. He said that the only possible way of arriving at an educational settlement is to remember the absolute necessity of maintaining the great principle of equality. I applauded that settlement. It is exactly my view, and I have always tried to act upon it. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that amongst the virtues which he possesses, and they are many, there does not appear to be a sufficient amount of that political courage which I think he would find would bring its own reward. There is a somewhat notable example of this want of courage in the conduct of the Government for which he is mainly responsible in regard to training colleges and the religious instruction
2368
in them. It seems to be a remarkable fact that, after the right hon. Gentleman had come to the conclusion, which I suppose he arrived at after due deliberation, that this was a matter on which he ought to insist, so that teachers who are to give this instruction should at least be provided with the means-of giving it—which would seem to be common-sense, but does not commend itself apparently to the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman—no sooner was this document prepared than it was abandoned. That does not show great political courage. But what I complain of even more than of the curious development of the last few days, is the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department in regard to those questions to which reference has been made this afternoon, and of which we shall doubtless hear more in the course of the Debate. Two schools in Wales have been referred to in regard to which it is really difficult for us to use language consistent with the truth. These are cases in where there can be, I should have thought, no question as to which side the law was on; but, in any ease, there can be no doubt whatever as to the side on which the moral weight ought to be thrown. These are cases in which the supporters and managers of voluntary schools, who have just as much right to their view of elementary education as the supporters of council schools, have put their hands into their own pockets, founded and maintained these schools, and then the schools have been made less efficient than they otherwise would have been by the teachers being rewarded with salaries inferior to those of teachers in the council schools. I am not going into the details of these cases, but the right hon. Gentleman knows-quite well what I have referred to. There is the other case of the Wheelwright Grammar School at Dewsbury, under the supervision of the West Riding authority. This, again, is a case of what seems to me to be intolerable religious tyranny. It ought to have been suppressed at once with a vigorous hand by the right hon. Gentleman if he really believed in the doctrine which he laid down this afternoon that the only way in which to settle the religious controversy is to go the right and obvious path of true religious equality. It is the duty of everyone who occupies the position of the right hon. Gentleman to see that these principles of equality are really carried out. It is idle to lay these great principles down and then not to carry

2369
them into effect. Personally we have the highest respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but how can he expect the supporters of denominational religious education to have confidence in his administration if he will not put into force the law that exists because of pressure outside that he cannot resist. It pains me to see one wanting whose determination I should have thought would have been exercised on the right side when it comes to carrying these principles into effect. May I express my earnest hope that he will reconsider these questions?
Sir J. H. YOXALL: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon ranged over so wide an area that it is quite impossible to do more than touch upon a few points in a Debate of this kind. He is entitled to express the view that great progress has been made by the Department of Education committed to his charge. There are still defects in the secondary schools, which come under the purview of the Board's regulations; and the same is obviously true with regard to the training colleges. But so far as the elementary schools are concerned, there can be no doubt that the administration of the present system of inspection, of teaching, attendance, etc., are all going in the direction of securing that this country before many years are passed will have system of education such as exists In no other country in the world. What we want is peaceful development, an abstention from party warfare and denominational strife upon every occasion, and a disposition on one side as well as the other to consider the rights of the other. We want peaceful development for the elementary schools. If that be granted I do not doubt that we shall build up in this country a system of elementary schools not inferior to any in Europe or the rest of the world. My right hon. Friend has lately done that which will possibly conduce to that desirable result. What appears to be a minor reform appeared in the new code with regard to grants for the schools over and above that dealt with in circular 709. We have been wasting money all these years, because we have spent not quite sufficient to secure a proper supply of small classes and effective teachers. Fault has been found with the education given to the children in these schools. All these faults and defects have been to the fact that all these years the children have been taught in hordes and herds.
2370
May I, however, venture to put two small points before the President of the Board of Education? The one is similar to that that the inspectors of the secondary schools should be more and more men who have been teachers in those schools, and I want to put forward a smaller plea on behalf of the inspectors of the elementary schools. The right hon. Gentleman has appointed from the exterior (sub-inspectors') staff of the Board of Education one or two to be inspectors of the elementary schools. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider a little more favourably those whose long service and high qualifications in many respects make them eminently fitted for the post in preference to some young man fresh from the university who has only been subject to 12 months' experience in one of these schools, and that not for teaching purposes, but in order to qualify himself for the list of applicants for inspectorships. May I also direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to another class of persons who appear to be in some danger owing to a certain phrase in circular 709? A great number of the teachers referred to have suffered in the past from that very lack of training college accommodation which he has done away with. He told us this afternoon that now there is, or shortly will be, ample training college accommodation for all teachers who wish it. There are thousands of these teachers who did not go to a training college; not they did not wish to, nor that they had not the qualifications. They were Queen's scholars, or, at a later date, King's scholars. But there was a total lack of training college accommodation, and they were shut out by the hundred and the thousand. They had to get their certificates as teachers in some other way. They are called untrained, or, more correctly, non-collegiate teachers. It is an unfortunate phrase that has got into circular 709. It has not been transferred to the code, I understand, and I am quite sure that it is not the wish, or the desire, of the right hon. Gentleman that the phrase should be interpreted as it has been by some local education authorities, that although they may have had experience, and for many years done successful work, these teachers are not to be promoted, or to be regarded for promotion in the future, for it is not the fault of the teachers that there were not sufficient training colleges. Every teacher has been in favour of training colleges for all teachers. The teachers have been in. favour of it for many years. They asked

2371
for it 30 years ago. They made the demand for a supply of undenominational training colleges when the demand was not heard in any other quarter. I do not champion the cause of the untrained man against the trained man, nor do I say that he is as good; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to do something to remove the impression which now exists that by circular 709 the door has been shut upon a particular class of people —has brought among them a most uneasy state of mind, a hopeless feeling, and also a sensation of being dealt with most unjustly. I think it was an error and a pity that that phrase should appear in the circular, but it does not appear in the code. I think it will be most unfortunate if it did, and I beg my right hon. Friend to consider in what way he can best remove the impression which it has made upon the minds of the teacher.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member who has just sat down dealt with a particular aspect of Rule 709, into which I will not follow him. He also made a variety of demands for further expenditure on schools, and he went so far as to say that we have wasted millions because we did not spend a little more. That may be true, but when I hear that kind of argument I naturally feel some distrust. There are always people who think that by spending a little more you would save a great deal of money. Of course, this is a matter more for the Minister to consider than perhaps for a private Member, who necessarily has not got access to all the facts and to all the knowledge. Other parts of the Debate had features of very great interest to me. Two speeches delivered by hon. Members opposite interested me very much, because I began to see in them signs of revolt against bureaucracy upon the other side, which is a very interesting symptom. But I must honestly say it seemed to me to come a little late. I venture to remind those hon. Members that there are two instances of educational policy of this country in the last year or two which I think they might have joined with us in resisting. The Government two years ago, or less, proposed to spend £100,000 on the building of new schools. I never said that that was wrong in itself, but I do say, and I have always said, the method of that proceeding was absolutely indefensible. The hon. Member for Middleton said he was against some particular regulation—Chapter 10 of the Regulations
2372
of the training colleges, because it was an attempt by the Government to do something which was doubtfully legal. The expenditure of £100,000 on buildings was not only doubtfully legal, but it was undoubtedly illegal and was overriding an Act of Parliament, and it was an act done by the Executive of the Ministry of the day without being considered by the House of Commons. It was merely an administrative act. We all know the object was to punish the House of Lords, and, as constantly happens, the result was to punish the House of Commons. It removed from their consideration the whole of the policy of the £100,000, and it prevented proper regulations from being enacted.
There is another matter to which I should like very much to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Cricklade. He is most jealous of the system of legislation by regulation as applied to secondary schools. He said it is going too far, but I do not remember his raising any complaint against the training college regulation, which completely altered the very conditions in which they exist altogether. I do not remember any complaint from hon. Members opposite then. They were perfectly silent, and the hon. Member for Middleton expressed the hope that when the Unionist Government came into power they would not act in the same way. I venture to say that one of the first acts of the Unionist Government will be to reverse this portion of the training college and secondary schools regulations, and I hope that having done that they will do so in a manner that will put it out of the power of any future Government to reimpose them. A great deal has been said about Chapter 10 of the training colleges which the Government first put forward and have now withdrawn. I confess I do not quite understand the attitude of those Nonconformists who have spoken on this matter. They tell the House constantly, and, I am sure, perfectly sincerely, that they regard religious education as the most important part of the educational curriculum; they desire undenominational instruction in the schools. The Government put forward a proposal of training teachers and giving them undenominational instruction, and then they say it is an outrage upon religious liberty not to be tolerated for a moment.
May I draw the attention of hon. Members to the prefatory note in the regulations which, I think, must have escaped their attention. The Government said "They have reason to think that in some

2373
cases the local education authority, who have in the past made provisions for such training in colleges provided by them, have only been prevented from doing so by the difficulty of finding time for a subject forming no part of the officially recognised curriculum." That means that under pressure of other duties the training colleges have not in effect been training the teachers to give religious instruction, and every one knows that is the great danger of the present day. The moment you take these training colleges out of the hands of denominational bodies, and put them into the hands of the State, the immediate result is that not only the teachers but the students themselves are tempted in a way it is impossible to resist not to spend their time on subjects which will bring them no reward at all or advance their professional prospects, and they naturally devote the whole of their attention to those other portions of their training which are really those which will result in pounds, shillings, and pence. That is very serious indeed. I believe myself that unless some vital change is made in the system inaugurated by the note, you will find great masses of teachers sent abroad to the schools with no religious training at all, except what they first derived in their own early school days. Now from that point of view I personally deplore the withdrawal of the chapter in the training colleges regulations. The only thing which consoles me is this: If it had been enacted it would be one more State recognition of the position of Cowper-Temple, and I personally regard that as a thoroughly false theory and false system. I am glad there has been no other recognition of undenominationalism.
What I desire to press upon the attention of the Committee is the essential fallacy of the theory on which undenominationalism rests. The moment you try and teach undenominationalism compulsorily, or make it a definite subject of teaching, you find objection just as great and precisely of the same character as to the teaching of any denominational form of religion. You cannot draw distinction between undenominationalism and denominationalism, and what we have often said turns out to be true, that the moment you proceed in an undenominational direction you go step by step to the abyss of secularism and irreligion. That conclusion, I venture to think, is the necessary result of these rather curious little incidences in the attempt of the Government to save the religious character of undenomina-
2374
tionalism which has been defeated by their too zealous friends. I should like to say one thing, perhaps in some degree, at any rate, contradictory to what I have already stated, that is, that I am very glad to notice what the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. H. Yoxall) has referred to, that there is a decided diminution in the heat of religious temper in the past two months.
I think it is probably true that the passive resisters' movement, for instance, has greatly declined. We hear much less of it, and there are undoubtedly many signs that the religious uncertainty which unhappily prevailed in the last few years is diminishing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Talbot) pointed out there were still some cases of religious intolerance in Wales. That must be admitted. There is the case of the school in connection with which the local authority has persistently refused to perform its duty in maintaining the school recognised by the Education Department, and when ultimately compelled to pay up the arrears of maintenance they very characteristically docked the amount of what they paid by £100. That is thoroughly characteristic of a particular type of Welsh local authority. They also made a grave distinction between the Brymbo Council school and the Church of England School in the matter of salary. The boys' department in the council school had 97 pupils. The salary of the head teacher was £185, and the total salaries £350. In the Church of England school the boys' department had 116 pupils, nearly 20 more than the council school; yet the salary of the head teacher was only £100, £85 less than the salary of the head teacher in the council school, and the total salaries were £240, also just £85 less than the total salaries of the council school. The other departments are strictly analogous to that, but I trust that even in Wales some idea of religious toleration is gradually coming about.
There are other instances such, for instance, as that in Carnarvonshire, where the council has persistently declined to properly staff the denominational schools. That is curious commentary on what was said by one hon. Member who claimed that Welsh schools were better staffed than the English schools. I believe the claim to be wholly unfounded, and in that particular case it is entirely without foundation. There is one other case to which I should like to draw the attention of the

2375
Committee, and that is the case of the Wheelwright school. It is a curious instance, I think, of religious intolerance. It is a secondary school, which for years and years has been a church school, always carried on in accordance with the tenets of the Church of England. Suddenly the Yorkshire West Hiding Council said they would not give any aid to the school unless it modified its religious action. That is absolutely in the teeth of the legislation which has been passed on the subject. Nothing can be clearer than the Statute which says that no distinction is to be made in aiding schools based upon their religious complexion, yet this county council deliberately threatened to decline to support this school. They appealed to the Education Department, and instead of getting the assistance and advice which they were entitled to have, they were advised to submit, and rather than face the evitable litigation, they did so and abandoned their religious principles in order to get the necessary assistance from the county council. When the right hon. Gentleman's attention was called to this he said it was in process of settlement, and he did not wish to interfere. If you adopted that principle in regard to criminals you would never prosecute a criminal, because he would be excused on the ground that it would be a pity to rake the matter up. I am glad to note that there has been a diminution of religious disputes, and I am anxious that that state of things should continue. I attach nearly as much, in fact quite as much, importance to the settlement of the religious question as any hon. Member of this House. I have always wished for it and worked for it. Perhaps the hon. Member for the Cricklade Division (Mr. Massie) and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Sir G. White) will forgive me for saying that I think in this matter they are quite hopeless, and I am afraid we shall never agree, because their ideal and conception is quite different from my own in this matter. They would much rather have education free, as they put it, than education religious, and with that I disagree. I think the vital thing in all education is the religious element, and I am convinced that that is what you have got to aim at. I believe that the point of view put forward by my hon. Friends is getting less and less support in the country, and the ultimate issue will be between denominationalism and secular-
2376
ism. I have no doubt that when that does become the issue denominationalism will be the one which will be adopted. I am convinced it will be a denominal settlement, and I am anxious it should give the utmost justice and liberty to all schools of thought. It is only on denominational lines that this question can be settled. I earnestly hope that those who take any interest in this subject will shortly be convinced that that is the true view, and the only view on which peace can be maintained.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. C. P. Trevelyan): A good many questions have been raised to which, I think, some answer may very well be given at the present stage. I think my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education may congratulate himself upon the absence of any severe criticism of his administration. There has been throughout the discussion, and notably in the remarks of the hon. Member for the Oxford University (Sir W. Anson) and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Butcher), a recognition of my right hon. Friend's discretion and fairness in dealing with the questions which have come before his Department. The only question of importance on which the administration of the Board of Education has been challenged is the secondary school regulations. I do not think the Committee would wish me to discuss this point at length. Two years ago those regulations were fully discussed during the time of our predecessors, and although to the Noble Lord the Member for Chichester it may seem narrow-minded bigotry on our part to maintain these regulations, I am afraid that on this side of the House we feel that we are doing a service to the future secondary education of England if we do not encourage the establishment of a large dual system of education of that kind. In that connection I think the statement made by the Noble Lord who has just spoken is of very great interest. He has declared it to be the first duty of a Conservative Government when they come into office to reverse the secondary school regulations. I should like to ask the House to consider what that would imply. It would imply denominational education and teaching becoming compulsory in secondary schools, the abolition of the Conscience Clause, the application of tests for teachers and for the governors of schools. It would mean the dismissal in a very large number of schools, where these

2377
new regulations have been perfectly readily accepted even by denominational trustees, of the majority of popular representatives who now have their place on those bodies. That would be a very clear issue, and the Noble Lord may think he would be able to accomplish his object, but I very much doubt if the Debates on the Education estimates in the years following that change would be as peaceable or satisfactory as the Debates are under the present Government. In that connection I should like to point out that while this Government has held that it is not desirable there should be established in our secondary system anything of that kind, and not desiring to put denominational schools on the same basis as council schools, we took good care when these regulations came into force that denominational schools should be given a good chance of maintaining the full grant, and so far from being severe upon them, my right hon. Friend has frequently stretched a point to bring them upon the grant list. Most of the other criticisms made upon our administration has been of a detailed character. The Noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord E. Talbot) asked us what our view was with regard to the obligation of managers and local authorities to provide furniture in the case of new voluntary schools. Acting under legal advice we are bound to take a certain view on this point. We are advised that it is the duty of the managers to provide the furniture in case of a new school, and upon that advice we are bound to act. We have consistently since the year 1906 so advised managers and local authorities whenever the question has arisen, and we shall continue to do so in the future.
With regard to the particular case which the Noble Lord raised, I do not quite know what course he wishes us to take. I hear that the Liverpool local authority is thinking of disregarding our advice, and contemplates providing the furniture itself for a new denominational school. We have advised them that in our opinion they are acting contrary to the law. I do not know whether the Noble Lord wishes us to mandamus them for not taking our view, but what will happen in that case is that if they do not take our advice, and if it is the case that the law is what we think it is, they are running the risk of being surcharged, in which case no doubt the question will have to be settled in the courts. I do not think any charge can be brought against our administration in this case for not taking any further action. Another
2378
point was raised by the hon. Member for South Kerry (Mr. J. Boland), which I should have been glad to answer fully, but I see he is not present. In all the cases raised by the hon. Member he asserted that unfair pressure had been put upon Roman Catholic managers, and he said that in two cases we have refused to allow the schools to be recognised and come upon the grant list. In those two cases we have only been following out the action of our predecessors, and we have continually pointed out that we cannot take any further action until they themselves put in a claim and publish a notice asking for a new school, in which case we shall take the whole matter into consideration, and shall decide at our discretion. We are not in any way barring the claim of the managers, and whenever they take the necessary legal steps to ask for our decision we shall give it fairly. With regard to the case in the West Riding of Yorkshire, we have been accused of siding with the West Riding authority. The West Riding authority passed the resolution referred to in 1903, when the Noble Lord's friends were in office. They took no notice of that action in 1905, but they wrote to them objecting in 1905, so that the Noble Lord's own friends did not take the very-drastic action which he hinted we ought to take. I think my right hon. Friend showed a good deal more discretion in this case, because, instead of mandamussing the West Riding authority or taking some desperate course of that kind, he proceeded to see if he could not arrange with the managers to alter their trust deed, so that the matter might be arranged without a quarrel of that kind. Fortunately, the managers accepted this proposal, and, as a matter of fact, I believe that as a result of the change the actual teaching will not be deteriorated, and only a nominal change will occur.
And, it being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL (Lords.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. T. SUMMERBELL: I desire to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months." The Bill is of an omnibus character, and gives very-wide and far-reaching powers to the North-Eastern Railway Company. In the Memorandum which they have issued they state that the principal works embodied in the Bill are a railway at West Dunston, in the county of Durham, with staiths, shipping places, quays, wharves or works for the shipment of coal. It is in regard to the erection of these staiths for shipment at Dunstan, Hull, and other places that I desire to say a few words. I find that in Clause 46 they take powers to levy certain charges for shipments which may take place at these places. The clause says:—"The company may demand, receive, and take from the master or owner of any vessel using any staiths, shipping places, quays, wharves, or works made by them in connection with railway No. 3 by this Act authorised a sum not exceeding one halfpenny per ton registered and when and so soon as such staiths, shipping places, quays, wharves, or works shall have been brought into use the company may also demand, receive, and take a like sum per registered ton from the master or owner of any vessel using any staiths, shipping places, quays, wharves, or works made by the company in connection with railway No. 1 authorised by the North-Eastern Railway Act 1887 and railway No. 4, authorised by the North-Eastern Railway Act 1898. "The clause leaves such charges optional, and my contention is we ought not to give a railway company power to make these particular charges at their will, but that they ought to be somewhat compulsory. I want to take the clearest case I can in order to illustrate my argument. This company owns the Hartlepool Docks and also the Tyne Dock, and the borough I have the honour to represent (Sunderland) lies between those two places. I have tried to get to know from the Board of Trade and also from the company how the charges for coal are levied at these particular places for the use of staiths and other means of shipment, but up to the present I have not been able to get any information whatever to enable me to withhold the statement I now make, that in some cases at Tyne Dock they do not make the charges they are seeking the power to levy in this Bill. What applies to this company I think applies to all companies owning docks
  2380
  and shipping. Their accounts are made up in such a way that no one inside or outside this House can tell what is railway and what is shipping revenue, nor can we make sure that the revenue appertaining to railway purposes is used for railway purposes only, or that the revenue derived from the docks is used for dock purposes only. If any gentleman wanted to ship coal at the Tyne Dock he would find he would be able to do it at something like l¼d. per registered ton, against 2½d. per registered ton at Sunderland. This, I think hon. Members will readily concede, leads to unfair competition by railway companies owning docks against harbour authorities, who are bound to levy dues in order to get the necessary revenue to pay the expenses of their ports. I contend that before any additional powers of this character are conceded to railway companies the Board of Trade ought to be in a position to be able to indicate that there is going to be a method of keeping railway accounts which shall show the revenue and expenditure of their docks separately. I put a question a short time ago to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. H. J. Tennant), and I have received a reply saying that the revenue and expenditure from docks is not shown separately in railway companies' accounts as now rendered, but the Departmental Committee which has recently reported on railway companies' accounts and statistics recommend a form of account which will give this information. This form of account giving this information is, I submit, essential in the interests of fairness, and the House ought to withhold any additional powers from railway companies until such time as this recommendation has been put into operation. I contend that when this House conceded a monopoly to a company in the shape of a railway, it never intended that the railway, when owning docks, should take railway revenue and utilise it for their docks. If they ship coal at the Tyne Dock at l¼d. per registered ton less than at Sunderland, then revenue must be obtained from some other source in order to enable them to do so, and I am here to-night to appeal to the House in all sincerity that the time has arrived when it should say that a railway company must not use revenue derived from its railway in order to compete with its docks against the docks of harbour authorities, I appeal to the busi-

  2381
  ness spirit of the Members of the House, who are always very keen to protect the industries up and down the country, and especially anything which appertains toll municipality, against unfair competition. It is estimated that this unfair competition of this company, with regard to the Tyne Docks as against the River Wear, means something like £50,000 or £60,000 per annum in the shape of a gift to the coal owners, and no port in the world which is governed toy a harbour commission bound to levy dues can withstand competition of that character. We ought to be able to understand what amount this company receives in dock dues as distinct from railway dues, and if it is proved that they are taking railway revenue in order to help these privileged coal owners, then we have a right to come to this House and demand it shall stop that practice at once and so put an end to such unfair methods of competition. This Bill is of a far-reaching character, and the company have supplied me with a tabulated statement of their charges, but I would like to point out that that statement stops at the very point at which it ought to begin. There is nothing in this statement with regard to the shipping of coal, and that is the point of my principal contention. I hope that hon. Members who speak on behalf of the company will be able to prove that railway revenue has not been taken in order to bolster up these docks. But even if they do prove that, it does not interfere with my contention that the Board of Trade should step in and see that the company keep their accounts in a manner which can be understood by anyone who desires to see them. Another point I have to raise is in connection with their attitude towards their clerks. Pressure is being brought to bear upon the clerks to leave their association. It is alleged in the statement issued by the company that there are only about three hundred clerks affected by this. But my information is that no fewer than 3,000 are affected by this pressure being brought to bear upon them. This House has always been in favour of fair play in regard to men joining associations which they think fit and proper. These men have joined the Clerks' Association, and, in view of the decision of this House, particularly in regard to the Post Office Department, where the right of men to combine in trades unions has been acknowledged, it surely cannot be allowed that this company should bring pressure to bear upon 3,000
  2382
  out of 6,000 of their clerks to leave their association. Some of them have already been forced from their positions because of their refusal, and I think it is the duty of this House to bring pressure to bear upon the company to stop this practice. Inasmuch as they are now seeking increased powers and asking the House to grant them increased facilities in regard to the docks, I do suggest that this matter should be particularly forced upon their attention. It is necessary this company should not have the option to make charges, but that they should be compelled to impose them, and thus be prevented from unfairly competing with ports which are governed by Harbour Commissions, who necessarily have to make these charges.
  Mr. W. C. STEADMAN:I rise to second the Motion, and for this reason. Whether inside or outside the House of Commons, I am a trades unionist first and a politician afterwards, and when any company or individual asks this House for certain powers and seeks to get my support for their proposals I am not going to vote for them unless they are prepared to treat their employés in a proper manner. I do not wish to use hard words about the manager of this company. I have spoken to him, and I should say he is anything but a martinet. I may say at once I think that, in the interests of the company itself, the manager is adopting a very unwise policy, so far as the clerks employed by his company are concerned. I have given the best years of my life to the trades union movement. I was a secretary to my own trade society for 28 years. During the whole of that period I never dictated to the employer what men he should or should not employ. The policy I pursued was, if we disagreed with a man, it was better to leave it to the union to settle with him. That policy always worked very well. I was for 15 years a member of the London County Council. There we had an enormous staff of clerks, but I venture to assert that the London County Council, even with its present Moderate majority, would not dare to interfere with the right of combination of the chief clerk, with his £2,000 a year, down to the humblest road sweeper employed on the Thames Embankment. The reason I mention that is that the manager as an excuse says that a certain number of these clerks are confidential servants. We all realise that. It does not matter whether it is in the workshop, the factory, in the service of a railway

  2383
  company, or in the service of a municipality, we realise, as sensible men, that a certain number of men are confidential servants, but I say that the policy adopted by this particular company is one of persecution. I do not know any railway company, in England at least, adopting towards its employés the course which they adopt, and I guarantee that if the door was made open to-morrow the confidential servants would not join the union. Why do I say that? I am a mechanic myself, and I have seen men rise from the ranks of the journeymen and become foremen, and the moment a man rises to a position above his fellow men in that direction, what does he do? He does not become the friend of his fellow workmen; certainly not. The very fact of his being put in a position by his employer means that if there is going to be a fight he must be the servant of his employer, and not of his fellow men. Therefore the unions are better without that type of men, and I know a union today that, the moment one of their members is put in a position over his fellow men, they strike his name off the books. You might just as well say that because certain clerks are confidential clerks at Spring Gardens they should not be allowed to join a union, but there is no embargo placed upon them, and they do not join the union, and there the door is open. Here, however, every clerk accuses this company of persecution, which has been going on for years past, and I can prove this from the facts at my disposal. I say, moreover, that the representatives of the union and of these men, the railway clerks, have done every possible thing they could do to settle this in a satisfactory manner before bringing it to the floor of this House, and they failed. I wonder what employer would get up in this House, whatever his politics may be, and tell us that 50 per cent. of his workpeople are confidential men.
  Personally, I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade himself is not in his place this evening. I do so for this reason. I hope I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman, but I am firmly convinced that he is himself as staunch a supporter of the right of combination as I am or any of my colleagues on these benches, and I shall look to-night with interest to see what line of action the Board of Trade are going to take in reference to this particular Bill. I notice that they have supported the second reading of every Railway Bill that
  2384
  has been brought before the House, and I hope that hon. Members who have a mind of their own, if the President of the Board of Trade or his representative on the Government Front Bench to-night is going again to take that line of action, will not be guided in giving their vote by any statement made, but will vote in accordance with their own consciences. If they do that we shall carry the Amendment in opposition to this Bill. If they do not do that, but I do not use this as a threat, I know this that politicians of both the great politicial parties of this country when on the hustings—and we do not want a thing done outside when you have the opportunity of doing it here—I know that they are always ready to bid up for the vote of the working men, and one of the first things they stand up for is the right of combination and to join trade unions. Personally, I am proud of being a trade unionist, and I make no bones about it, and I am proud of the work trade unions have done. I say this company have been persecuting these men, and if I am misstating the facts I have no doubt the company has someone to champion their cause on the floor of this House if my facts are wrong. What have they done?
  In 1897 the company would not allow these men to join the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. "No," they said, "if you want a union have a union of your own; combine as service clerks." That union was formed, but in a few years, namely in 1907, when the men elected representatives upon the Superannuation Commitee of this company, they happened to elect four men who were members of this society, and from that time until the present moment the petty persecution by officials of the company has been going on against the men. I have a list here of men—I will not give their names, but the Board can be supplied with them if they require it. They are all men in the following towns: York, Hull, Gateshead, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Leeds, and other places, where the company hold a kind of inquisitorial inquiry. I may be told in answer to these charges that they do not refuse the right of combination, but here at the commencement of the twentieth century, when the right of combination amongst the working classes of this country was voted and settled between 30 and 40 years ago, this company is intimidating and holding inquisitorial inquiries, to ascertain whether or not so and so is in the union, and when they find out who is in the union what are they in the habit of doing? They give them

  2385
  the option of resigning their membership, and if they refuse to do it they are sent to some outlying little village, and told at the same time that there is no hope of promotion as far as they are concerned. What does that mean?
  I have heard discussions on economics and the unemployed movement, and have over and over again heard it stated from the Government Benches that if workmen are dissatisfied with their conditions they can leave. Anyone can say that. I am proud to say I was in the happy position,, when I was working at the bench, that if I did not like a job I soon turned it up and got another one. But I am a skilled workman. It is the policy of the capitalist to always have a large reserve of unemployed, because he knows he can always throw in the teeth of anyone who is dissatisfied that he can clear out. I have abused blacklegs as much as anyone, but, after all, as a working man and father of a family, what is it that makes blacklegs? It is the knowledge that the father has little children at home crying for bread, and you cannot wonder, however bad the conditions may be, and however small the wage, that they hang on to the job, because they know that if they turn it up it is starvation for those at home. I ask the House, therefore, if they are going, by their vote, to support the Bill of a company that is practically carrying out that policy. We have friends of our movement on both sides of the House. The Noble Lord who went to his last resting place yesterday, and I say God bless him! walked under the banner of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers in 1872, when they were fighting for the nine hours' movement in the North. Are all these things to pass by lightly, and because a powerful and rich company appeals to the House to pass a certain Bill, are we going to pass it in the manner which they describe? I hope not. There has been no more daring attempt to crush out the rights of combination among the workmen than this company has done, and therefore I appeal with confidence to hon. Members, whatever their politics, to give us their vote and teach this company a lesson.
  Mr. RENWICK: The House must be struck with the fact that neither of the two hon. Members who have spoken have attacked the principle of the Bill. I rise for the purpose of supporting the Motion for the second reading on the merits of the Bill. I am quite aware that there is a large question looming in the future, which will
  2386
  have to be settled one way or another, in regard to keeping separate accounts in regard to docks, shipping, and other undertakings, but this is not the occasion on which an important question of that description can be threshed out. I am also aware that there are grievances, some, no doubt, real, others probably more or less-imaginary, on the part of clerks in connection with railway companies, and the question whether or not they ought to join unions; but this is not a time when that question can be threshed out. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion referred to 3,000 clerks of this company who were affected in the way he called attention to. Then he acknowledged that it was alleged on the part of the railway company that there were only 300. That shows how impossible it is that we can deal with that important question to-night.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: I did not acknowledge it. I said the allegation was made, and I refuted it.
  Mr. RENWICK: That just shows the difference of opinion that there is in regard to this matter. But the question we have to consider to-night is whether we are, or are not, going to consent to the second reading. The hon. Member (Mr. Steadman) appealed to the House to throw out the Bill in the interest of the clerks, but the House has to consider if it throws out this Bill, if it is not going to inflict a still greater injustice upon a very much larger number of people. This is an omnibus Bill to carry out various works in Northumberland, Durham, and Yorkshire. The first point they ask is for extended time in which to carry out an important railway already authorised in the new Doncaster coal district. If the Bill is thrown out, that railway will be abandoned, and large numbers of the working classes will be without the work which they are so anxious to get. The next important point is to ask for powers to increase the coal shipping accommodation on the Tyne. The trading community on the Tyne, especially those connected with the shipping and coal trade, have been clamouring for some time for the railway company to increase facilities for coal shipping on the Tyne. Here is an opportunity offered by the railway company to give increased facilities and they propose to spend £212,000 for the purpose and it is very significant that when the Bill was introduced there was certain opposition on the part of chambers of

  2387
  commerce and other trading authorities in. regard to the charge for dues, but the railway company fairly met the trading community, with the result that that opposition was withdrawn. That fact of itself is significant. It shows that the trading community on the Tyne require the extra facilities which this Bill would afford. Pretty much the same thing can be said in the case of Hull, where the railway company are going to spend £112,000 in providing new jetties and quays. I believe I am correct in saying that there also is a general desire that these great works should be carried out. I cannot imagine how the delay of these great works is in any way going to help the clerks, whatever their grievances may be. Does anyone believe that outside questions of this description are to be compared with important issues raised by the Bill? I sincerely trust that the House will give the Bill a second reading. May I appeal to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Steadman) from another point of view? He tells us he is a trade unionist. He tells us also that certain clerks remain in the employ of the railway company because they are afraid they may lose their situations if they disobey the orders of the company. He said that it is a matter of life and death and bread and butter to these men. I would reply that it is a matter of life and death to a far greater number of men in the northern counties of England in the coming winter that they should have the employment which they will receive in carrying out these great works if this Bill is passed. It is for that reason that I appeal particularly to the Members of the Labour party to withdraw their opposition to the Bill. I cannot believe that they will succeed in throwing out the measure, but if they did, men who are anxious and ready for work which will be given by the Bill will in the coming winter, instead of being employed in honourable, productive industry, have to make appeals to the Government to give them doles to enable them to tide over the winter. No doubt there is a desire that the grievance of the clerks should be inquired into, but I maintain that it is not on the second reading of this Bill that the House can do anything effective in dealing with such questions. For these reasons I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the second reading.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I am perfectly sure that everyone in this House will share the view expressed by the hon. Member for
  2388
  Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Renwick) that it is necessarily with the greatest reluctance that this House interferes with the progress of works of public utility. It is only when the provocation, if I may use the word, is very serious that we feel on either side constrained to take that course. I have been a Member of this House for a great many years, and I have never thought it right on any previous occasion to take up the attitude I take now. With all respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. T. Summerbell), I do not think it is any business of this House to interfere with the natural flow of competition between railway companies and dock companies, and for my part I think the whole of this controversy must be decided upon the question of labour. I am bound to say that it seemed to me that the hon. Member who seconded the Motion for the rejection of this Bill placed the matter in the highest light possible when he said that, so far as the higher officers of the company are concerned, it would be highly improbable that those persons who are intimate with the general or secret policy of the company would become members of the union. It is not at all likely that persons in receipt of the large salaries paid by the railway company to the higher officers would find it conducive to their interests to become members of a trade union. But there are about 6,000 clerks in the employment of this company, and it is only an infinitesimal number of those clerks who would come within the category of confidential clerks, and we may quite well leave the interests of those gentlemen to the natural course of events in connection with the carrying on of a great concern like this: I do not know what action the Government intend to take. I believe the President of the Board of Trade, who is not here at present, is engaged on business of a public character where his services are required. I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend who represents the Board of Trade (Mr. H. J. Tennant) that he should not throw the weight of his opinion or that of the Government he represents to the coercing or restraining of the free and unfettered action of the House. The Board of Trade, through its present chief and its late chief, has rendered conspicuous service in the settling of labour disputes, and I think the chief officers of the North-Eastern Railway Company—managers and others—are competent and large-minded men. I think the representative of the Board of Trade might

  2389
  use his influence—and I believe it could be done successfully—to receive an assurance from those gentlemen that they will not insist upon this seeming, if not actual, interference with the clerks of the company and their freedom of action. One of the public Departments —namely, the Post Office—has given absolutely unfettered freedom of action to its employés, and I have been assured by the present Postmaster-General and his predecessor that this freedom of action has not in any way interfered with the discipline of that Department or the due discharge of the work. I speak as the Member for a Constituency served by the North-Eastern Railway system; I speak also as one who dislikes to use the machinery of this Bill as a sort of whip for interfering with the management of a railway company; but I think this action is an oppressive action, and under those circumstances I urge the Government to use all their influence to get some withdrawal from the railway company.
  Mr. WALTER HUDSON: I enter into this discussion somewhat reluctantly, and I differ with my colleague the hon. Member for the city of Newcastle (Mr. Renwick) to this extent, that really this is the time and this is the place to have matters out so far as those misunderstandings are concerned. As an old North-Eastern man for over a quarter of a century, I cannot understand the attitude of the railway company in this particular matter. They are acting not only unfairly, but they are acting very unwisely. Why there should be further restrictions on combination I am at a loss to understand. I remember, about 16 years ago we had this matter threshed out before the then general manager, and it was left in this way, that the clerks should have the full right to combination up to the position of confidential clerk. They did set up the right to say that they should not join the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, but that point was waived. Until quite recently, in 1907, it was quite understood that there would be no interference with this class of employé. I have, to the best of my ability, attempted to get the railway company to at least go back to their original position, but the last words of the railway company, up to yesterday, was as follows—this is a letter to the Clerks' Association, and it defines the decision of the railway company with regard to the right of combination of clerks. It reads:—
  "In reply to your letter of the 4th inst., the clerks I refer to are those in head offices or responsible positions,
  2390
  and generally those whose work is more or less of a confidential character as distinguished from a clerk whose work is largely routine."
  I submit, with all due deference, that if you leave that broad undefinable position to the various managers of departments, or to the chief station masters, you cannot expect anything else but trouble. The railway companies concerned are strict adherents to the principle of combination. There is not as strong a combination in the whole country as the railway association. The shareholders of all the railway companies have their organisation, and they are pushing it very hard, as many Members of this House know. Some of the chief officers of railway companies have their organisation; the legal profession have theirs, and at least two general managers belonged to that profession, the late one and the present; and I presume that because of their position they are not called upon to leave the Law Society. And when you consider the whole surrounding circumstances it seems totally unexplainable why this restriction should be placed upon any class of men. The telegraphists in the G.P.O. and all the post offices in the country, the most confidential men we have in the public service, have the full right of combination. No sensible man in a confidential position would divulge the secrets of his employer. If he did there would be the full opportunity of dealing with him, and he would deserve to be dealt with very severely. Viewing the whole circumstances of the case, I think it would be wise at least for the railway company to withdraw any restrictions on their past favourable character in this respect, because it must be admitted that they have had in the past the best character as employers. Why they should depart from it now rather needs explaining by the general manager and the directors. I have quite a number of cases, and of course I know the places quite well too, where men have been interfered with, and the questions of the various managers and station-masters in making these inquiries of the men as to whether they are members of the union, and the noting of all these particulars is a deliberate interference with the subject which nobody can defend. Sir George Gibb, the late general manager, made a statement some time ago to a commissioner from the United States who was inquiring into the railway and industrial question in this country. He said that he believed that the right of the employés to combine to form themselves into a union must be admitted and accepted. Why this change of policy now?

  2391
  We ask that this Bill should be rejected on account of the arbitrary interference of the company, and that only. So far as the general powers of the Bill are concerned, we have no objection when necessary safeguards to those who represent various districts are considered and introduced. I have, however, another point to raise here on behalf of the Labour representatives of Hull. I understand that they at least have been working at this for some time. There are two or three important points on which they have not been able to get any definite understanding, and whoever speaks on behalf of the company should, I think, let us know how matters stand at the present time. It is quite true that the Parliamentary Committee of the Hull Corporation have been asked to state what is the position so far as they understand it, but at present there is no definite safeguard or assurance in regard to the two or three points I desire to lay before the House. The first has reference to that portion of the Bill which deals with the purchase of a large tract of land, including a frontage a mile long on the main road, without stating the purpose for which it is to be acquired. The Labour members of the Hull Corporation and the Trades and Labour Council, with their supporters, are of opinion that if this tract of land is to be taken over by the railway company at least adequate safeguards should be given that the road should be made from Hessle Road in the city boundary to the Humber bank—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a very proper point to raise in Committee, but it is not suitable for discussion on the second reading that a particular road should be made in a particular spot. The House really cannot consider that on the second reading.
  Mr. HUDSON: I obey your ruling, Sir. I may say generally that matters have gone so far on this question that the trades and Labour Council consider that the interests involved have not yet been clearly defined, and that there should be an assurance given that they will be considered. On the question of the clerks and the right of combination, unless we receive an assurance that the full right of combination will be given to these men this House, on principle at least, should reject the Bill.
  Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Finsbury, who I know, from personal ex-
  2392
  perience, has the truest interests of trade unionism at heart, and I believe he is a Member who would make no allegations in a debate of this nature unless he was satisfied himself that he could sustain them. I desire to lay before the House the position of the railway company, regretting very much that there is no direct representative of the management of the company in this House, because, unavoidably to a certain extent, the proceedings-here to-night have been somewhat in the nature of arraigning the party thought to be guilty, and bringing charges against that party who is not in a position to cross-examine the witnesses or to defend himself. I will confine my remarks to the question of the Railway Clerks' Association, and the relation of that association to the railway company at the present moment. There is one difficulty in the way of the claim that the Railway Clerks' Association makes in the circular which has been sent, I believe, to every Member of this House. The Association makes a claim that any clerk, no matter what his duties may be, should be free to join the association. There I think we come at once to the point where there must be a somewhat sharp division of opinion amongst us, quite independently of party politics. The man who is a whole-hearted trade unionist, like the Member for Fins-bury and other hon. Members who have spoken this evening, will, of course, agree with that claim. Though a claim of that nature may be a claim that can be justified in a Department like the Post Office, or in a municipal body, I do not think that any company of business men in this country, so long as our industry exists on its present competitive and capitalist basis, could agree with that. The point of view that the business man or the company takes, though they may be as friendly to trade unions as men can be, is this: The individual or the company will give to every man in his or their employ the fullest liberty to join whatsoever union that man thinks right, with the one exception that has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Finsbury, that is the man who is performing confidential work. On this term "of confidential work" the crux of our trouble arises. The House will bear with me for two or three minutes while I examine what comes under that head. I should like to remind the House that if my information is correct, the Amalgamated Society—and I hope the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Richard Bell) will correct me if I am wrong, for my first-hand knowledge

  2393
  of that society is very small—do not claim that every person connected with the working of a railroad shall become a member of that organisation. They rather claim that their society is for what we may call "the worker." It is not always easy to define the "workers" as distinct from anyone in a position of authority under a railway company. If I am correctly informed it is with the full consent of the Amalgamated Society, together with the railway companies, that men in such a position as that of a stationmaster are freely allowed to withdraw from the Union on attaining to that post. Following that analogy, I think anyone familiar with railway work would say that amongst clerks occupying positions where the management would think that it was undesirable that they should be connected with the Union, such positions as these—confidential clerks in such an office as the general manager's, or the solicitor's, or the secretary's office; staff clerks who have to deal with wage questions, and have to prepare the rates of wages and information generally used before the committees of arbitration that have recently been formed under the Act passed 18 months ago; and clerks, wherever you get them, and there are not so many of these who are in what you may call positions of command.
  It is impossible on the floor of this House to say exactly what men come within these categories or to draw a clear line of demarcation. I think that, at any rate amongst moderate-minded men in this House, there would be general agreement that some such line of demarcation of that kind would be fair, both to the railway company and to the union. If we grant that, I cannot think that a settlement of any outstanding troubles need offer great difficulty. The management of the North-Eastern have assured me that the figure of 3,000 which is mentioned as the number of clerks who fall, as hon. Members below the Gangway would say, under their ban, is very greatly and enormously exaggerated. The management of the North-Eastern Railway acknowledge freely, on the matter being brought before them, that there probably has been some latitude taken by officials in interpreting the instruction of the general manager, and the North-Eastern will take into consideration all the cases brought before them and have them examined, and they are confident, if they are allowed by this House to go carefully into the question of
  2394
  this line of demarcation they will be able presently to decide clearly who in their opinion should remain outside the ranks of the union. They believe, and I see no reason why they should be wrong in their belief, that they can come to a satisfactory arrangement with the union itself. I would remind the House that while it is impossible for me, or probably for any Member in this House, to controvert on the spur of the moment all the statements and allegations that have been made against the company in the course of the evening's debate, I would remind them of one fact of general knowledge, that such much-maligned North-Eastern Railway Company was the one company in England that acknowledged the Amalgamated Society. It seems to me they are getting a poor reward for that to-night. I think I may leave the matter to the sense of fairness of Members on both sides of the House. Is it not likely that a railway company, with a tradition of that kind behind it, will be on its mettle in circumstances of this kind to do what at can to bring to a peaceful issue this somewhat disturbed state of feeling with these clerks, about which so much has been said in the House, and which I firmly believe has been to some extent exaggerated?
  Mr. GEORGE HARWOOD: I think the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Baldwin) must have convinced all Members that there is a very important principle involved in this matter, and one which comes very well within the cognisance of the House. The speech of the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Renwick), plausible as it was, is, I think, shown to be not quite an accurate statement of the case. He said that the House ought to confine itself to considering the merits of the Bill. The House never can consider the merits of Bills of this kind. It is not within the power of the House to know the details, or to enter into the consideration of them. When these Bills come up for second reading, all that the House can do is to see whether there is any general principle involved which may justify the House in taking a very strong step in the matter. The appeal ad misericordiam of the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick), when he said that the House, if they refuse the second reading, would delay the expenditure of money and a large amount of work, is also, I venture to say, beside the question. If there is a principle involved, we ought to take the risk

  2395
  of that. I suppose these different public works, or these different extensions are going to pay, or otherwise, I suppose, the railway company would not be asking for them. I feel quite sure, as a business man, that if they have the knowledge that they are going to pay, they will go on whatever the House does in this matter. The House must not be led away by any kind of false tenderness, either that they ought to consider the details or that they would be delaying work and causing unemployment.
  We have a right to ask ourselves whether there is in this matter any principle which the House ought to take into cognisance. That is the point before us, and I think the speech, I suppose, of the defender of the company (Mr. Baldwin), clearly proves that there is a most important principle involved, in which all Members are concerned. I have no interest in these railway matters, but I have a common interest in the proper administration of the public institution. It may be said that this is a matter between the railway company and its own employés, and that we have no right to intervene in a matter of the kind. That is not so. A railway company is a privileged company upon which this House and the nation has conferred peculiar rights and monopolies. In return this House has a right to expect that the business of the monopoly shall be conducted upon the principles which this House requires in all its institutions. We have the case of the Post Office, which is a very good object lesson as to what the House should do in this matter. I have been in the House a good many years, and what is the conclusion to which we have come? The conclusion is that all servants of any public company whatever should have perfect freedom to combine in any way they like—all servants. The hon. Member said that no capitalists would agree to that. I venture to say that that is not correct, and that in all the most skilled trades the capitalist acknowledged that as a fundamental principle. This railway company comes and pleads its past records. I do not dispute that, but we are dealing with the future, and not with the past. It may be possible that 15 years ago this railway company was in advance, and it may equally be possible that now this company is behind and wants pulling up, therefore we cannot appeal to the past to make a mistake for the future. We
  2396
  have recited this principle in all businesses. Properly understood this principle would be allowed, and I venture to tell the hon. Member that if railway companies were not privileged monopolies, they would have allowed this principle long ago. I take the case as a Member who receives these documents, and of what is stated by the company itself, and on its own statement of the case the company is guilty in so far that it is behind what this House has a right to require. "They feel strongly," they state on their opening paragraph. "That in this connection the distinction must be maintained between clerks occupying routine duties and clerks in positions of confidence and responsibility." I will not compliment the company upon its use of language seeming to imply that these routine duties are not positions of confidence and responsibility. The principle is, is the company to be allowed to classify in this way, and to say that servants of a certain rank may be allowed to combine, and above that, not allowed to do so? Will anyone who heard the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Baldwin), when he said that clerks in confidential positions should not be allowed, approve? We all can understand that in a few positions, half-a-dozen in the employment of the company, that might be true. Let it be left to the people themselves. Those who are appointed to such positions are not the kind of people who would join trade unions. I have had sent to me a list of persons who are alleged to have suffered, or to have been punished by the company for belonging to a trade union; but they are not persons in what we should call confidential positions. Knowing something of railway administration, I say that the number of clerks who would wisely abstain from joining a trade union is very small indeed; and if the action of the North Eastern Railway Company was confined to those, no objection whatever would be raised. I would leave the matter to the common-sense and fairness of practical men. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Baldwin) said that if the House passed this Bill, the company would fairly consider these cases and no doubt do justice. But that is not quite enough. We have to say that the House will not pass this Bill unless the company gives an assurance that it will recognise the universal principle of all proper businesses, and allow all its employés to join any combination they think fit.
  Mr. RICHARD BELL: Whatever may be the opinions of some people in regard to some of my views, no one will question my attitude towards trade unionism. I have spent upwards of 30 years in building up trade unions, and I hope, by their aid, I have done something to improve the lot of railway men in this country. If there is anything that would stir my blood, or make me take up a fighting attitude, it is the undue, or unfair, interference with the liberty of employés to join a trade union. In regard to the complaints put forward by the Railway Clerks' Association, I felt that it was my duty, as one Member of this House, to do what I could to get that embargo, if it existed, removed. There are very few Members, if any, who represent as many railway clerks as I do, inasmuch as the headquarters of the Midland Railway Company, where between 2,500 and 3,000 clerks are employed, are situated in my Constituency. I have received complaints from the local branch of the Railway Clerks' Association, and if the charges made against the North - Eastern Railway Company were correct, I should think that this House was the very place to bring pressure upon that or any company which interfered to that extent with the liberty of its employés; and that caused me to (make some inquiries into the matter. It has been a little easier for me, perhaps, to approach the heads of this railway than it would have been to approach the heads of many others, since for the last 12 or 14 years negotiations on all matters affecting the interests of the staff have been carried on direct between the heads of the North-Eastern Railway Company and the head office of my own organisation. Consequently, I have frequently met the general manager and other heads of departments of that railway, and nothing surprised me more than the allegations made against the general manager. I felt that there was something wrong somewhere. Having occasion to see the general manager yesterday on another matter, I took the opportunity of raising this question, and he went into the whole subject as far as he knew it. I impressed upon him the necessity of something being done in the matter in order to clear it up, as no trade unionist could support a Bill promoted by any employer who took such action as was alleged against this company. The general manager told me practically what the hon. Member for Wor-
  2398
  cester (Mr. Baldwin) has just put before the House. I was not quite satisfied, and said that I ought to have something more definite in writing in order that the whole facts might be placed before the House, so that it might form its own judgment. Since I came to the House this afternoon I have received from the general manager a statement of the position so far as he is concerned, putting rather a different complexion upon the statement we have heard from the other side. Of course, I do not dispute the veracity of the Clerks' Association in putting their case forward; I am sure they have done so in good faith. The general manager has sent me a copy of the whole correspondence between himself and the secretary of the Railway Clerks' Association from September, 1907, to July 13th of this year. There is also included a list of names of men who, it is said, have been compelled to resign their membership of the Railway Clerks' Association or have been intimidated to such an extent that they were prevented from joining. The gist of the general manager's communication is that he never intended that any such number as 3,000 of the North - Eastern Railway Company's clerks should be debarred from joining the Railway Clerks' Association, and that so far as this list of names was concerned, he would make inquiries into the cases referred to. I had better read an extract from his letter. "I have already," he says, "decided to make full inquiries, and to take any necessary steps to ensure that the lines laid down in the instruction are not exceeded." The instruction he referred to is that given to the heads of departments. "And" (he continues) "that there is no persecution of clerks for joining the association." You may rest assured that this will be done. I know the general manager of the North-Eastern Railway Company, and have confidence in him to know that if he says he will do a thing he will do it. I have had dealings with him for years now, and have every confidence in him. But I think it right to-hold the general manager to what he has stated here. I do not think there will be very much difficulty in showing that he refers to the points raised by the Railway Clerks' Association; that the whole of the names, irrespective of what the position of the men may be, shall be allowed to join the Railway Clerks' Association. The second point is a matter of detail. The general manager says:—
  "I am quite prepared to re-consider the contention contained in my letter of the 8th October, 1907, with a view to seeing whether a more precise definition can be

  2399
  adopted. It is certainly not my intention that 3,000 of my clerks, or anything like it, should be debarred from joining the association."
  He also states in another paragraph that his instruction had been exceeded by some of the departments, and that is what he is going to inquire into. About five minutes to eight to-night I received Another communication. I am as strong as anyone else on the points in favour of the men, and the North-Eastern Railway Company will find me up against them if they do not do the right thing; but I think that the House ought to have the whole of the facts. The management have made or are making inquiries into the charges of these men, who, it is alleged, have been interfered with. I have not been able to examine this later communication since I received it, but in it Mr. Butterworth encloses a copy of a telegram that he received from Mr. Watson, the superintendent of the line, who was making inquiries into the charges. In the case of one of the men who was alleged to have been compelled to relinquish his secretaryship or membership of the union on the occason of his being promoted, or to relinquish the promotion, until I have been able to check the matter myself, I am not going to say' that this contradicts what the hon. Gentleman said. The telegram states that this is a man's first knowledge of the matter, and of the fact that his name is being used, and he objects to it. The telegram further states that the Divisional Goods Agent at Newcastle also denies ever threatening the man, whom, it was alleged, was threatened that he should be either dismissed or reduced if he continued his trade union membership. I am going, I say, to inquire fully as to whether or not this is quite correct, but I think anybody who puts in writing a statement of this kind which is not correct is not going to retain the confidence of myself or anyone else. However, the fact remains that on the railway of which the hon. Member for Worcester is a director, and on the railway whose Bill we are considering here to-night, there is a kind of regulation that when a man is promoted they have to relinquish their connection with our organisation. Of course, we do not take in clerks to our organisation. We deal with the traffic men, with those engaged in the regulation of the traffic, and the locomotive department men, and when these axe promoted to inspectorships or to supervising positions they have to relinquish their membership. This has been the prac-
  2400
  tice for a number of years, and I believe other companies are doing it also. I have never heard any of our men complain about it, and I do not know that anyone complains very much about it except the individual who has paid his subscriptions and expects benefits from his trade union which ha has to forego when he gets promotion. The same thing applies perhaps to a certain degree with regard to the confidential clerk. I do know this, that very often I do get complaints, and did long before this order came into operation that men were allowed to retain their membership of our society after they had obtained promotion. But the question for the moment is whether there would be such a difference after all in the case of these confidential clerks, and what proportion of the 6,000 men would really join the union even if they were allowed to do so. For the moment I think the general manager has opened the way in order that negotiations may be carried on with the secretary of the Clerks' Association.
  Mr. W. C. STEADMAN: Why did he not say that to the officials of the men?
  Mr. BELL: I am stating here what I have endeavoured to do as representing a constituency of clerks, and what I have had told to me and written to me I will rightly use here. An opportunity has opened here, and I have taken it; and if I were the secretary of the Clerks' Association I should certainly take advantage of it, and be here early in order to try to negotiate on these lines. I demur considerably to the Junior Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick) when he said that this is not the place to discuss matters of this kind. I maintain it is. We ought to take advantage of the opportunity, and, having placed these facts before the House, the question now is as to whether or not the Railway Clerks' Association will seek to have the embargo removed.
  The SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): We all recognise the enormous work that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Steadman) has done on behalf of trade unionism. It has been said that this Bill contains no material dealing with this question of joining or retaining membership of the Clerks' Association. That is so; but I quite realise that the railway clerks' question is the important question which has been raised in this Debate this evening. I am glad the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bell) stated that clerks when they arrived at the

  2401
  positions of superiority or when they had come to be overseers and so on, naturally left the union, and that if they did not go out of their own accord the union officials generally requested them to resign—that is to say, when men who get promoted do not wish any longer to belong to the union, nor do the union wish to retain them when they have reached these positions of re-sponsibility in the companies. The words of the letter of the general manager of the company have already been read to the House. Perhaps I may be permitted to summarise them once more. The general manager said that he thought that men in prominent positions of responsibility ought not to be allowed to remain members of the Railway Clerks' Association, and clerks in head offices in responsible positions, such as those who occupy positions of a more or less confidential character as distinguished from clerks whose work is largely routine. I do not say that is language of a very definite character in the use of the words, and I think the definition is too wide, and ought to be restricted. I also think it has been interpreted in a manner which was never intended by the general manager. I think too zealous officials have enforced it strictly.
  I do not think that the railway companies are infallible, and I think that in the past many blunders have occurred. I was glad the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Walter Hudson) stated that in this question of unions and trades unions the North-Eastern Railway Company had a good record—in fact, the best record of any of the railway companies in this country. I do not think that is denied and indeed it is corroborated by the statement of the hon. Member for Derby. It is common ground. I too have had occasion to have had an interview with the manager of the North-Eastern Company, and with this result. First of all, as regards the past, while the general manager would not admit that there had been anything in the nature of persecution, he promised to go carefully into all cases that might be brought to his notice, and if he found that any wrong had been done he promises to put it right. The hon. Member for Derby has told us that when the manager of the North-Eastern promises he always performs. So that when he says he will see that if wrong has been done it will be put right the House may rest assured he will do so. He further stated that the company will see that in future no obstacle is placed in the way of the
  2402
  men joining the association—that is, those men who are properly eligible. I think that is a very important point conceded by the general manager. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury and the hon. Member for Sunderland on having brought so much pressure to bear upon those railway companies that they have practically achieved all they desire. [Cries of "No, no."] I venture humbly and respectfully to say they have achieved a very large measure of what they desire. We have been assured by the general manager of the North-Eastern that no obstacle will be placed in the way of men joining the union if they are properly eligible to join. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does that mean?"] It means precisely the class of case which the hon. Member for Derby quoted—that is, men are eligible who are not in positions of responsibility, such as confidential clerks in the offices. I think that is, roughly speaking, a true definition of the class of clerks and others who ought not to be members of the union, or whom the union itself would not welcome. I do not really think that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Richards) and I would have any difficulty, if we sat down, to define clerks who ought to be members of the union and those who ought not.
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDS: We take all in.
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, but he would not welcome part of the management or overseers. There are employés who, although not actually managers, are so nearly managers as to be part of the executive. He would not like them to be members of his union. He would not expect them to join.
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDS: We take them all in.
  Mr. TENNANT: Well, I am surprised the hon. Member for Derby said that as soon as members of his union become overseers and that like they ceased to be members. I have stated frankly and freely what my position is in regard to this matter. I think the company have blundered in the past, but I think we have got from them very considerable concessions. [Cries of "No, no."] I think we have got concessions from them as to their conduct in the future. Are we to decline to give a railway to a particular district because of certain blunders in the past? I am bound to say that would be rather hard on the district and I think that the passing

  2403
  of this Bill would be an advantage to the district. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I decline, because of blunders that have been made in the past, to penalise the company and the district in this manner.
  Mr. GEORGE WARDLE: Before this Debate commenced, hearing that certain negotiations were going to take place between the railway company and the Board of Trade and certain Members of the House, I was hoping that we might be in a position to have allowed this Bill to go through its second reading without a Division, but I am bound to say the more the Debate has gone on the more unsatisfactory the position has become. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby—and I think he will recognise we differ from him in opinion in regard to this matter with very much pain—said that the Society of Railway Servants do not take in clerks as members of the Amalgamated Society now. I myself was a railway clerk when I joined the Amalgamated Society, and no objection was raised to my being a member of that society by the Midland Railway Company, which employed me at the time. Why has this discussion been brought about to-day? The North-Eastern Railway Company have a good record, but that does not alter the facts as we have had them put before us to-day. We should never have opposed this Bill but for the action which the company themselves took in the first instance. I may point out that all the facts have not yet been stated. What is the real position? The company have promised to-night to go into particular cases which have been referred to as being persecuted or victimised. The names of those men were supplied to the company some months ago, and they had an opportunity before coming to this House of putting the whole matter right. Therefore, so far as negotiations with this union are concerned, they have had every opportunity. Last October or November, in an interview with the general manager of the North-Eastern Railway Company, he was asked to meet the secretary of the Railway Clerks' Association, and he agreed to do so. It is because of the deadlock which has arisen in regard to these negotiations that we have been compelled to come to this House and ask hon. Members to register a decision upon the action of the company. Why
  2404
  have they not put this matter right before? Why do they come here at the eleventh' hour, writing letters to certain hon. Members of this House and negotiating with the Board of Trade, when they have had every opportunity of putting the matter right before? With regard to the question of these confidential clerks, there are very few of them, and it is simply nonsense to put any embargo upon them. Every railway clerk ought to have the opportunity to join the union if he likes. The certainty is that in the very few cases where there are confidential clerks of the nature spoken of they of their own free will will not join the union, and therefore the embargo will be natural and not artificial. Certain grades of railway clerks have been spoken of, and one in particular has been mentioned recently. In my opinion it is a reflection upon the honour of these railway clerks to suggest that they cannot occupy positions of confidence with the company without giving away secrets. If they did give away secrets there is not a single member of the Railway Clerks' Association or the Labour party who would say that the company were to blame if they dismissed a clerk guilty of such a breach of faith. Members of the railway staff who have to compile statements, wages, and statistics for arbitration and conciliation purposes, and various things of that kind, have been referred to in the Debate. Will it be believed that members of the Railway Clerks' Association have been compiling those statistics all along, and have never once betrayed the confidence reposed in them or given away anything to the men detrimental to the company? What excuse can be possibly offered by the North-Eastern Railway Company for the subterfuge and the sophistry that to them, and them alone, shall be given the right to decide who shall and who shall not be members of the union? In face of the very unsatisfactory assurances we have had both from the Board of Trade and from the representatives of the North-Eastern Railway Company, on behalf of the Labour party, we feel called upon to divide against the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. H. J. WILSON (Yorks W.R., Holm-firth): The hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade on this occasion seems to have great confidence in the promises that have been made by the company.
  Mr. TENNANT: I have confidence that that they will be carried out.
  Mr. H. J. WILSON: I have received from the company a copy of the correspondence referred to, and I am bound to say that I think it is extremely unsatisfactory. The secretary of the Railway Clerks' Association expressed, in his last letter, his views, and that letter is a complete answer to the whole thing. He expressed a desire to see the general manager of this company, and stated that he should be in Yorkshire and was desirous of an interview The letter from the manager of the company refused that interview. That is a year and a half ago. If that was the attitude of this company only a year and a half ago, why are they making all these concessions at this moment? Whatever may be the result of the Division I do not know, but it is perfectly clear that something has caused the general manager of this company to take up a totally different attitude to that which he has hitherto adopted.
  Mr. J. R. SEDDON: I had something to do with the organisation of clerks in general commerce, and I rise to protest against any particular company having the right to bring into operation this vicious principle of deciding who should belong to a trade union and who should not. As I listened to this Debate I was forcibly reminded of a well-known couplet:—
  "The Devil was sick, the Devil a monk would be;
  The Devil was well, the Devil a monk was he."
  I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Bell) made himself the responsible channel for this message from this sick denizen of the lower regions so far as the railway world is concerned. What is the complaint we are making against the railway company? They say that they assume to themselves the right of deciding who shall be their confidential and responsible servants. I make bold to say that a carter put in charge of a valuable animal worth £50 is a responsible servant. By the very phrasing of their own letter they would issue their objection even to carters belonging to a trade union. In all commercial transactions and in all walks of life in which men sell their ability, confidential work has got a price. Evidently the company want to get their confidential servants at a minimum cost. If they want confidential servants, and are prepared to pay for them, they will get them without penalising 3,000 clerks for joining their trade union. I want to make my protest because of the possible general application of this principle. Where is it going
  2406
  to stop? I know very well that in regard to those I spend my time in organising the same argument is used in the retail trade of the country. They say they will not allow those in the counting-house or those dealing with their correspondence to join the Shop Assistants' Union, because, forsooth, they may in the immediate future have some trouble with the union. I am prepared to make this bargain. If they are willing to make it a condition that their solicitors shall leave the Amalgamated Union of Lawyers—they do not call it that, but it is that in essence and fact-because he may get into conversation with other lawyers who may be opposed to them in some case—we are prepared to consider the matter. The Bar is an honourable profession, I admit, but so are other occupations in which men earn their living honourably and honestly, and surely, if the embargo is going to be placed on any, it should be placed on all. I protest on the ground of individual liberty. The House, in the early part of the first Session in 1906, spent a good deal of its time in giving to the workers of this country the right of combination. Are we going on a side issue to allow a wealthy corporation to penalise some of their servants, and put in the hands of some of their subordinates one of the cruellest weapons possible—that of making the bread and butter of individuals dependent upon kowtowing to them or their under bosses. I am convinced every Member, who believes in freedom of contract and liberty of the subject, will stand by the Clerks' Union, and disregard the statement of the junior Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick), that these works, which are going to relieve the unemployment problem, will sink into abeyance if the company does not get this Bill. The company are not out for the good of their health; they want to extend their line, and to increase their dividends in the interests of themselves and their shareholders. It is dangerous to give to any company the right to say whether their employees shall combine to defend themselves or not. It would be quite open, if this were conceded, for other employers to act upon the same principle, and thus prevent a large body of workers exercising their undoubted rights as British citizens of combining to protect themselves against the tyranny of their employers.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: This Bill contains proposals for the construction of a line

  2407
  connecting the trunk system of the North-Eastern Railway with the coalfields in the Doncaster district now being developed, and from which coal will very soon be obtained. When we are told that the railway is intended to be such a boon to the public, we may take it for granted that it is also intended to be a boon to those who are exploiting that part of the country. We are entitled to consider whether those who are promoting this Bill are taking due care of the men who will be employed in constructing the works. About half a million sterling is to be expended on these works, and we may be sure that in certain localities where engineering works have to be performed men will be crowded as rapidly and as thickly as possible. Last Session, in a Debate raised by the hon. Member for Burnley, representatives of the Government gave a guarantee that in connection with great public works in the future clauses would be attached to the Bill ensuring that decent and proper provision should be made for the men to be employed on them. But there is not a 3ingle syllable in this Bill which provides this in the case of works on which thousands of men will be employed. I rise to protest against that omission, and I say that, even if the clerks had no grievance, the navvies are justified in asking for the delay of the Bill, seeing that it absolutely ignores the claims of the men who will be employed on this important undertaking. Take the district where the works and the jetties are going to be made on the Humber. There are two great docks being constructed now, one at Immingham, opposite to Hull, and the other on the other side of the river. As a matter of fact the great dock which is being constructed at Immingham is close to the site of some of the work to be done under this Bill, but not a single house has been provided by the contractors or by the dock company. Some private house jobber has dabbed down a few tin hutches on some piece of ground, without any kind of drainage preparation or sanitation. Some two or three thousand men and their families are being housed in these miserable hutches, which are a disgrace to this country, and unless someone speaks in this House, this sort of thing is going on for ever.
  In 1846 a Committee was appointed to inquire into the admitted grievance of the men in these cases, and that Committee made very drastic recommendations, which, if they had ever been adopted by the
  2408
  Board of Trade, which has control of these works, would have mitigated and removed the whole of the grievance; but from 1846 up to now not a single thing has ever been done by the Department which has the control of these things. Although last Session I was given to understand that there would be a conference between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the Local Government Board, and that a sort of model clause would be insisted upon in regard to these great works of public utility, where men have to be aggregated together rapidly for works of this description, nothing has been done; and when one comes to consider that we have the evil already in the locality of Immingham Dock, if this Bill is passed through this House without some provision for decent accommodation for the men on these works, we are only going to add to the grievance which already exists. For that reason I think it is our duty on this side of the House and of Labour Members generally, until the Government do something to press this question—until the Government do something, these great corporations have no intention whatever of making decent provision for the men, although it is to their interest to get these men in the locality to build the line. Surely the company that is engineering this business ought to consider the men's interest who are going to do the work to make their capital profitable, and I should have liked some hint from the representative of the Board of Trade on the subject.
  Half a million of money is to be spent on public works, and thousands of men are to be collected in a locality, and there is not a word in the measure as to how they are to be treated, and whether they are to have decent house accommodation or not. My protest is the more relevant, because I believe the Board of Trade last Session in regard to a Bill dealing with water works in the county of Glamorgan, insisted upon some kind of model clause with regard to the housing of the men on the works. If the records of the Committees are hunted up, it will be seen that the Board of Trade insisted upon a clause being inserted in the Bill making it obligatory upon the contractors or company to provide decent accommodation. Why has it been forgotten in this measure? I should at least like some explanation, and unless I get some decent guarantee that some provision is being made for the men I represent in this House, as well as my

  2409
  own Constituency, I am going to vote not only against this Bill, but against any other Bill which is presented to this House.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: My general position towards railway companies is well known to the House, and has never been concealed. I hold no brief for the North-Eastern Railway, but one or two statements have been made which leave an impression which ought to be removed, so far as it can, by such information as has reached me in the last few minutes. The hon. Member (Mr. H. J. Wilson) said, on the face of the correspondence, there appeared a blank refusal on the part of the general manager to meet the secretary of the Clerks' Association. A request was made for an interview, to which the general manager replies by saying:—
  "I do not think there is any object in your coming to see me here, at any rate, for the present."
  The hon. Gentleman did not read these words to the House. He ought to have told the House that the request was made in connection with a desire to explain the objects of the association, and to that the general manager replies by saying he does not think there is any occasion at present for an interview, because the objects of the association had already been made clear to him by his having received a copy of the association's official organ and another publication which he had taken the opportunity of perusing. Information has reached me that within six months of that period an interview took place with the secretary of the association, which was before any threat had been made to stop the present Bill, and therefore it was a voluntary act, and was practically satisfaction for the request for an interview.
  Another statement has been made that that list of alleged cases of intimidation which one would say reached Members of the House very late in the day, was sent to the general manager of the railway company a very long time ago. If the information which has reached me on that point is correct, the general manager himself only received it three days ago. I think it is fair that the House should know that these two statements which have been made are capable of being controverted on the best possible information.
  Mr. F. MADDISON: The impression left on my mind from the Debate is this. There can be no doubt that, with all the good reputation of the North-Eastern, they have deviated from their usual fairness, and that these clerks have a real and
  2410
  a serious grievance. I have always voted against the Second Reading of a private Bill with a good deal of hesitation, because Committee is the proper place to thresh details out, but this is more than a detail. If ever there could be a great question of public policy it is the freedom of combination of workers. First of all it is the protection and preservation of individual liberty, but it is something more than that. It is the most sound and orderly method of securing law and order. There is everything in combination which goes to make up a strong state, and therefore the House of Commons could not discuss a more serious question than this. I want to be perfectly fair. We might as well divest our minds of cant in this as well as in other matters. It is a fact that some of the staunchest unionists I know—and I think my hon. Friends will agree with me in this—think that people in authority are relieved from the necessity of belonging to a union, even where the organisation is very strong. The professions of the company have not been materialised, but they profess to give full right of combination to their clerks, with the exception of confidential clerks, and certain other clerks who are named. It seems to me they ought to be very near a settlement. Unfortunately, on the Motion for second reading, we cannot go into elaborate details. These are matters for the Committee stage. Therefore, if it is in order, I should like to move the adjournment of the Debate. I do so with one object, and that is to give the general manager and the directors of the North-Eastern Railway Company, for whom I have a good deal of respect, an opportunity of stating their intentions. I share the view of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bell) in regard to the manager of the North-Eastern Railway. For my part, I am prepared to take his word for anything he says. We want to know what he has said, and in what way he said it. We have not had that stated to-night. I move the adjournment of the Debate for the purpose of giving the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity of consulting with the manager and other parties interested, so that on the next occasion, instead of having very wide definitions, it may be clearly stated what the company really mean. Hon. Members who take an interest in the question of unemployment must not treat delays in such matters as light or unimportant. They are very-serious.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N): I beg to second the Motion.
  Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: I think the suggestion made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Maddison) is a very wise one. On both sides of the House there is a desire that this measure, which embodies very important proposals, should not be rejected on the Motion for second reading. I believe that when the President of the Board of Trade has an opportunity of conferring with the general manager of the railway on this question, such an arrangement can be made as will satisfy hon. Members below the Gangway and lead to a settlement of the matter, so that the Bill may go through this Session.
  Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next (19th July.)

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ENDOWMENTS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords.] (By Order.)
Order for Consideration read.
Mr. CHARLES PRICEhad given notice of his intention to move as an Amendment, "That the Bill be considered upon this day three months."
In this matter there is a new Board to be constituted, consisting of members of the Merchant Endowment Company and members of the town council. The Board deals with education both primary and secondary, and, in addition, receives grants from the public funds for carrying out of a somewhat similar nature from the school board. The question, therefore, arises why the Merchant Endowment Company did not provide in this Bill for some representative of the school board. One would have thought naturally that this was a body from which it would have co-opted members, and because they have failed to recognise the claim of the school board the school board asked me to oppose this Bill. I entirely approve of this, particularly as there is every probability of the Merchant Company getting portion of the money that has been allocated on the Scottish Education Bill, the effect of which we claim would be to reduce the amount allocated to the school board. I regret, therefore, that this company should not recognise the claim of the school board, but as a Committee of this House was appointed to inquire into the case, and re-
2412
ported that the school board had no locus standi, and as the school board failed to carry their opposition in the House of Lords when the Bill was before them, it was made more difficult for me to carry out their wishes in opposing the Bill in this House, and therefore, while exceedingly sorry in the interests of education in Edinburgh, and in the interests of peace and economy that the Merchant Endowment Company have not recognised the school board, yet at this stage I think it better to withdraw the Motion which stands in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. CALDWELL (Deputy-Chairman)moved, "That the Bill be read the third time."
Motion agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed, without amendment.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1909–10.

    BOARD OF EDUCATION.
    (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
    Postponed proceeding resumed on consideration of Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,648,792, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1910, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including grants for the building of New Public Elementary Schools and Sundry Grants in Aid":
    Which Question was "That a sum, not exceeding £6,648,692, be granted for the said service."—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
    Sir FRANCIS CHANNING: I would like to support strongly what fell from the hon. Member for Middleton (Mr. Adkins) as to the further provision of funds with regard to the admirable purposes of the Circular 709. Everyone who is aware of the formidable appearance of any additional charges coming from county rates will be aware that the further provision of staff and educational equipment which are absolutely necessary for the education of the country cannot be contemplated by the

    2413
    local authorities unless the Board of Education obtains further funds from the Treasury in this respect.
    The points which I wish to bring before the President of the Board of Education are pretty much these: As he is well aware I take a special interest in the question of the further development of agricultural education. There have been organised conferences on that subject, and a great deputation from the Chambers of Agriculture waited upon the right hon. Gentleman and the President of the Board of Agriculture. The deputation were quite warm in their recognition of the power and ability of the Board of Education and of the Board of Agriculture to help them, and I should like to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Board of Education has seen its way to arrive at any working agreement with the Board of Agriculture which might bring the combined force of these two Departments to bear upon the various problems which have to be solved in connection with further provision for the higher development of agricultural education. We all wish to see throughout the country that a working agreement has been arrived at between the two Departments which will facilitate that object. My hon. and learned Friend for the Swansea District very naturally spoke of the increased grant for the colleges of Wales which appears on the Estimates. I do not think we need be very much surprised that the Welsh should be enthusiastic about education with their strong representation at the Treasury. But while an additional grant of £15,000 has been given for the colleges of Wales, no similar and proportionate grant has been made in respect of the great colleges which deal with scientific and other education in England. I dwell upon that specially, because the point interests me very largely in regard to agricultural education in respect of the provision for the higher rural secondary schools of what one may call the highest scientific instruction of a practical agricultural type. That is a want which we wish to see supplied. We who have gone into the practical side of this question know perfectly well that we are met with the grave difficulty that the rural teachers of the type of the secondary teachers necessary in order to ensure real success for these colleges do not exist, and that the machinery for providing this class of teacher is altogether inadequate. In the first place, the colleges do very little work
    2414
    towards the provision of this type of teacher. They have not the funds; their funds and functions are devoted in other directions. In the second place, the training colleges are not adequately supplied with funds for the equipment of this class of teachers, and I think, therefore, we have some right to say that in view of this great want in connection with the higher class of secondary colleges we ought to have further provisions in that direction. Those of us who have studied the Reports of the Board of Education know perfectly well that there is a very considerable and successful effort being made for the provision of secondary school teachers in the direction I have indicated.
    The deficiency is in regard to secondary school teachers. We ought to have an increased grant both to the colleges and the training colleges, with a view to fill this want. I rather share the view that has been expressed by several hon. Members and right hon. Members on the opposite side, that Chapter 10 of the regulations was not an unwise venture of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education. I think it was one of those steps in which he has shown the disposition to cultivate that line of peaceful persuasion, and the provision of a means of consolation which would gradually work away religious animosity, which has chiefly paralysed education. I welcome this step because it seems to me to be operating in that direction, though I have always recognised the various arguments in the opposite sense which have been laid before Committee. I do wish to say that many of us on this side, as well as on the opposite side, recognise the generous and sympathetic spirit with which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman) has met so many of these educational problems. I think his whole conduct on this particular aspect of the education question reflects the highest honour on his Department and on himself.
    Captain MORRISON-BELL: I listened very carefully to the Debate the whole of this afternoon, and it strikes me very forcibly that until this House and the: Committee takes far more seriously the, position of the ratepayer, the ratepayers will have considerable cause to complain. I refer to the Circular 709 which is now embodied in the Code. I should like to make it quite plain. I am not in the least finding fault with the fundamental idea of the circular. I think it is only right and proper that the clauses should be as

    2415
    small as possible, and that the teachers employed in teaching the children should be fully qualified to do so. What I do complain of is this: that if we in this House are going to allow this increase in the rates to take place with such very small objection as has been raised this afternoon, it will be a hint to the Treasury to make it still more difficult for those who are anxious to get money for the Treasury to obtain those grants. Not only do we see that in the question of education but also in other Bills brought before this House. As soon as the Treasury refuses to finance those Bills what happens? It is always the same story. Those who are in charge of the Bill, whatever it may be, immediately lump it on to the unfortunate ratepayers. That will go on until we in this House realise where we are drifting. It may be a light matter for some, but it is a serious matter for others. I am afraid when we were promised by the President of the Board of Education that we were going to receive great benefits from the Finance Bill that is now before the House, that that is a promise which seems to be in the far distant future. What I should like to insist upon is that we in this House should protest against any increase in the rates until there has been some readjustment of the burdens of taxation. There is a large and growing feeling of discontent throughout the country in regard to this question of the rates. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation, which reported in 1901, stated plainly what its opinion was, and it is quite unnecessary to delay moving in the direction then suggested. It would be very simple to follow out the recommendation of that Commission, before any further burdens were placed on the rates. The President of the Board of Trade stated this afternoon that 41 local education authorities had sent in detailed estimates as regards the working of Circular 709, and he gave East Suffolk as the authority which would be most affected. I should like to ask whether that is on the original circular or on the revised circular which is embodied in the Code? As far as I can read it, the Code is very different from the original circular.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member is quite mistaken. The circular has been incorporated in the code.
    Captain MORRISON-BELL: I did not read it like that. I understood from the Code that there had been an alteration in the number of children in average attendance. May I ask whether the estimate given by East Suffolk is the minimum or the maximum, because that makes a considerable difference. No doubt it is the fact that East Suffolk will be affected most seriously, since the right hon. Gentleman says so.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: What I stated was that, in terms of a penny rate, East Suffolk is at the head of the list. It is quite possible that the gross amount may not be as large there as in some other counties.
    Captain MORRISON-BELL: What I want particularly to emphasise is that this is the wrong moment to increase the burden on the rates. Further, it is entirely wrong to increase that burden by a purely administrative order. Such a policy may lead to a very considerable burden being imposed with an insufficiency of discussion.
    And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

METROPOLITAN AMBULANCES BILL
Read a second time and committed to a Standing Committee.

STAGE PLAYS (CENSORSHIP).
Ordered—
"That the Lords' Message of 8th July relating to Stage Plays (Censorship) be considered:
"That a Select Committee of five Members be appointed, to be joined with a like number of Lords, to inquire into the Censorship of Stage Plays as constituted by The Theatres Act, 1843, and into the operation of the Acts of Parliament relating to the licensing and regulation of theatres and places of public entertainment, and to report any alterations of the law or practice which may appear desirable:
"That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith:
"That Mr. Robert Harcourt, Mr. Hugh Law, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. A. E. W. Mason, and Mr. Herbert Samuel be Members of the Committee:
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
"That Three be the quorum."—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
Adjourned at Six minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Maunsell Property (County Limerick).
  Maunsell Property (County Limerick).
  Examination in Irish.
  Examination in Irish.
  Reinstatement Application (P. M' Bride, Moorefield, County Tyrone).
  Reinstatement Application (P. M' Bride, Moorefield, County Tyrone).
  De Salis Property (Grange, County Limerick).
  De Salis Property (Grange, County Limerick).
  Delmege Estate (Garryspillane, County Limerick).
  Delmege Estate (Garryspillane, County Limerick).
  Dairies and Cowsheds Act (Ireland).
  Dairies and Cowsheds Act (Ireland).
  Finance Bill (Irish Land Commissioners).
  Finance Bill (Irish Land Commissioners).
  Income Tax (Gross Assessment).
  Income Tax (Gross Assessment).
  Customs Service (Pensions).
  Customs Service (Pensions).
  Postmaster of Portsmouth.
  Postmaster of Portsmouth.
  Valuation of Land (Ireland).
  Valuation of Land (Ireland).
  Estate Duty (Yield in 1908).
  Estate Duty (Yield in 1908).
  Additional Duty on Spirits.
  Additional Duty on Spirits.
  Ungotten Mineral Tax.
  Ungotten Mineral Tax.
  Land Valuation (Cost).
  Land Valuation (Cost).
  Income Tax (Land Sales).
  Income Tax (Land Sales).
  Land Values (Valuation).
  Land Values (Valuation).
  Rifles (Conversion).
  Rifles (Conversion).
  Small Holdings in South Berkshire.
  Small Holdings in South Berkshire.
  Scottish Poor-houses.
  Scottish Poor-houses.
  Legislation for the Blind.
  Legislation for the Blind.
  Boarding Out of Pauper Children.
  Boarding Out of Pauper Children.
  Railway Conciliation Scheme.
  Railway Conciliation Scheme.
  Chinese Seamen.
  Chinese Seamen.
Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
PRESTATYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS).
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
CITY OF LONDON (STREET TRAFFIC) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
WATFORD AND EDGWARE RAILWAY BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
NORTH EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
WATFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL.
HOLYWOOD TRAMWAYS BILL.
HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL.
LLANELLY WATER BILL.
GLAMORGAN WATER BOARD BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Newlands be proposed to
528
the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Wynford; read, and agreed to.

GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
(Unopposed Orders.)
Reported, with Amendments.

GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
(Llynvi Valley Gas and Coatbridge Gas Orders.)
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the following Lords be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:—

L. Belhaven and Stenton;

L. Dunmore (E. Dunmore);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

CROFTING PARISHES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, this Bill was before your Lordships last year, and it has been reprinted in exactly the same form in which it went down to another place. The Bill claims to be an attempt to tackle the main difficulties which exist in questions of Highland land at the present day. It attempts to face and redress the disabilities and anomalies under which crofters in the crofting parishes are labouring to-day. It attempts to give the possibility of increasing existing holdings, and also, which is more important, to make possible the formation of new holdings. The Bill also attempts to simplify the existing administration, and to give a possibility for the inauguration of new enterprises which might be done under what is now the Congested Districts Board.
I may say that this Bill has been constructed with the advice of both those who own the land and those who occupy it, and that it takes into full consideration those points of importance which act as natural limitations to any scheme for increasing small holdings in the Highland area. I refer to the question of wintering, the question of employment, and the question of rates. It is very easy for anyone to tilt at deer forests as they exist to-day, to tilt at those questions of sporting interests which are only the pleasures of the rich, and fail to recognise the benefits these bring to the people who dwell in the Highlands, and how absolutely and vitally they are mixed up in the life of the majority of the small holders there.
The question of employment, one must admit, is the first question one has to look to in facing the crofter problem. We have in the Highlands practically no industries which go on the year through, and the crofter holdings are so small that they do not of themselves support the inhabitants. Therefore for the men to live they have to make their work outside what they raise on the croft. I take directly out of the Bill of the Secretary for Scotland the proposed money grant for the encouragement of afforestation and for development on the lines of co-operation. I believe that
530
afforestation, whether it is undertaken by a central board or under the Scottish Office, will be in the future the only line on which we can ever hope to bring more men into the valleys, and under this Bill it is suggested that the grant indicated in Lord Pentland's Bill should be spent in the crofting parish areas.
The next matter of importance in regarding the crofter question is that of wintering. The majority of your Lordships, no doubt, see the Highlands in the summer time when the grass grows to the tops of the hills, when the cattle are turned out day and night, and when the whole country looks prosperous. I do not expect the majority of your Lordships have seen those upland districts in the winter time, when the whole of the villages are shut off for days and even weeks from the railways and low ground, when the whole of the cattle stock has to be housed, and when the old ewe stock is all that is able to brave the elements, and that only on the lower slopes of the hills. I suppose fewer of you have seen those conditions in the springtime—in April—when in England or in the south country the grass has already made its appearance. In this part of Scotland they have to wait sometimes three and even four weeks before a head of cattle can win a scanty living outside. It is in relation to this question of wintering, and, therefore, the amount of arable ground taken in connection with hinterland, that the crofter question must be studied. It is impossible to break up farms where the amount of arable land is small if you have no keep to offer for beasts during the winter months. The big sheep farmers require a great deal of capital in order that the sheep may be removed from these mountain lands for wintering, sometimes a distance of 200 miles. If you turn some of these farms into crofter holdings, it cannot be expected that the crofters who would take the place of the large farmers would have the necessary capital either to purchase suitable sheep stock or winter it when bought.
The third point we have to consider in looking at any extension of small holdings in the Highland area is the question of rates. This is no doubt a vexed question throughout the country, but in the Highlands it strikes with particular force. Where the owners' and occupiers' rates run, as they do in some of the poorer parishes, from 17s. 6d. up to 19s. in the £—14s. being, comparatively speaking, a common

531
occurrence—the question of what rates have to be paid and the narrow margin between absolutely being able to carry on at all or not comes out with striking force. Any increase of poor population must increase the rates. Not only are there the questions of schools and poor rates, but there is the further consideration, that as the crofter does not pay any rates on his dwelling-house but only on his land he is only rated on a portion of the holding, and therefore the more farms split up the greater the contraction of revenue-producing subjects.
We see in this country considerable anxiety expressed when the Budget proposes an increase of 6d. in the £. I can assure you that any hasty legislation in Scotland which might reduce the number of paying interests, such as sheep farms and sporting values, might lead in certain parishes to an increase in the rates, calculated by shillings not sixpences in the pound. It must not be forgotten that in many parishes in the Highland area sixty per cent. of the rates are paid by sporting interests and sheep farmers. I bring these points forward to show that the crofter question can be only approached with care, foresight, and considerable local knowledge. I do not for a moment pretend that we alone have got in this Bill this knowledge, but I do contend that these facts have been carefully kept before us in framing the Bill, and we have gone as far as anyone can reasonably expect in an endeavour to face the difficulties which exist and the grievances which the crofters have, which we certainly wish to reduce if we possibly can.
The Bill does not require much description. The points which have been already mentioned here I need hardly go over again. In the Bill certain disabilities under which the crofters labour have been removed. We have practically permitted the whole of leaseholders to come under the scope of the Crofters Act, 1886. We have given them power to hire their houses out for summer lodgings or practically any other work they wish, and we have given them clauses by which they should come under the provisions regarding compensation for game. We have put no further duties upon these crofters except that where they hire their houses out for summer visitors they can be rated on their houses, and that they should be bound to make
532
the necessary sanitary arrangements, provided the landlord gets no payment for such houses.
Then we have given facilities for an increase of existing holdings. The only real difference that lies between our proposals and the Government's proposals is this, that we make it a perfectly fair Bill and that proper compensation is paid, not only for the part of the holding taken but also for the surplus land. As to the question of new holdings, the main idea in this Bill is taken from Lord Camperdown's Bill which he has already introduced in your Lordships' House, the only difference being that the executive authority instead of being the county council is in this Bill the Crofters Commission. The Crofters Commission has for a number of years administered affairs in the Highlands. It is a well-known executive body, and we consider it is a body which ought to be able to take up this work satisfactorily. The Crofters Commission, in readjusting rents, have really ludicrously little work to do at the present time. I have not the figures for this year, but in previous years I do not think the difference of rents adjusted amounted to more than £100 in the whole year's work.
We further take up the question of amalgamating the Congested Districts Board and the Crofters Commission in one board. At the present time in another place there is considerable criticism of the action of the Congested Districts Board. I do not wish to enter into that here, but I do desire to point out that anyone who has wished to divide land among crofters has had his difficulty considerably increased by having to deal with two boards rather than with one authority; and I feel certain that putting these two boards together would mean more effective work. Then the Congested Districts Board being handed over, there would be one member added for the purpose of taking up forestal matters. I think that all of us who have read the Report of the Forestry Commission lately published would be satisfied that it is, at all events, a question which is well worthy of study in the Highlands. I do not for a moment wish to subscribe to the whole of the findings of that Committee; but even if only a very small fraction of the figures they have given is correct as regards area of ground that can be planted, and if the

533
return from forest land is only half what they say it might eventually be, you will see there are great prospects for forestry work on the low-value land of which the majority of the crofter parishes consist.
As I say, this is a Bill which does not very much differ, except in form, from what the wishes of the Government appear to be on the subject of crofter reform. I think we can claim that if we have not a certain number of the representatives of the crofters in another place entirely on our side, at all events by the legislation which they have put forward they wish to work on parallel, if not very similar, lines. The question of removing the anomalies of the existing 1886 Act, the question of creating economic holdings, and the question of expansion of the areas at present held by crofters—these are the three essential ideas we wish to get forward, and these, I submit, are brought out in this Bill. Whether the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland will see his way to support the Bill I have not the least idea. I can only say that if he does not support this measure the only reason can be that he is so wedded to proposals which have been twice refused by this House that he still puts forward his own scheme, which, from what we have seen, is not likely to pass, and refuses a scheme which, having passed this House once, I think we may confidently expect may pass this House again.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lovat.)
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, I am in a little difficulty this afternoon, and I daresay some of your Lordships are in the same difficulty, for there are upon the business Paper of the House two Bills, one in the name of Lord Camperdown and the other in the name of the noble Lord who has just sat down, both dealing with the problem of amending crofter legislation for Scotland.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No; my Bill deals with small holdings, not crofts.
LORD PENTLAND: I will endeavour to deal with that distinction afterwards; but they both propose to increase the number of small holdings or crofts in the Highlands
534
of Scotland. I am at a loss to know, therefore, to use what is a colloquial phrase, on which leg those who are opposed to the Government policy mean to stand on this matter. I should like, if I may, to be allowed to make a few observations on the general subject before I deal with the provisions of the Bill which the noble Lord has laid before your Lordships. I am grateful to him for this opportunity of making such observations, and I am grateful to your Lordships for being willing again to consider what is, in the opinion of the Government, not only an important but a pressing question.
We all know the high esteem in which Lord Lovat is held in the Highlands, and it is a profound regret to me—I say so perfectly sincerely—that I find myself in opposition to him on this occasion; for I am in no doubt whatever as to his public-spirited intentions in this matter, and I would greatly have preferred finding myself in agreement with him. Your Lordships, too, many of you, have great knowledge and practical experience of the management of land to which I can lay no claim whatever. But it has been my duty, holding the office which I have the honour to hold, to study and endeavour to master this question, and having lived in Scotland all my life, I am not altogether unacquainted, though I do not pretend to dogmatise about it, with the conditions of the subject.
I cannot help believing that we start from different sets of facts in this matter, or there could not be such great differences. I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to endeavour to try and remove some of these differences in order to place your Lordships in possession of the standpoint or the view of the Government in this matter. There are several what I may without offence term misconceptions. I do not attribute all or any of them to your Lordships or to any particular persons. They are possibly not shared by your Lordships, but, unhappily, they have been emphasised and deepened during this controversy, which has lasted something like three years, and they do obscure a true understanding of this question. I remember last year that when Lord Lovat introduced this Bill in your Lordships' House—and he has alluded to that consideration again to day—he expressed the view that the work of the Crofters Commission had

535
practically come to an end. He said that it cost £5,000 a year, that the amount of fair rents fixed by it was very small, and that it was evident that its work was approaching an end. Last year, of course, there were special causes for the small output of work of the Crofters Commission; and when I speak of last year I mean the work which was reported last year—namely, the work of the previous year. The Chairman of the Commission, who has since died, was then suffering from an illness which had continued a longtime, and the work of the Commission was hindered by the fact that his presence was required for hearing appeals. I think the results will be somewhat different this year. I do not, however, pretend to say that there is not some force in the criticism of the noble Lord. In time the work of the Commission in fixing rents must be limited, especially if no new holdings are being created; but if the powers of the Crofters Act were extended, as we deem they should be and as we have endeavoured to extend them, the work in respect of fixing rents for new holdings and in respect of fixing rents for enlargement of existing holdings would develop and continue.
I must remind your Lordships of a still more important consideration, and it is this. The Crofters Commission is an integral part of the crofter system, and I am sure no one who knows the Highlands will deny consideration to the view that the crofter system is a guarantee, which we could not lightly dispense with, for the peace, the well-being, and the prosperity of the Highlands. The first observation then which I would venture to make is that the Crofters Commission and the crofter system are established facts in Scotland, and it is impossible to discuss this question of crofters, and of crofts or small holdings, call them what you will, without recognising that fact. Another misconception—I believe it to be a misconception—is the identification of the crofter system with the system of the Irish Land Act, 1881, and such legislation. I am not sure that that criticism is, even if it were admitted, so powerful as it might seem at first sight. That Irish legislation, after all, recognised and applied throughout Ireland the conditions of tenure which characterised the most prosperous, the most energetic, and the most enterprising portion of the farming community
536
in Ireland; but there are wide differences, my Lords, between the crofter system and the system to which I have alluded in Ireland. There are differences in the form of the tribunal, in the procedure, in the cost, in the absence of an appeal from the decision of the tribunal, and also, on the other hand, in the form of tenure, notably by the absence from the Scottish tenure of all free sale. I would make this further observation, whatever your opinion may be of the comparison to which I have alluded, that it is quite undeniable that the Scottish system has not led to the same results as have been apparent in Ireland.
If I may briefly recognise another misconception, Lewis and Barra are not typical of the whole of the Highlands of Scotland. The noble Lord alluded to them last year and said that squatting was going on and that affairs were going from bad to worse. It is the case there. There is the further characteristic that in Barra and Lewis, alone of all the rural parishes in Scotland almost, the population is increasing. Lewis and Barra are not typical even of the Outer Islands, far less of the Highlands of Scotland or of the crofting counties in the Highlands.
I come now, if I may, to two proposals upon which the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition in this House based last year his fatal opposition to the Government Bill. He described the crofter system as a failure. He used these words—
"We have denied from the first that the crofter legislation has been on the whole of a successful nature even in those areas where it has been applied."
And he repeated that statement in even stronger terms on the 6th of this month in the discussion on Lord Camperdown's Bill, when he stated that the crofter system had actually led to a most disastrous state of things in Scotland. The noble Marquess said— "We have it in the evidence from numerous sources that the crofter system has led to agriculture more miserable and to conditions of existence more squalid and wretched than any other system with which we are familiar in these islands,"
thus actually attributing to the existence of the crofter system the worsening, the further degradation, of Highland conditions now as compared with the year 1886 when the crofter system was established.

537
Now I am quite willing, and I am sure anybody who knows the conditions must be quite willing, to admit that in the farm stock of the crofters, in the methods of cultivation, in the marketing, in the system of farming generally, there is much room for improvement in the crofter area. But I should be grateful to be enlightened as to what foundation there is for the statement—and I take the more moderate of the two statements—that the crofter legislation has not been a success.
LORD LOVAT: This Bill is founded on the Crofters Act, and therefore the question whether the crofter legislation is a success or not is beside the point.
LORD PENTLAND: I am quite aware that it is the intention of the noble Lord to develop and extend the crofter system, but my belief—and I think I shall be able to make it good to your Lordships—is that this Bill has precisely the reverse effect, and I am anxious, therefore, to give your Lordships some testimony to rebut the very powerful authority of the noble Marquess who has expressed an opinion condemnatory of the crofter system. I am very loath to detain your Lordships or to speak at greater length than you would wish, and I will make my observations as brief as possible; but I would remind your Lordships that this condemnation of the crofter system was based very largely—I do not presume to say wholly—on the Report of what the noble Marquess called the Douglas Commission. The Douglas Commission was a party of gentlemen who early last year or the year before, I forget which, travelled through the Highlands for, I think, something like a fortnight or three weeks. Most of the members of that party were already committed—publicly committed—as opposed to the Government Bill dealing with this question. We are all well aware in Scotland of the circumstances under which they travelled through the Highlands, and I cannot believe that if the noble Marquess were fully acquainted with those circumstances he would attach such overwhelming importance to their evidence, bearing in mind that the time which they devoted to the purpose could not possibly avail them to make a real examination of the circumstances. I cannot believe that their evidence should be so overwhelming as to negative all the documents that have been laid before
538
Parliament since the year 1886, when the Crofters Commission was established.
If the Crofters Commission is thought to be interested in praising its own work, let me refer your Lordships to the Deer Forest Commission, which reported on the whole of the Highlands of Scotland, after two years work, in the year 1895. Their words are—
"We deem it right to place on record the result of our observations as to the effect of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886. Our inspection of land throughout the counties mentioned brought us into intimate proximity with many crofting townships, as well as with the individual holdings of many crofters, and, accordingly, we derived materials for judgment from a very large portion of the crofting area—
I may interpolate that this was a unanimously signed Report and that the Commission contained members representing all political parties—
"Our opinion is that, speaking generally, the Act has had a beneficial effect, and particularly in the following directions. In the first place, the fixing of a fair rent has to a large extent removed from the minds of crofters the sense of hardship arising from the belief that they were made to pay rent on their own improvements, or otherwise made to pay at an excessive rate for soil of a poor quality. In the second place, the combination of a fair rent with statutory security of tenure has not only taken away or allayed causes of discontent, but has imparted a new spirit to crofters, and imbued them with fresh energy. The abiding sense produced that the permanent improvements which a crofter makes upon his holding will, if he complies with certain reasonable statutory conditions, accrue either to himself or to his family successor, will not be taxable by the landlord in the form of increased rent, and, moreover, will have a money value under a claim for compensation or renunciation of tenancy or removal from his holding, has led to vigorous efforts towards improvement by crofters in many quarters. For instance, we found that more attention is being paid to cultivation, to rotation of crops, to reclamation of outruns, to fencing, and to the formation or repair of township roads; but most conspicuous of all effects perceptible is that upon buildings, including both dwelling-houses and steadings."
And so the Report goes on. The real truth is—at any rate, it is the view of the Government founded on a fairly careful examination of the facts—that not only is the Crofters Commission and the Crofters Act largely responsible for the peace and order which now reign throughout the Highlands, but the security for rents thereby given has been an advantage to proprietors. We know that great improvements have been made in the housing of the crofters, something like £160,000—that is a moderate

539
estimate —having been expended on the improvement of their houses. Many of them have risen from crofters to be farmers of large farms, and many of their sons have entered the various professions. Two men were pointed out to me recently when I visited a well known University as of the most promising of their class, and they came from small crofts. The noble Lord smiles. I quite agree that it is a domestic feature, but it bears out what the Report says, that there has been instilled in the crofter population a desire for self-improvement and an ambition which is worthy of all praise.
Let me, if I may, say a word on the distinction which the noble Earl is frequently fond of drawing between a crofter and a small holder. The noble Marquess expressed great surprise the other day when I ventured to say in this House that when they are working under the same conditions there is no essential difference between a crofter and a small holder. I will endeavour to explain what I meant. The noble Marquess takes a different view. Speaking in your Lordships' House on March 11, 1908, the noble Marquess said—
"We conceive that there is au essential distinction between crofters and farmers who are not crofters…What was essential in a crofter was that he should have a hereditary and prescriptive tenure, and that he, and not his landlord, should have been in the habit of making the improvements on his holdings.… The crofter is the man who de facto has already established a proprietary right upon the farm."
I am not concerned to question the historical ground upon which the advocacy of the Crofters Act was based by the late Lord Kinross in the House of Commons. That consideration was emphasised by the late Lord Salisbury in your Lordships' House. But I wish to point out, and to emphasise, some further facts which I think are incontestable.
In the first place, may I remind your Lordships that there is not one word in the Crofters Act itself about hereditary tenure—not one word. The definition of a crofter in that Act runs—
"Any person who at the passing of this Act is tenant of a holding from year to year, who resides on a holding, the annual rent of which is under £30, situated in a crofting parish."
The early words are "any person," so that as the Act came into force in June, 1886, any person who at that time was the
540
tenant of a holding in a crofting parish became admitted to the benefits of that Act. There were numerous cases of men admitted to the benefits of the Act who had no hereditary claim whatever. Then let me instance another class of persons who have been admitted to the Act. There are numerous instances of persons who have secured entry to holdings since 1886 and who have been accepted by Highland proprietors as crofters. I admit that if the proprietors had taken objection these crofters could never have acquired statutory rights, but by the goodwill of the proprietors there have been numerous cases of crofters who have obtained statutory rights, particularly, I believe, on the Sutherland estates and other estates. Further, there are numerous tenants who have been established as crofters and given the statutory crofter tenure by the operations of the Congested Districts Board co-operating with proprietors. All these classes are statutory crofters whatever may have been the ground upon which this legislation was advocated. Both in 1886 and since that year there have been numerous classes of men admitted to this crofter tenure who, so far as hereditary claim is concerned, are indistinguishable from any other farmers in Scotland.
A share in common pasture is often considered as the indispensable characteristic of a crofter holding, but that is not the case. There are many districts, especially on the West Coast, in which common pasture is the rule, but there are numbers of places, especially on the East Coast, where there is no share whatever in common pasture, and, therefore, in that respect also, there is no difference between the crofter in individual occupancy of a small arable farm and the man over the fence who has no statutory rights, who is also in individual occupancy of his farm, and who is called a farmer. The arable land in the Highlands, as the noble Lord knows, is of small extent in proportion to the grazing, and it would not be practicable, owing to the quality and character of the land, to assign a share in common grazing to crofters. All up the East Coast common grazings are exceedingly rare.
If your Lordships will allow me, I would like to give the facts which will bear out the statements I have ventured to make. In 1888 the Commissioners held sittings at Beauly and heard applications from

541
the parishes of Kirkhill, Kiltarlity, and Kilmorack, and fixed fair rents for 148 holdings there. They extended to 1,522 acres arable and 1,358 acres outrun, and the fair rents were fixed at £830 5s. 6d. One of the tenants was interested to the extent of one-half in a common pasture of ninety-one acres. All the rest were tenants of crofts held in individual occupancy, and without any common pasture. Taking next the county of Ross and Cromarty, the Commissioners held sittings in Dingwall in 1888 and heard applications from fifteen estates in the neighbourhood and in the district commonly known as the Black Isle. Fair rents were fixed for 139 holdings. Twelve of these, along with four others, included an interest in a common pasture of 227 acres; all the rest were holdings possessed in individual occupancy and without common pasture. I have figures here of five out of the seven crofting counties, which show that in numerous cases these crofters have no common pasture but are the owners and occupiers of individual farms just as ordinary farmers.
These holdings are numerous. The hereditary theory did not enter into the matter, and there are these classes of tenants to be found in every one of the crofter counties. At any rate in five I have the evidence before me at this moment. The importance of it is not that it is known to the Government, but that it is known throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. It has helped to mould public opinion on this question there, and it is unquestionably the fact that the system has a firm hold on public opinion in Scotland. It not only has a firm hold, but it is regarded there as a Scottish development, the fruit of Scottish circumstances and Scottish experience, and in that as having brought great benefits to Scotland and especially to the Highlands. In hundreds and hundreds of cases—and this is the statement which I should like to submit to the noble Marquess—at least in five of the crofting counties, the conditions under which the statutory crofter works and farms his holding are indistinguishable from those of the ordinary farmer, large or small, except in two particulars—the statutory crofter makes his own improvements and has fixity of tenure. Obviously this has two bearings. It has a bearing on the subject matter of the noble Lord's Bill, and has a wider bearing on legislation for the whole of Scotland. If I may be
542
allowed, I will make some observations in this light on the noble Lord's Bill. This Bill—I say so simply as a fact, and not to give any offence—is the second edition of the noble Lord's proposals. He proposed certain Amendments last year which transformed the character of his Bill, the object of these Amendments being, if I mistake him not, to set up machinery to provide new holdings.
LORD LOVAT: Hear, hear.
LORD PENTLAND: And I thank the noble Lord for doing us the courtesy of adopting I think about twelve clauses of the Government Bill. To those clauses, therefore, I need make no allusion. The original proposal of this House in Lord Camperdown's Bill was that new holdings should be created all over Scotland, including the crofter area, through the county councils. The Bill now before us proposes that the powers provided in Lord Camperdown's Bill for the county councils should be given in the crofting districts to the Crofters Commission.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: For crofts.
LORD PENTLAND: That is the practical effect of the proposal. The authority has been changed, but the scheme remains the same, and I note there is no provision in the Bill for giving to these new holdings the crofting tenure. It offers instead a system for which I venture to say there is no evidence whatever of a demand, and, so far as purchase goes, they are not likely, I think, to take advantage of it on any terms. On the other hand, the crofter tenure which is proposed by the Government is simple, easily worked, cheap, well-known, and popular.
The next observation I would make upon the noble Lord's Bill is this. He alluded to the Bill as strengthening the position of the Crofters Commission. He adopts the Crofters Commission for certain purposes, but he really deprives it of the character which it has hitherto borne. He described it to-day as an administrative body. It has certain very small and limited administrative functions, but I believe that if the antithesis is to be raised it is far more correct to describe the Crofters Commission as a judicial body than an administrative body. It is in that respect

543
that the noble Lord's proposals damage the Crofters Commission because he seeks to impose upon that Commission, which hitherto has been regarded as a judicial body, and which, as a judicial body, is subject to no appeal to a higher Court, duties of an administrative character which would greatly prejudice its position as a judicial authority.
The noble Lord introduces the system of an individual valuer to take the place of the Crofters Commission in valuing these new holdings. I am not going to argue that question. It has been argued before in your Lordships' House. The comparative advantages of an individual private valuer and valuation by a statutory body have been argued here by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; but I would ask whether it is a wise proposal to take from the Highlands the services of a tribunal in which they have confidence, whose decisions I do not think have ever been the subject of any pronounced or general attack, which has done its work to the satisfaction generally of both tenants and proprietors—is it, I ask, a practical and wise proposal to take from the Highlands that tried and experienced, and, I would say, impartial, tribunal, and substitute for it the services of individual valuers?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Is the noble Lord talking of the Congested Districts Board or of the Commission?
LORD PENTLAND: I understand they are amalgamated in Lord Lovat's Bill. That is precisely the operation to which I take great exception, and I cannot see where the advantages of the single valuer come in. Has the practice of employing valuers to value the interests in sheep farms been so very successful that we should abandon a tried system in order to adopt it? I am, therefore, by the facts obliged to take exception also to this proposal. There are two other clauses in the Bill to which I take objection. Clause 2 is one of the clauses adopted from the Government Bill in regard to auxiliary occupation. The noble Lord alluded to it in his opening remarks, but subsection (4), which was not in the Government Bill and is meant to provide that all crofters in future shall pay a rate on all improvements other than agricultural improvements, I cannot consider an improvement in this Bill. The
544
rating system of the country may be good or bad. It may or it may not deserve amendment. It is not likely to make a Bill of this kind acceptable to the crofters when they are aware that by this provision the Bill imposes a new liability and a new burden upon them. Clause 3 does the same thing in regard to all existing crofters as well as new holders—imposes a rate for sanitary improvements.
LORD LOVAT: That is in your Bill.
LORD PENTLAND: But the noble Lord will find that in the Government Bill it is limited to new holdings. It is not a new burden placed upon those with whom the State has already made its bargain. Then I would like to say a word in regard to the compulsory powers of this Bill. Your Lordships are aware that, rightly or wrongly, one of the great difficulties in the opinion of the crofting counties is that there is no power in the Crofters Act for the creation of new holdings. It is that which has checked the development of population in these counties. The noble Lord provides compulsory powers, but there are no compulsory powers in this Bill to provide crofters with the tenure of the Crofters Act; and so far as I understand the Bill—I hope I am not misunderstanding it—the adoption of the Lands Clauses Acts as the machinery for carrying out the compulsory provisions of the Act completely nullifies the benefit which no doubt it is intended to confer. That procedure would be an absolute bar to any such extensions as are contemplated.
The demands of the crofting population are very well known. They have asked for new holdings, they have asked for a raising of the limit to £50, they have asked for the extension of the Crofters Act to leaseholders, and they have asked for the extension of the Crofters Act to new areas. All these are to be found, not in the noble Lord's Bill, but in the proposals of the Government. And I hope it is not out of place for me to say that these reforms are not newly proposed by the present Government; many of them were proposed by the Government of the year 1894 and 1895, and it is not likely, in my opinion, after the publicity which has been given, after the official support which has been given, to such proposals, that the crofter community will consider the proposals of the noble Lord sufficient to meet their needs. In regard to

545
leaseholders, I quite believe that the noble Lord is under the impression that leaseholders will be freely admitted to the benefits of the Crofters Act. Will he allow me just to make this observation on that point? His first clause enacts that all those at present in the crofting area and having a holding the annual rent of which does not, and did not, at the passing of the Act of 1886, exceed £30, are to receive the benefits of the Crofters Act. Observe how this boon is limited. In the first place, the benefits of the Crofters Act are only extended to persons who or whose predecessors in the same family have continuously resided on the holdings as tenants since the passing of the Act of 1886. Secondly, only such crofter is admitted who or whose predecessor in the same family shall have at his own cost erected, constructed, or made the buildings and permanent improvements, without receiving compensation from the landlord. Again, every crofter to be admitted must apply to be registered under the Act, and a further exclusion is made to the effect that no person will be entitled to the benefits of the Act who or whose predecessor was before 1886 but has since then ceased to be a statutory crofter under the Act of 1886. I can assure the noble Lord that his exclusions go very far indeed to reduce the benefits which his clause if it were less limited would confer on those concerned. Therefore, I am obliged, with regret, to take objection on these grounds to the noble Lord's Bill.
The Bill does not admit any substantial number of leaseholders, and it increases the rates of existing crofters in two directions. Nowhere are compulsory powers given for the establishment of new holdings with the tenure of the Crofters Act, and I do not believe that crofters side by side with statutory crofters will accept any tenure less favourable than that. The Bill also destroys the judicial character of the Crofters Commission. I trust your Lordships may not be under the impression that there is any considerable body of support, or any support whatever, in my humble judgment, among the supporters of the Government for any such proposal as this. Those who think that really only deceive themselves. There has been intense disappointment at the rejection by your Lordships' House of the Government's proposals, and the absence of, and the blank negative given to, legislation on this subject must affect different minds in different ways. Some men seek
546
other outlets of hope that reform might be obtained. But it is quite contrary to the fact that there has been any desire to substitute so partial a Bill as this for the proposals of the Government, and I feel quite sure that if the real effect of the provisions of this Bill were known it would be summarily rejected as a solution of the problem which is before us.
I do not attempt on this occasion—though I would gladly do so—to discuss the bearing of what I have ventured to say about the definition of crofter and the absence of distinction, except those I have mentioned, between a crofter and small farmer, and the bearing that has on the question as it affects the whole of Scotland. Setting that branch of the subject altogether aside, I will only say again that I regret profoundly to differ from the noble Lord, but I feel sure that this is a wholly inadequate proposal. It is hopeless to consider it as meeting the problem. It strikes a blow—I have no doubt unintentionally—which would be profoundly resented throughout Scotland.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the noble Lord commenced his observations by saying he was grateful to Lord Lovat for having given him this opportunity of dealing with this matter. I hope that my noble friend did not expect very much in the way of gratitude, because exactly the same remark was made to me two or three days ago on a similar Bill, and the conclusion to which the noble Lord finally came was that he was obliged to differ from me totally, as he has been obliged to-day to differ from my noble friend behind me.
Having commenced his speech in this manner, the noble Lord went on to give us a long disquisition upon a variety of phases and interests in the crofter question. He spoke without very great respect of the Douglas Commission, for one thing. The noble Lord probably knows that Mr. Douglas was a Member sitting on the same side as himself, and that he and Mr. Munro Ferguson, who is also a friend of the noble Lord, were the moving persons in the Commission. He went on to speak of the Deer Forest Commission, and then got into the generalities of the crofter question. All that part of his speech was rendered quite unnecessary by a remark of Lord Lovat's to the effect that this Bill is founded, not on any part of the crofter

547
question, but on the Crofters Act, and was intended as an attempt to deal with difficulties under which the crofters consider they labour in the present state of the law.
I will not imitate the noble Lord, but will go at once to the Bill. With regard to some of the details of it, I think that probably Lord Lovat himself will be the best person to reply to the points raised. In the first place, the noble Lord said that the Crofters Commission was necessary for the Highlands. Of course it is; nobody questions it. The proposal of the noble Lord is to amalgamate the Congested Districts Board with the Crofters Commission. The other way would have produced the same result. The intention of the Bill is that instead of two Boards, which at the present time confessedly have not sufficient business to occupy them, there should be one Board which should discharge in the Highlands the functions now discharged by both. The noble Lord said that the Crofters Commission is a judicial body. But does not the Crofters Commission fix rents? Does not the Commission say what land is to be taken, and so on? If those are not administrative functions, I do not know what administrative functions are; and at the present time there is no reason, so far as I can see, why the Crofters Commission, especially if enlarged as my noble friend proposes, should not be able to discharge the duties of both.
Then the noble Lord fell foul of the single valuer. I was particularly surprised to hear him do that. I must say the differences between the noble Lord and the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture always do excite my admiration. I will tell your Lordships why I think those differences exist. I believe the noble Lord is very jealous of Lord Carrington, and that he has a great desire to set up an agricultural snuggery of his own in Scotland, and for that reason when the Agricultural Holdings Bill was before this House I observed that not one single bit of assistance was given to Lord Carrington from the Scottish Office. I more than once asked Lord Carrington why he had got no information from the Scottish Office, and he was able to give me no answer. The reason clearly was that the Scottish Office was not particularly anxious to give him any assistance. The noble Lord sneered at Lord Carrington for having
548
got into a mess about the valuation of sheep. Yes, he did. I told him at the time that he would get into a mess and he accepted an Amendment from me which would have prevented it; but when the Bill went back to the House of Commons the English Solicitor-General said my Amendment was unnecessary, and for that reason Lord Carrington gave it up, and the Scottish Law Officers in the other House appear never to have taken the matter into their consideration. I do not think it is very wise of my noble friend to bring before us these domestic differences which appear to exist between his Office and the Board of Agriculture. And let me say that I feel quite certain I am expressing the opinion of every Scotsman present when I say that I hope the Board of Agriculture will continue to have authority in Scotland, and that we shall not have any half-equipped Department with the noble Lord as the head of it. What is the objection to the single valuer? The Government are always saying, Let us do what is cheapest; it may possibly be not the best, but it is the cheapest, and cheapness is what you have to look to. From this point of view I do not understand why the single valuer is objected to in this case.
Then the noble Lord says the crofting tenure is not given by this Bill. I know that it is the intention of my noble friend to give the crofting tenure, and no doubt if he has not done so, he will do it. Clause 37 of this Bill provides that—
"This Act may be cited as the Crofting Parishes (Scotland) Act 1909 and so far as it relates to crofters holdings shall be construed with the Crofters Acts and may be cited with those Acts as the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Acts 1880 to 1909."
I should have thought that that would have meant that those Acts were incorporated; but, if not, I am sure that my noble friend at a later stage of the Bill will take the opportunity of doing so.
I have not yet heard any reasons given for objecting to the creation of new holdings. I suppose the noble Lord will not say that Lord Lovat is not making a new and a very great change in the law by proposing to create new crofts. Up to the present time the law has been that you could not make new crofts. The noble Lord by this Bill proposes to give that power. It is really useless to argue with the noble Lord

549
the Secretary for Scotland, because he never can get one thing out of his mind—that a croft is a small holding and a small holding is a croft. We have tried to impart to him at all events that amount of agricultural information, and it seems to me quite useless to say it over again. Does the noble Lord mean to tell me that he and those Members who represent the crofting districts are agreed about this matter? He may possibly remember that eighteen crofter Members in May of last year presented a memorial to the Prime Minister protesting against the noble Lord—
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Earl is entirely mistaken in his reading of these events. No Government could possibly have had a more loyal body of supporters than the Government had for, I think, a period of more than two sessions, and there is not one of those Members to whom the noble Earl alludes who would not far greater prefer the Government Bill to any other Bill, or to any portion of any other Bill, that has yet been proposed for dealing with this matter. If it were possible to save any portion of our proposals on right lines an offer should have been made; but your Lordships made it clear to us that that was impossible.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord is the first Minister I ever knew who seemed to take a pleasure in having a memorial presented advising a course different from that which he was proposing. It is quite true that they say they agree with the Government Bill, but they add that the Government Bill is impossible. Let me read an extract from the memorial—
"The rejection by the House of Lords of the Government Bill has convinced us that until grave constitutional issues have been decided land legislation cannot be secured upon these lines. While there is general agreement as to the end to be attained, there is profound divergence of opinion as to method. Conservative Peers, though rejecting the Government Bill, have introduced measures, inadequate, indeed, but admitting the necessity for action, and admitting willingness to go some way to meet us. The moment, then, is opportune for a serious attempt to find common ground and by judicial compromise to pass a really satisfactory measure."
LORD PENTLAND: If the noble Earl has any proposals for a compromise or wishes to give, any indication how far he is willing to go to meet the Government, I can say for the Government that we shall be perfectly willing to consider those proposals.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: We are not now considering a compromise but Lord Lovat's Bill, and what I was reading to your Lordships was a statement made by the crofter Members who the noble Lord considers are in agreement with him. Finally, they advised that there should be a compromise. They said—
"The Government should, at any rate, consent to a conference consisting of Members of both Parties in both Houses."
I presume that that was put before the noble Lord, and that, as usual, he was obdurate, and declined to make the slightest change in his proposals. I am quite convinced of this, that if we had only the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to deal with we should very soon come to an arrangement; but, judging from my previous experience of the Secretary for Scotland, I do not think it is likely that any compromise will be arrived at with him. This House is very desirous of settling this question, and by the Bill which was called my Bill and by this Bill we have put forward very serious proposals going a long way in the direction of the Government.
The noble Lord is always having correspondence with someone, and the last letter he seems to have written appears to have been to Mr. Weir. In an endeavour to smooth Mr. Weir down, the Secretary for Scotland wrote a letter to the hon. Member in which, after mentioning the Government Bill, he said—
"The House of Lords rejected this measure, and the Opposition in that House have further plainly indicated that they will not sanction any extension of the Crofters Holdings Act which will satisfy the needs of the country."
Now, my Lords, is that a fair statement? Your Lordships heard what the Lord Chancellor said of my Bill the other day. The noble Lord's Bill to-night, for the first time, creates new holdings and makes it possible to create new crofts, and he says he is perfectly prepared to give crofter tenure if it is not already given in the Bill. The noble Lord, in his letter to Mr. Weir, proceeded to say—
"The Government mean to persist in their endeavour to obtain small holdings legislation for Scotland."
Well, how do they propose to persist? The noble Lord, when taking leave of his constituents, wrote them a very affecting letter, in which he stated the grief it gave him to leave the House of Commons,

551
and he added that the only thing which could have induced him to do so was to further administrative legislation in this House. Well, we have been waiting all these months. Last year I brought in a Bill, and I was attacked for not waiting for the Government. This year I waited for the Government until I was tired of waiting and was driven at last to bring in my Bill. I wish the noble Lord would bring in the Government Bill. If he would do so, I can promise him that we would endeavour to extract a great deal of information about its origin. But do not let him write in letters that this House has declared that it will do nothing. It has done nothing of the kind.
I have observed that when the noble Lord is in a difficulty he endeavours to put it off on to somebody else. All the trouble in Vatersay was occasioned by Lady Cathcart, you know. And now that he cannot provide legislation to satisfy his crofter friends, that is the fault of the House of Lords. In his letter to his late constituents the noble Lord asked for a continuance of the staunch support he had hitherto received—
"in order that the forces of Liberalism and progress may overcome obstacles presented to reform in this and other directions by the predominance of the Opposition in the House of Lords."
That is all very well on the platform, but it does not produce any effect in this House, and I do not think it has produced any effect on Mr. Weir judging from the reply he has made; nor do I think it has produced much effect on any of the crofter Members. I am glad to hear that the noble Lord is on such excellent terms with them. I hope it may long continue.
The great difference between this Bill and the Government Bill is this, that this Bill says that when land is required it may be hired compulsorily, but it must be hired by the Commission, and, therefore, the Commission will intervene between the crofter and the unwilling owner. Of course, where the owner is willing the arrangement will be made privately. But the plan of the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland is this, that the central body —in his case a land Court—is to fix the rent for an unwilling individual who believes the scheme is wrong and not likely to succeed, and then the noble Lord pursues the general practice of leaving that individual
552
to look after himself. That is the radical difference between these two proposals, and I cannot help thinking that the proposal which my noble friend Lord Lovat has put in, and which has succeeded so well in England, is the right course for us to take in Scotland.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the Secretary for Scotland has treated the House this evening to a somewhat remarkable and unusual performance. He rose to reply to my noble friend Lord Lovat, who had moved the Second Reading of his Bill in a speech of moderate length and full of appropriate arguments; but the noble Lord opposite, before he began to address himself to the case made by Lord Lovat, spoke for something like three-quarters of an hour by the clock, not in reply to Lord Lovat, but in reply to a speech I had made in this House twelve months ago. I am almost inclined to demand reciprocity of treatment, and to say that if the noble Lord will allow me an interval of twelve months, I shall be perfectly ready to deal with his arguments. But I am going to try and say a word in reply on the spur of the moment.
The noble Lord took great exception to certain observations I had made as to the condition of the Scottish crofters. I am not convinced by what the noble Lord has said that my description was an inaccurate one, although it is quite possible that it does not apply to all crofters. I quoted the observations of the Douglas Commission. The noble Lord said that the Douglas Commission only spent a fortnight in its voyage of discovery, but I think in a fortnight you can manage to see a good deal of the condition of the people through whose districts you are travelling. Why, in Ireland we are used to having farms valued by gentlemen who spend a couple of hours upon the land and are then prepared to fix the rent which it is to pay during the next fifteen years with mathematical precision.
Then the noble Lord stated that the condition of affairs in Barra was not typical of the whole of the crofting areas. Very likely not; but we have heard a great many details in this House as to the kind of agriculture to be found in those areas, and the kind of conduct to which, no doubt under the pressure of dire necessity, the dwellers in those areas occasionally

553
resort. But I am inclined to oppose to the roseate description of the Secretary for Scotland a description given of the crofting areas by another and not less distinguished Scotsman. When in 1907 we were debating the Scottish Small Holdings Bill my noble friend Lord Rosebery, a Scotsman whom all Scotsmen will claim as a very distinguished and competent representative of that country, gave to your Lordships a sketch of the crofting system as he was aware of it. May I read an extract from his speech? Lord Rosebery said—
"What is the crofting system? Is it the survival of the fittest? Is it the highest form of agriculture known to Scotland that we are asked to adopt? Some of your Lordships travelling in the Highlands may have seen thin, sparsely cultivated strips of land, sometimes with a cottage built by the savings of children abroad, by lonely lakes, or by the shores of the sea, or on barren moors. There live men who would rather die than leave their native land, struggling against nature, and trying to secure a precarious crop in a climate totally unsuitable for it, on soil wholly unadapted for it. Rather than leave or migrate they persevere in cultivating that ungrateful soil. All honour to them for it; I respect them for it. But I do not think that is a condition of things that we ought to work and legislate to transfer to the magnificent and fertile fields of the Lothians and the Lowlands of Scotland. I cannot imagine any responsible Minister who knows what a crofter is and what a croft is coining down deliberately to this House and proposing to apply that system to the Lowlands of Scotland. I should have been less surprised had the Secretary for War, in producing his Bill for the Territorial Forces, decided that his new Army should be provided with bows and arrows for defensive purposes. What you are attempting to do by introducing the crofting system is to supersede the highest farming known to great Britain, and perhaps to the world, by the most backward system in these Islands."
That is a pretty strong piece of Scottish testimony as to the results of the crofting system.
Then the noble Lord took great exception to my attempting to establish a distinction between a croft and a farm and a crofter and a small tenant. The noble Lord told us that all crofters were not hereditary crofters. Very likely not. But I still maintain, and I shall continue to maintain, that the origin of the crofter system is hereditary and customary as distinguished from contractual tenure. No doubt other small occupiers have been admitted to crofts who were not hereditary crofters, but that was because they were found in the crofting areas where it was the custom of the country, and very naturally their tenure was made to assimilate to the tenure of those who lived in that neighbourhood.
554
The noble Lord was, I think, possessed with an idea that I had some desire to undermine and demolish the crofting system where it already exists. I do not think I have ever said anything suggestive of that idea. What I have said is that although I am entirely in favour of recognising the crofting system where you have it already, and of making the position of these poor people as tolerable as you can make it, I am entirely opposed to attempts to extend that system to other parts of Scotland in supersession of the system to which we are accustomed, and under which Scottish agriculture has so greatly prospered. The noble Lord told us that the system which he contemplated was not the same as the Irish system. It is true there is a difference. I think the system which finds favour with the noble Lord does not admit free sale. The other two F's do find a place in the plan.
LORD PENTLAND: I was contrasting the existing crofting system.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I object altogether to give the three F's, or any of the F's, in parts of the country where they do not exist already. That is my point; and I say that for this reason, that I believe that agriculture in the United Kingdom has upon the whole succeeded as well as it has, and that agriculturists have been able to overcome the immense difficulties with which they had to contend during the period we refer to as the bad times, because we had a system under which landlord and tenant were able to combine their forces and show a firm front against the trials which both then had to undergo. What is it we want in order that agriculture in these islands shall be successful? We want the application of capital to the land, and under the present system as we know it in Great Britain the landlord has every inducement to put his captial into the land. It is very often computed that of the joint capital contributed by owner and occupier something like four-fifths is contributed by the owner. If you introduce fixity of tenure and fair rents fixed by a Court, do you believe for a moment that landlords will go on pouring capital into the land? Of course they will not. Then, who, is going to find the capital? Does the noble Lord think that these miserably small tenants are in a position to find large sums of capital to put into their holdings? Of course they are not. You are in this dilemma—either the capital will not be

555
forthcoming at all, or—and this is what I expect is at the back of these proposals—you will have to extract it out of the pockets of the taxpayers or the ratepayers of this country. Therefore, I say again, by all means let us deal as tenderly as possible with these crofters wherever they exist; let us, if you like, enlarge their holdings; let us create new crofts if they are necessary within the crofting areas; but do not let us —it seems tome it would be madness to do it —gratuitously substitute that system for the system which we know in those parts of Scotland which are outside the limits of the crofting areas.
The Bill of my noble friend, Lord Lovat, is the complement of the Bill proposed by my noble friend, Lord Camperdown. Lord Camperdown deals with holdings outside the crofting areas, and my noble friend, Lord Lovat, like my noble friend Lord Camperdown, recognises that distinction which, to the end of my days, I shall believe does exist between the man who is a crofter and the man who is not a crofter. Lord Lovat's proposals seem to me, so far as I am able to follow them, to be conceived in a very liberal spirit. So far from undermining the position of the Crofters Commission, he preserves its powers and adds to its numbers. I am quite prepared to vote for his Bill, although I do not pretend to a knowledge of its minute details. But when the noble Lord twits us with trying to stand upon two legs, and not knowing upon which leg to stand, I say we shall stand firmly on the two legs and be well supported by them. I believe, on the other hand, that the noble Lord, with his one-legged proposal, is in a rickety position, and I therefore prefer the two-legged proposal of my noble friends to the one-legged proposal of the noble Lord opposite.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I have on several occasions taken part in debates on this subject, and when the Government's Bill was thrown out by your Lordships I anticipated that it would reappear over and over again in other forms, and the present Bill and that of Lord Camperdown are the fulfilment of that anticipation. I anticipated that because your Lordships, I am certain, are aware that there is a real necessity for some system by which small holdings or crofts, or whatever you please to call them, shall be increased in
556
number. I believe every Scotsman would say that. We all deplore the increase of emigration and the depletion of the country districts at the present time. Scotland is suffering from the want of the equivalent of that which this House and the other House have already in this Parliament done for England.
The two subjects dealt with in the crofting Bill of Lord Lovat and in the other Bill relating to the Lowlands which has been introduced by Lord Camperdown are inextricably mixed up one with the other. They cannot be separated, and you cannot separate them in debate. Witness, for example, the speech we have just heard from the noble Marquess. It was completely relevant, but it did largely deal with the Lowland aspect of the question. May I say a word or two in reference to that? As to the crofter part of this Bill, my noble friend Lord Pentland has already dealt with that, and has pointed out the difficulties the Government entertain on the subject; but as to the other side, we have had quoted again the speech of Lord Rosebery, which was the commencement of the opposition with regard to this policy. We are told that what we mean to do is to extend the crofter system to the Lowlands. What do we mean by the crofting system? Do we mean that we want to extend to the Lowlands the lonely shores and the barren moors? Of course not.
What they want in the Lowlands—I do not care what you call it—is fixity of tenure, and what they want also is fair rent. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Marquess object to fixity of tenure and fair rent, since those two principles are embodied in Lord Camperdown's Bill applying to the Lowlands, which was heartily supported by the noble Marquess. I do not know whether he has realised that the noble Earl has brought in, and that your Lordships have, on the invitation of Lord Camperdown, twice carried the Second Reading of, a Bill containing fixity of tenure and fair rent to be established by a single valuer in the Lowlands of Scotland. If the noble Marquess really thinks that the result of such a thing as that is to prevent landlords putting their money into land, then I am afraid he has unconsciously been an aider and abettor in a disastrous step.
What is the difference between us in regard to the Lowland aspect of the

557
question? Really and truly if your Lordships will give the matter your impartial consideration you will see that the difference lies in a nutshell. It is this. According to the English Bill the rates and taxes are to be drawn upon, the rates primarily, whereas according to the Scottish Bill the rates were not to be called upon at all. There is a general if not a universal feeling in Scotland that that part of our revenues which consists of grants from the Exchequer should be applied to this purpose. The employment or non-employment of the county council one way or the other follows as a corollary when once you have determined that fact. That is the whole difference between us. The Scottish people do not want the rates to be involved, and therefore they say, "Give us part on our taxes." The county councils, therefore, do not come in. Why should they? Your Lordships will excuse me, I know, for speaking quite plainly and frankly. If a proposal had been brought in for Scotland by a Conservative Government dealing with the Lowlands, and the amount of difference between us was what I have indicated, would your Lordships have thrown out the Bill? I feel it is a great pity it was done.
An appeal was made to me by my noble friend Lord Camperdown, and I must disclaim virtues which I do not possess. I certainly disclaim the comparison he made, which would be overjust to me and unjust to my noble friend. But let me say that I am not the person to appeal to in these circumstances. The noble Marquess himself has Scottish blood, to which we, of course, attribute his success and his great talents. Would he think me impertinent if I appealed from Lord Lansdowne to Lord Nairne, the last of his dignities, and asked him to consider whether there ought not to be a real effort on his part—on the part of the noble Marquess, who will not deny that he is responsible for having thrown out the Government's Bill—to deal with this question, because although rapier thrusts in debate are very entertaining, is there not something rather sad in the fact that in Scotland no progress has been made?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should certainly not have intervened in this debate had it not been for one or two remarks made by the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. It does seem to me that the cardinal objections we
558
have always held to the Government's proposals, as we know them, have not yet been driven home to his mind. What we have always objected to was the extension of the crofter tenure outside the crofter districts. It was clearly understood in 1886, when crofter legislation was first initiated, that it was on account of the hereditary nature of that tenure.
The Report of Lord Napier's Commission was distinctly confined to recommending certain legislation for crofters who were hereditary crofters. Unfortunately, the Government of that day, instead of taking that as the distinction whether a man was a crofter or not a crofter, took a financial limit—£30 of rent—and if a man in certain crofting counties was a holder under £30 he was treated as a crofter, and from time to time there has been agitation to get that extension put beyond the crofting areas. The border line is difficult to draw. I will take the county of Forfarshire. The noble Lord will find that in the hill districts there are those who are absolutely indistinguishable from the crofters in the Highlands. But even in the same parishes there are people who are small holders, and it is the cardinal point with us on this side of the House that the crofter tenure as such shall not be extended to those who are not crofters in the strict sense of the term.
I only wish there was a chance of accepting the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack just now, to enter into discussion as to whether we cannot invent a system of small holdings with fixity of tenure and fair rents. None of us have ever objected to that, but what we have objected to is that, as distinguished from the English system, there is no buffer between the landlord and the small holder to make sure that if the man, not selected by the landlord, should fail, the loss of that failure should not fall on the landlord. I do not think it is fair that the landlord's capital should be risked by the failure of a tenant whom he has not had the responsibility of choosing. So far as I am concerned, if you give us anything like the English terms, whether you do it by means of the county council or a body responsible to the Treasury, we shall be satisfied. If you are going to take compulsorily from the landlord land which is not now under crofter tenure, you are bound to give him that amount of security which is given under the English Act.

559
It is idle to attempt to blur the difference between what is strictly crofting tenure and what is small holding tenure. The vice of the original proposals which were put before Parliament was this, that that distinction was not sufficiently borne in mind. That has been the root of all the evil. I do not wish to discuss the matter further, because, after all, it is more germane to Lord Camperdown's Bill than to the Bill now before the House; but if we could get rid of the idea that it is reasonable to extend crofting tenure outside the crofting area, we should have made a great advance towards the settlement of this question.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I wish to say one or two words in reply. I think the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland attacked details rather than any question of principle in the Bill. The points he raised were eminently Committee points rather than Second Reading points, and I fail to see, from anything he said, where the great divergence between us arises. He referred, first of all, to what he described as the disadvantage of turning the Crofter Commission and the Congested Districts Board into one body. The judicial work of the Crofters Commission has practically ceased. There may be a slight revival under the new chairman, but during the past ten years there have been no great number of applications. In some years the actual reductions of rent amounted to £20 or £30 over the whole of Scotland. I believe I am correct in stating that in one year, about three or four years ago, with the exception of the cases of a Radical Peer and an American millionaire, the reductions on revalued rents were under a £10 note. Therefore, if the judicial work of the Crofters Commission has been very much reduced and they are now doing executive work, why not amalgamate the two boards? The crofter Members in their Bill bring in this very suggestion. As to the objection to the single valuer, I think the noble Lord based that on the idea that sheep valuation was always done by a single valuer.
LORD PENTLAND: I alluded to sheep valuation as an instance where there was no statutory valuation afforded.
LORD LOVAT: But in the case of sheep valuation there is always an arbitrator appointed by both sides, and they appoint an oversman. The question of the rating
560
of crofter houses that are used for letting purposes in the summer is one which I do not consider of any great importance. Then one of the noble Lord's objections was that we retained the limitation of £30 instead of £50, as in his Bill. That is really a trifling matter. If you look at the Board of Agriculture returns, you will find that in the crofting parishes there are a very small number of holdings indeed between £30 and £50. Is it contended that any sensible Scotsman would wish to come under the Crofters Act in order to get a few pounds reduction in his rent when he would lose the right to have his improvements done for him? Crofters do their own improvements, but the £30 to £50 holder in Scotland, as a rule, has his improvements done for him. Therefore, there is not much in this point.
The noble Lord went on to say that there is in the crofting parishes a unanimous wish that the area should be extended. All I can say is that I have no personal knowledge of it. What the crofters want is legislation for themselves. Then on the question of leases. The clauses to which the noble Lord objected were put forward by the landed interest, and they were put forward because certain crofters voluntarily contracted out of the Crofters Act in order to get the whole of their buildings done for them. I hold that it was unfair that men who contracted out of the Act should be allowed to go back, and it was for that reason that this lease clause was framed. Then there was the attempt to charge this side of the House with definite opposition to the Crofters Act. I protest against that. This Bill is based entirely on the Crofters Act. My object is to make it an extension of the Crofters Act, and not to undermine that Act. The noble Lord said that under my Bill these persons would not hold under the Crofters Act. I think Clause 37, which was read by my noble friend Lord Camperdown, will cover that point. The noble Lord insists on his contention that there is a great desire on the part of crofters to remain under the Act. Now, what the crofter wants is fixity of tenure. He does not care anything about the Act. The majority of applications now are not to hold under the fixed rent of the Crofters Commission. They would sooner hold direct from the landlord, because they know that they have then a much better chance of having their buildings and improvements made for them. If it is desired that this should be brought out more fully

561
I shall be glad to have that point, with adequate safeguards, introduced into the Bill.
In conclusion, I honestly believe there is a great demand for this legislation in the Highlands. I believe that the situation there is in many respects more serious than is generally supposed. The people who remain on the crofts are not the young men. The young men are emigrating to America and Australia at a quicker pace than has been the case during the last twenty years. I believe this is owing to the fact that there is not a living on the crofts already in existence, and I am of opinion that further development should be made, not so much in the creation of new holdings, but in the creation of economic holdings, at the same time taking advantage of legislation on the subject of a grant for the development of forestal work and the development of co-operation. I would gladly welcome the assistance of the Lord Chancellor, in coming to an agreement for legislative action on the lines indicated.
On question Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order) Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to regulate and organise the profession of accountant by setting up a register and by ordering that persons who are not on the register should not offer themselves as, or take any name or title which may appear to imply that they are, professional accountants, and should not hold themselves out to the public as ready to undertake for pay the business of a professional accountant. The machinery set up by the Bill is a Registration Committee consisting of fifteen members, nine of whom would be appointed by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and
562
six by the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors. The registrar of the committee would be the secretary of the Institute for the time being. Power is asked for under the Bill for the committee to make rules and regulations in regard to registration, for the holding of examinations, and generally for the execution of the business of the Bill. This body would possess disciplinary powers, but these powers are limited by Clause 13, under which, in cases where a name is struck off the register or where there is a refusal to register, an appeal to the High Court is allowed.
Before going further into the Bill I should like to say a few words about the position of the profession, and the duties which professional accountants may be called upon at any moment to perform. At the head of this profession there are the two great societies I have named. The Institute of Chartered Accountants was given its Charter in 1880, and it has no fewer than 4,000 members. Between seventy and eighty per cent. of those members have not only passed three examinations in order to become members but have also served under articles, the small percentage that remains having become members of the Institute on incorporation. The Society of Public Accountants and Auditors was incorporated five years later—namely, in 1885—and the Board of Trade then granted them a licence to omit the word "Limited" after their name. They have now a membership of well over 2,000, and also in their case there is a very stringent set of three examinations; and not only are articled clerks of five years service allowed to enter for their examinations, but also ordinary paid clerks, thereby allowing a class of men to enter the profession who might not be able to afford the considerable expense of articles.
These two institutions not only examine candidates before admitting them, but also exercise discipline over their members. But at present this discipline is almost entirely discounted by the fact that anyone may offer himself to the public as a public accountant. A man who is dismissed from one of these great societies through unprofessional or dishonourable conduct may to-morrow offer himself as a public accountant. In addition to the societies to which I have referred and those accountants of a free-lance character, a series of other societies has sprung up in recent years. The great difference

563
between these young societies and the two great institutions of which I have spoken is this, that whereas these great institutions are courted by people who wish to become members, the newer societies, on the other hand, have to use considerable ingenuity and enterprise in obtaining members. This, of course, must lead one to wonder whether the qualifications that members of these companies are supposed to have are not, in fact, waived, and I am sorry to say that I have come to the conclusion that in a great many cases they are undoubtedly waived, with the probable exception of the entrance fee.
There is, therefore, very little guarantee to the public that the members of these societies are qualified accountants in any sense of the term. On the other hand, though we say these things about them as a body, the members would, of course, if they were able to prove that they possessed a proper qualification as accountants at the time of the passing of this Bill, be eligible for registration. That is provided for in Clause 4. A professional accountant may, under the Companies Act, be appointed liquidator of a public company. He may also be appointed a trustee in bankruptcy; but by far the commonest, though not the least important, of his duties is the auditing of public accounts. All of these duties require not only men of great professional knowledge, but also men who have seen practical work done by having been clerks or articled clerks in accountants' offices. Moreover, it is necessary that these duties should be done by men of great integrity and force of character, for what can be more responsible than the work of auditing the accounts of a public company? The auditor is appointed by the shareholders, to whom he is directly responsible, and he may very often, in the best managed concerns, come into conflict with the management of the company.
Under the Companies Consolidation Act of 1908 the duties and responsibilities of auditors have been very much increased. They not only now have to show in their report that the books of the company agree with the balance sheet presented, but they have to state whether or not they have obtained all the information and explanations they have required, and it is expressly stated that every auditor of a company shall have a right of access at all times to
564
the books of the company and shall be entitled to require from the directors and officers such information as may be necessary for the performance of his duties. There is no doubt that these extra responsibilities have been responded to by the profession, and no one can have been in the City ten years, as I have been, without knowing something of the esteem in which the profession is held by all in the City, and the weight which the public attach to their services. I think it can hardly be doubted that they have earned the right to set their house in order.
Clause 4 of the Bill enumerates the persons entitled to be registered under this Bill. They are—

1. All persons who are now members of the Institute or Society or who from time to time shall become members either of the Institute or of the Society and shall give notice in writing to the Professional Accountants' Register Committee by this Act constituted (hereinafter called the committee') of their intention to practise in England or Wales:

2. Any person who (although not a member of the Institute or of the Society) shall within six months from the passing of this Act give notice in writing to the committee and within twelve months from the passing of this Act prove to the satisfaction of the committee that he was in practice as a professional accountant in England or Wales at the passing of this Act subject nevertheless to the provisions of the section of this Act whereof the marginal note is 'Power to refuse registration in certain cases':

3. Any person who is now or shall hereafter become a member of the Society of Accountants in Edinburgh or of the Institute of Accountants and Actuaries in Glasgow or of the Society of Accountants in Aberdeen or of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland and who shall give notice in writing to the committee of his intention to practise as a professional accountant in England or Wales:

4. Any person who is now or shall hereafter become a member of any institute or society of professional accountants incorporated or duly constituted under the laws of any British colony or dependency (including India) or of any territory administered under royal charter or under the laws of the United States of America membership of which is considered from time to time by the committee in their absolute discretion having regard to all the circumstances to be a proper qualification and who shall give notice in writing to the committee of his intention to practise as a professional accountant in England or Wales.

Clause 5 entitles to registration any person not being entitled under Clause 4 who can satisfy the committee that he has passed an examination and has served under articles to a professional accountant practising in England or Wales, such accountant being either registered or

565
entitled to be registered under the Bill. Provision is made in Clause 17 for the admission of women to membership, and consequently women will be given equal rights with men under the Bill. It does not appear that the profession of accountancy would be particularly attractive to members of the opposite sex, but there are female accountants who are now doing this work, and it has been represented to us that it would be a pity to close the door to any channel which might give occupation to them in future.
This question of registration is no new one. As is stated in the Memorandum prefixed to the Bill, several other learned professions have found it necessary, for the discipline and regulation of those professions, to organise and register. But a much nearer analogy is to be drawn from what has been done of late years in the Colonies. For instance, in the Transvaal in 1904 an Ordinance to provide for registration of accountants was assented to by Lord Milner. I believe that last year the Premier of New Zealand piloted through the Legislature a Bill of much the same character, and I understand that at the present time there is in Natal a Bill before the Legislature to provide for the registration of public accountants. Indeed, I think on all hands the principle of registration is admitted. I have not heard a single argument against it. But it would be foolish to conceal the fact that objections have been raised in detail, and if your Lordships will allow me I should like to refer to some of them, though I submit that none of them are Second Reading objections.
In the first place, it is pointed out that under Clause 4, subsection (2)—which I have read—a number of people would be admitted to registration whose qualifications as public accountants might be somewhat doubtful. I have nothing to say to that. That is absolutely true, but it is impossible to make a reform without paying for it, and that is the price we have to pay for the reform proposed in the Bill; and, after all, the objection is a passing one and will disappear in time. Then we have two objections from the great Scottish and Irish societies. I am not quite clear upon this, but I believe the Irish society signified that they were satisfied with what was said in reply to their objections. I am afraid, however,
566
that that is not so in the case of the Scottish societies. It is rather unfortunate for this Bill that it should come up on a day when Scotland seems to be up in arms. These, I think, are the three objections they make most of. First, they say, We agree with registration, but why not include the whole of the United Kingdom? Our answer is that we believe it to be unworkable. We feel that there would be great inconvenience in getting members together from, say, Aberdeen, Dublin, and Edinburgh, and there is also the fact that the law of the three countries varies so greatly, and that makes another difficulty. But if in Committee it is urged that a Part II and a Part III should be added to the Bill, setting up a register for Scotland and one for Ireland, we should only be too glad to agree. We wish to meet these societies in every possible way.
Another objection is that under the Bill Scottish accountants would not be able to hold audits in London of branch banks, and so on, without registration. Nothing is further from the intention of the promoters of this Bill, and we say there is nothing in the Bill which makes that view possible, but if any form of words would make it clearer, we should be only too glad to accept them. I admit that the clause is very badly drafted, and I believe a new clause has already been drawn up which, I hope, will put the matter right. Then, of course, there will be opposition from the limited companies to which I have referred. In the public interest we cannot admit that those small limited companies which have been registered in the last four years and give no guarantee to the public of any status whatever should be represented; but, as I have said, if any of their members prove qualification they will be eligible for registration.
In conclusion I ask your Lordships to believe, as I sincerely believe, that this Bill has not been put before you with any desire to set up a selfish monopoly. The only motive which has actuated the promoters is a desire to elevate the profession and the standard of professional skill and integrity. To do that would be in the public interest, and it is for that reason that we hope your Lordships will be good enough to give a Second Reading to this Bill and send it to a Joint Committee of both Houses before whom the whole matter can be thrashed out.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Chichester.)
LORD SALTOUN*LORD SALTOUN, who had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, said: My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading by making a long statement, but will try and put my objections to the Bill as shortly as I can. The noble Earl has truly described to your Lordships the two English associations, but we have three bodies in Scotland who all act under Royal Charters dating back to the middle of the last century. Their Charters are world-wide, and the members go to any part of the United Kingdom where their profession may call them and undertake public auditing. Your Lordships will understand that it is a great convenience to those of their clients, such as banks and insurance companies, having branches in different parts of the United Kingdom, that they should be able to audit the books at the several branches. That is their right under their present Charters, and that is what we wish to see continued.
Scottish accountants object to the reduction of their powers implied in the provision of the Bill which entitles them to registration only if they give notice of their intention to practise in England or Wales. There is no definition of the word "practice," and that is an important omission. That, however, is a question for Committee. Our main objection to this Bill is that it decreases the powers we now possess under our Charters and makes England and Wales practically a close corporation for Scottish accountants, who will not be able to follow up their business except under very arduous conditions which we do not think it is fair to put upon them. The City of London is not merely the Capital of England, it is the Capital of the United Kingdom, and the centre to which all business gravitates, and Scottish accountants should be able as at present to do audit work here. Scottish accountants may be required to attend private Committees in your Lordships' House or attend to business at the Scottish Office or the Local Government Board, but they would be debarred unless they submitted to these onerous conditions. Then under the rules of the committee appointed by these English societies there
568
would be a power to reject or refuse to register them at all.
Further, we would be prevented under this Bill, if we did come to London, from using the letters which we consider are letters of distinction in our profession. Whether we register in England or not we should be debarred from using those letters unless they were first approved of by this committee. These are really very serious objections. We take exception to the penal clauses as being harsh and unfair. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading suggested that in Committee clauses might be moved on behalf of Scotland, but I would remind the House that the title of the Bill is—
"An Act to provide for the Registration of Professional Accountants in England and Wales; and for other relative purposes."
The title of the Bill would have to be changed and the Bill itself entirely redrafted if the societies in Scotland and Ireland were to be included. In these circumstances I suggest that the Bill ought to be either withdrawn or rejected, and a new Bill introduced to apply to the United Kingdom. If it is desired to have three registers there is no objection; but if it is necessary to have the Bill at all it should be one Bill for the United Kingdom, giving the bodies of chartered accountants in each of the three countries the powers they have now.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and to add at the end of the Motion the words 'this day six months.'"—Lord Saltoun.)
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill obviously felt that the measure presented substantial difficulties, and he has placed a Motion on the Paper that in the event of the Bill being read a second time it should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I think that a wise course. It is manifest that a Bill dealing with such wide interests has not the slightest chance of passing into law this session. It is also obvious that a Bill dealing with a great profession could not be satisfactory which ignored the case of Scotland and Ireland, and in my opinion the Bill should be redrafted so as to include all members of this profession practising in the United Kingdom.

569
In Ireland we have a very powerful body of accountants, composed of gentlemen of the highest capacity, acting under a Royal Charter. In Scotland, as Lord Saltoun has said, there are three well-known societies, and it is clear that a Bill dealing with this great profession must include the case of Ireland and Scotland. There are other claims also to be considered. I am not prepared to say offhand that persons who are not chartered accountants, but who are able to do valuable accountancy work, and are, in fact, professional accountants in the more general sense, should be penalised if they are not on the register and fined to the tune of £20 while they are earning their bread fairly and honestly.
Moreover, whereas in any other Bill I have ever heard of the body exercising such powers is made amenable to some public authority, here the registration authority is purely self-appointed and can make rules unchecked and unfettered. They may put charges on Scottish and Irish members which would be resented as grossly unfair, and yet there is no appeal to any public authority such as the Board of Trade. It is manifest that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill recognises the difficulties and sees the need of copious redrafting in order to meet the most important of the objections that have been raised. I hope, therefore, that he will be satisfied for this session with the discussion that has taken place and that he will reframe the Bill and introduce it again next session.
LORD ATKINSON: My Lords, under this Bill at present there is no reciprocity whatever. An English accountant can carry on his profession in Ireland, he can audit the books of an Irish branch of an English business, but a Scotsman or an Irishman cannot do the same in regard to English branches of businesses conducted by their clients, and there are many businesses in Scotland and Ireland which have branches in England. Clause 18 of the Bill provides that a person not registered shall not exercise any function prescribed by law as having to be exercised by a professional accountant. It is not at all that he shall not be a professional accountant, but that he shall not do the business of a professional accountant. That is absolutely intolerable and could not be allowed to pass. The noble Earl the more he studies this will see that he never can bring in a working Bill
570
which will give the necessary reciprocity without dividing it into three Parts, one setting up a register for England, another setting up a register for Scotland, and the other setting up a register for Ireland, and then giving the registered accountant power to pursue his profession in any of the three countries he may choose. That is the only solution. I doubt whether the suggested Parts II and III could be added to a Bill the title of which is, "To provide for the Registration of Professional Accountants in England and Wales." The noble Earl gains nothing by sending a truncated measure like this to a Committee, and it cannot lead to a satisfactory arrangement.
LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said that from what he had heard he believed the accountants in Ireland were satisfied. I had a communication from them two days ago and they were by no means satisfied. I do not know, therefore, what ground the noble Earl had for his statement. No communication has reached me or my noble friend on the Front Bench to that effect, and the objections on the part of Ireland are similar to those stated by Lord Saltoun and the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down—namely, the absolute want of reciprocity.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, the noble Earl said at the conclusion of his remarks that he did not wish to be selfish. I must say that I do not remember ever having before read such a selfish measure. It means that English accountants are to set up an institution of their own. They are to be empowered to practise in Scotland and Ireland, but Scottish and Irish accountants are not to practise in England. That is pure unadulterated selfishness. The committee set up by the Bill can constitute themselves into a close trust and say to accountants that if they do not join they will suffer all sorts of pains and penalties. I wish to protest most strongly against the Bill, and if my noble friend Lord Saltoun goes to a Division I shall support him in the Lobby.
LORD ASHBOURNE: As my noble friend Lord Clonbrock referred to me, I ought to say that I believe the noble Earl who introduced the Bill met the Irish view with great courtesy, and I am informed that the Irish representatives, although very strongly determined that they would get

571
justice, thought that the idea of a separate Irish register was not an unreasonable one, and they decided to fall in with that.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, there has been considerable criticism of the details of my noble friend's Bill, but I do not think that anyone who has spoken has denied that this measure is a very important one and that it deals with a very important matter. That is certainly the opinion of the Department which I represent. The profession of accountancy is becoming yearly of increasing importance with the growth of the system of carrying on business by means of public companies, and it is certainly thought at the Board of Trade that it would probably be to the public advantage that those who carry on the very responsible duties of public accountants should be organised and should be regulated in the same way as the great professions of the law and of medicine are regulated, and with the object of securing that end it is probably desirable that some such machinery should be set up as is provided by this Bill. Up to that point I think I may say that my noble friend has made out a very strong primâ facie case in favour of his Bill. But, of course, in allowing the creation of a close corporation of this kind it is necessary to take the utmost possible pains to prevent injustice being done to any individual or class of persons, and certainly neither I nor my noble friend behind me the Secretary for Scotland would be found consenting to any injustice being done to our fellow-countrymen.
LORD ASHBOURNE: What about Ireland?
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I am sure Ireland would be looked after, too. The suggestion I have to make on behalf of the Government is that the Bill should be read a second time on the understanding that it is to be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, where full inquiry can be held and where any persons who are aggrieved can have an opportunity of appearing and making their grievances known. On those grounds we should support my noble friend's Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not intend, at this important hour of the evening, to detain your Lordships for more than a moment or two, but the noble Lord who has just sat down used
572
words to the effect that no one contested the principle of this Bill. I think the reason why the principle of the Bill was not contested was that the discussion was overlaid by that friendly international jealousy with which we are familiar in debates in both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord opposite has come in contact with the sentiment with which I am very familiar—the great local patriotism of the two sister kingdoms. That has occupied your Lordships' time this evening. I longed to say all the time my noble friends were speaking that that is not the only objection to the Bill. When the Second Reading of a Bill is moved, the first thing to make out, in my judgment, is that there is a grievance or an evil to be remedied for which the measure is necessary. As far as I could make out from the noble Earl's speech, he never touched on that at all, but simply spoke of the provisions of the Bill. He told us there were similar provisions in the legislation of other countries; he told us he would accept Amendments; but he did not tell us there was any grievance to be remedied. Until that is explained to your Lordships I cannot assent to the Second Reading of the Bill. It seems to me that these close corporations are only justifiable if there is great good to be performed or a great evil to be remedied, and those things have to be made out first of all. This is the old medieval system; it is the old guild system coming back again. It is no doubt necessary in the medical profession, but it has to be shown to be necessary in the case of professional accountants; and until it is I must rank myself with my noble friend who moved the rejection of the Bill.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): I am really very sorry to hear of the noble Marquess's great objection to this Bill. He says there ought to be some great evil to be remedied.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Some evil, at any rate.
EARL CARRINGTON: The object of the Bill is to prevent improper persons becoming accountants.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But is it the case that there are a great number of accountants who ought not to be accountants? Is there any evidence of the fact?
EARL CARRINGTON: I am not able to say there are a great number, but I have no doubt there would be a possibility of improper persons becoming accountants. But I leave that point. I have only risen to say a word as to the attitude of the Government. The attitude of the Government is of a benevolent description. It is what the Foreign Office would call "cool and correct," and we think that the reference of the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses a reasonable proposal. The whole question would have to be postponed for twelve months, and I do respectfully suggest that it is not unreasonable to ask the House to agree to the Second Reading on the understanding that there should be an inquiry into the subject.
THE EARL OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I am sorry to find that your Lordships for many reasons seem not disposed to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I can assure the House that we did start out with the full intention of doing justice to Ireland and Scotland. We have the greatest respect for the great societies in the sister countries, and wish always to live on reciprocal terms with them. But after all, this is our Bill. We want to regulate ourselves, to set up a register for ourselves, and to organise the profession in London, and it is because we were thinking of this that your Lordships have discovered that it would not be easy to set up a register in this Bill for Ireland and Scotland. If your Lordships will accord the Bill a Second Reading, I will give my personal guarantee that absolute equality of treatment shall be meted out to Scotland and Ireland. That, I know, is the intention of the
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: According to Standing Order No. XXXIII, it appearing that thirty Lords are not present in the House, I declare the question not decided
promoters, and if it is not in the Bill it is due to a fault in the drafting.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Will the noble Earl give a universal register?
THE EARL OF CHICHESTER: No, not a universal register. I should say that would be a mistake more from the Irish and Scottish point of view than from the English.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is it not possible to avoid the necessity for a Division? The noble Earl in charge of the Bill gives his undertaking that there shall be absolute equality between the different parts of the United Kingdom. Moreover, the Bill is to be referred to a Joint Committee. Would it not be as well to read the Bill a second time so that the matter should be inquired into?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Apart from any other reason, the great question is whether it can be done under the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: I am anxious to fall in with any suggestion coming from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but I honestly do not think the Bill can be so amended as to make it satisfactory. That is my only reason for pressing my Amendment to a Division.
On question, whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14. Not-contents 14.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Ashbourne, L.

Lawrence, L.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Eversley, L.

Pentland, L.

Carrington, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Chichester, E. [Teller.]

Haversham, L.

Welby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M.

Atkinson, L.

Clonbrock, L.

Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

Killanin, L.

Camperdown, E.

Leith of Fyvie, L. [Teller.]

Mayo, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Newlands, L.

Morton, E.

Clinton, L.

Saltoun, L. [Teller.]

Westmeath, E.

and the debate thereon adjourned until the next sitting of the House.
Further debate on said Motion adjourned accordingly to Monday next.

TRAWLING IN PROHIBITED AREAS.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will state how many fishing vessels under foreign flags were reported to the Scottish Fishery Board in the year 1908 as trawling within the area of sea prohibited by by-laws made under the Herring Fishery Act of 1889, and whether he can state what countries these vessels purported to belong to; whether he will inform the House what are the orders now given by the Scottish Fishery Board to the commanders of their cruisers with reference to the detention or search of trawlers under foreign flags fishing in the areas prohibited under the by-laws of that Department beyond the three-mile limit.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord I have to say that the only area closed by by-law which is frequented by trawlers sailing under a foreign flag is the Moray Firth. The following are the detailed figures in 1908:—Norwegian trawlers, fifteen; Swedish, three; Belgian, ten; Danish, nine; Dutch, two. My noble friend will perhaps not expect me to indicate the precise scope of the Fishery Board's confidential instructions; but the ordinary practice is not to search or detain trawlers found fishing under a foreign flag in the prohibited areas outside the three-mile limit.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.