Sitting of 10 March 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Kingstown Urban District Council Bill (by Order),
Mountain Ash Water Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
Great Western Railway (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.
Slough Water Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Midland Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday, 21st March, at a quarter-past eight of the clock.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, "to empower the London County Council to construct and work new tramways, and to alter and reconstruct existing tramways, and to make a new street, street improvements, subways, and other works; to empower the council of the Royal borough of Kensington to contribute towards cost of a new street in Hammersmith; and for other purposes."
Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

RETURNS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONTRACTS).
  Return ordered, "of all contracts made in the United Kingdom for manufactured articles by the several Government Departments in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1909, either with contractors outside the United Kingdom or with contractors or agents who obtain the articles from abroad (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 10, of 1909)."—[Mr. Goulding.]
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  Ordered, "that the information in the Return relative thereto, ordered on the 8th day of March, be extended to include—The number of applicants who applied to purchase their holdings."—[Mr. Jonathan Samuel.]
  GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
  Return ordered, "giving the number and the total immediate cost per annum of the new Officials, permanent and temporary, respectively, who have been appointed up to the close of the year 1909 in consequence of the legislation passed by the present Government."—[Mr. Alfred Lyttelton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Cotton Crop (Egypt).
  Mr. ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he would give figures showing the total cotton crop in Egypt for the last five years?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The figures showing the cotton crop in Egypt for the last five years are as follows:

  Cwts.

  1905

  5,616,000

  1906

  5,296,000

  1907

  6,144,000

  1908

  6,397,000

  1909

  5,968,000

  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask whether those figures include the Soudan?
  Sir E. GREY: I must inquire as to that.

  Hague International Conference.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, accepted the invitation of the United States to an International Conference at the Hague on the subject of international regulation of the traffic in opium and kindred drugs; and, if so, when would the Conference take place?
  Sir E. GREY: The proposal is still under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when we shall know?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot tell, but I am in communication with the India Office.
  Mr. REES: Does a settlement of this character impose any pecuniary penalties upon the United States, as it undoubtedly does upon the British Indian Government?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not see that any settlement is referred to in the question.
  Mr. REES: But there is a settlement in view, I presume?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot say what effect it will have.
  Mr. MACMASTERasked what is the present position with regard to the negotiations now proceeding between Canada and the United States on the subject of their tariff relations?
  Sir E. GREY: After communication with His Majesty's Embassy, Professor Emery, Chairman of the United States Tariff Board, and Mr. Pepper, Commercial Adviser to the State Department, were delegated, in conjunction with the United States Consul-General at Ottawa, to discuss the tariff relations of Canada and the United States with the Dominion Government at that capital. I have not yet heard the result of what has passed.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government contemplate opening any negotiations with the United States to mitigate the evil effect upon British labour of the United States' tariff, particularly upon the yacht building industry of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to give notice of that question. It does not arise directly out of the question.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that James Casey, of Foxfort, Causeway, was in receipt of an old age pension from the Ballyheigue committee; that on appeal the pension was disallowed on the grounds that his means of subsistence exceeded the statutory amount; and whether he could say on what grounds and by what method his means of living was ascertained or computed to exceed the maximum of £31 10s. per year?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I understand that James Casey, who had assigned his farm
  1610
  to his son when the latter was married on 23rd February, 1909, made a claim for a pension on 3rd March, which was disallowed by the sub-committee. The committee came to this decision apparently on the ground that the value of the privileges reserved to the claimant by the deed of assignment and of the fortune of £200 retained by him, exceeded £31 10s. per annum. On the claimant appealing, the Local Government Board upheld the committee's decision. When Casey made a second claim the committee granted him a pension of 5s. a week; but the Board allowed the appeal of the pension officer as Casey's circumstances appeared to have undergone no alteration in the meantime.
  Mr. CULLINANasked whether instructions as to the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act were issued to pension officers in Ireland; and, if so, would the House be supplied with copies of same?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I beg to refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for the Kingswinford Division and the hon. Member for Marylebone (East) on 14th and 15th October, 1908, in which he stated that the instructions given to the pension officers are of a confidential nature, and are intended for Departmental use only.
  Mr. CULLINAN: As it has been denied that such instructions were issued upon one occasion, may I ask whether the pension officers are acting under the direct instructions of the Treasury or on their own initiative?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No instructions are given by the Treasury. It is by the Board of Customs and Excise. But on many occasions the pension officers must act upon their own initiative.
  Mr. CULLINAN: Are the pension officers in Ireland acting under the instructions of the Board of Customs and Excise, or of the Local Government Board of Ireland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I agree it is a difficult position, because part of their responsibility is due to the Customs and Excise, and part, as it were, to the Local Government Board. That results from the Old Age Pensions Act. There is a division of responsibility. Where a pension is granted it is on the responsibility of the Customs and Excise.
  Mr. CULLINAN: Then there is no one responsible?
  Mr. HUGH LAW: Is it not due to certain instructions that a large number of pensions granted and enjoyed in Ireland for some time, on evidence which was considered satisfactory at the time, were subsequently repealed?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The first part of the question is correct; the second part is incorrect. It was in consequence of fresh evidence not forthcoming that any pensions were withdrawn.
  Mr. SCANLAN: Has the Treasury addressed any communication to the Board of Customs and Excise with a view to the taking of such action as would result in the reduction in the amount of the pensions in Ireland and a saving to the Treasury?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No. No such instruction has been given.
  Mr. LYNCH: Who is responsible for taking away the pensions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The ultimate decision whether or not a pension shall be taken away rests with the Local Government Board.
  Mr. CULLINANasked the Chief Secretary in how many cases where pensions under 5s. had been recommended, and the applicant appealed, had the Local Government Board refused to sanction any pension whatever; and in how many cases had they increased the amount to 5s., or approved the lesser sum?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not in a position to furnish the information asked for by the hon. Member, which could only be obtained by making a special examination of each of the 30,000 cases already decided by the Local Government Board.
  Mr. CULLINAN: As this is a matter of tremendous importance, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to have the Return made out? Is he aware that in every case in which a sum of less than 5s. has been appealed against the Local Government Board has refused to give any pension at all?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board is always willing to have its conduct inquired into. But it would be a work almost of impossibility in view of the number of pension cases.
  Mr. HUGH LAW: Is it not the fact that the cases covered by the question of my hon. Friend were identical with Foley's case, in which it was laid down by the judges that the action of the Local Government Board was ultra vires?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That case was one which hardly governs any other except itself.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether, in the case of Mary Hickie, old age pensioner, of Inches, district of Millstreet, county Cork, whose pension was stopped on the sole ground that her name was not found in the Census of 1841, and whose marriage certificate, endorsed by the pension officer, bears out her statement, which is also supported by other independent evidence, that she is well over seventy years of age, any remedy is now open to her to reclaim her pension; and, if so, will he state the steps necessary to be taken to secure this object?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have already gone fully into the facts of this case in reply to the question asked by the hon. Member on the 3rd instant. It is open to Mrs. Hickie to make a fresh claim at any time if she thinks she can produce satisfactory evidence of age.

  Land Purchase Acts (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary if he would state the number of cases in which sales of land under the Land Purchase Acts were completed in January and February, 1910, compared with the number of cases in which sales were completed in January and February of the three preceding years?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the number of holdings vested in the case of direct sales in January and February of each of the years mentioned was as follows: In 1907, 1,255; in 1908, 1,723; last year, 2,357; and this year, 2,819.
  Mr. GINNELLasked how tenants of uneconomic holdings can obtain relief under the Land Act of 1909 from the Estates Commissioners or Congested Districts Board, according to the county in which they were situate, in the common case of the sale of an estate being kept in suspense by the vendor in order to force such tenants by exhausting their resources to sign improvident terms, while untenanted land on the same estate which should be used to enlarge their holdings was applied to other purposes?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If the hon. Member will give me the particulars of the cases which be has in his mind, I will endeavour to obtain the information which he requires, but I cannot lay down any general rule on the subject.
  Mr. HACKETTasked what steps the Estates Commissioners propose taking to distribute the land of Adamstown, Temple-more, now in their possession; and when they propose to distribute them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the lands have been let temporarily up to November next. No scheme has yet been made for their final allotment.
  Mr. O'KELLYasked whether the Chief Secretary's attention had been called to an agreement to purchase the non-residential grazing ranch, known on the Ordnance map as Clooneen, Hartland, the estate of Maurice M'Causland, Esquire, Drenagh, Limavady, County Derry, held under judicial lease by William J. Walpole, Castlenode, Strokes-town; whether the Estates Commissioners were aware that the applicant for purchase was the wife of the grazier, William J. Walpole, who had exhausted his borrowing powers in purchasing his residential farm at Castlenode, containing 600 Irish acres; whether he was aware that the Clooneen Hartland ranch contained about 350 Irish acres, and was the only land available in the district for dealing with the question of congestion; whether the Congested Districts Board would use their influence with the Estates Commissioners to prevent the confirmation of the proposed sale, and so defeat an attempt to render impossible the relief of congestion in this locality; whether he was aware that about 30 or 40 uneconomic landholders, whose valuation was from £2 to £5, live in the district; and whether he would use his influence with the Estates Commissioners to secure that this Clooneen Hartland ranch should be reserved for distribution among the small landholders of the district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing at present to add to my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member on the 8th instant.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked what steps, if any, the Estates Commissioners had taken to reinstate in her old holding or otherwise provide for Widow Sammon,
  1614
  of Carrowkennedy, Westport, whose eviction in 1878 was the immediate cause for the foundation of the United Irish League?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Mrs. Sammon's former holding is in the occupation of another tenant. They have published in the "Dublin Gazette" a notice of their intention to acquire certain untenanted lands on the estate, compulsorily, under the Evicted Tenants Act, and propose to provide Mrs. Sammon with a holding on these lands, if ultimately acquired.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: That is exactly the same answer I have been receiving for the last five years from the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will kindly look into this particular case for himself and see whether after 15 years something more substantial can be given than promises, seeing that this case was one of the direct causes of the Land Purchase Acts?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners cannot do more than acquire land compulsorily on this estate, and having done so this lady with her historic connection will receive the earliest attention.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: The operation has already taken place.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to argue the case.

  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether it was with the concurrence of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, and, if not, at whose instance, the rewards to students amounted in 1909 to only £7,766, as compared with £20,406 given for that purpose in 1901; whether the examinations showed any more unsatisfactory results than what was attributable to that reduction; whether he was aware that this was a check to intermediate education in Ireland; and whether he proposed to increase the amount available under this head?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The amounts awarded by the Board in rewards to students in 1901 and 1909 respectively are correctly stated in the question. The distribution of the available funds as between school grants and prizes is entirely a matter for the Board, and I have no power to determine the amount to be made available under either heading.
  Mr. GINNELL: Have the Commissioners got the money?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, yes. The income of the Commissioners has no doubt fallen off, but still they have available funds. It is a matter which is entirely within their discretion.

  Opium Production (China).
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked whether, seeing that the production of opium in China is being very largely restricted, he is now prepared to respond to the desire of the Chinese Government to shorten the period of nearly eight years during which India is to continue to send opium to China?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): In undertaking, in response to the request of the Chinese Government, that the Indian opium traffic with China should, if certain conditions were fulfilled, be brought to a close within ten years, His Majesty's Government contemplated a settlement that would be final, and that was within the capacity of both countries to carry out, with due regard to the magnitude of the changes involved and interests affected. In this spirit it was accepted by the Chinese Government, which has not expressed a desire to reopen the question. The strict fulfilment of India's share of the agreement has imposed serious burdens on the Indian Government and on the Native States of India. His Majesty's Government are not disposed to disturb the settlement arrived at with the Chinese Government.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Has there been any recent decrease in the income from opium in India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, there has been a decrease.

  Irish Land Act, 1909 (Originating Agreements).
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would now say whether even in a single case since the Land Act of 1909 passed an originating agreement to purchase had been lodged?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Since 3rd December, 1909 (the date of the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1909), eleven originating applications in respect of estates which are being sold direct by landlords to tenants, and nine originating requests in respect of estates proposed to be sold to
  1616
  the Commisioners under Section 6 of the Act of 1903 have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners. The number of purchase agreements in direct sales lodged since 3rd December is 161.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many of these tenants are affected?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The number of purchase agreements and direct sales is 161. That is the minimum number. How many more are affected I do not know.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: How many tenants will that affect?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know. I say that 161 purchase agreements have been lodged by the tenants.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether those agreements had been lodged under former Acts and had been relodged?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, sir; the explanation I have received from the Estates Commissioners is as to the number of estates and actual purchase agreements lodged since the Act came into operation.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is there nobody to give us the names of the landlords and the tenants in respect of which it is alleged these agreements are lodged?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "alleged." I will endeavour to obtain the further information he seeks.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I did not in the least mean to suggest anything to offend the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not trust the Land Commissioners.

  County Magistrates (Waterford).
  Mr. POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution recently adopted by the county Waterford County Council calling his attention, and that of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, to the recent appointment as magistrates for the county of Waterford of gentlemen residing in the county of Tipperary who have no residence or property in the county of Waterford; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in the county of Waterford with the appointments made and with the manner in which the recommendations of the local authorities are ignored; and whether the recommendations made by the county council will be acceded to?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member presumably refers to the recent appointment of two Tipperary magistrates to the magistracy of the county of Waterford. These gentlemen live in county Tipperary, close to the borders of the two counties, and were appointed in the usual course on the recommendation of the Lieutenant of the county who considered it desirable for the public convenience that their jurisdiction should be extended. The Lord Chancellor always considers with attention the qualifications of the persons whose names may be submitted to him by any public body for appointment to the magistracy.
  Mr. POWER: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the final paragraph: whether the recommendations made by the county council will be acceded to? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the very fact of a body like a county council recommending is enough in the minds of these Lords Lieutenant of the Counties to ignore them altogether?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Lord Chancellor will certainly not ignore any application made by any such public authority.

  Enniskillen Assizes (Sergeant Carroll's Appeal).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he could now inform the House regarding the case heard at Newtownbutler on the 21st October, 1909, in which Sergeant Carroll, R.I.C., was charged with assault at Maguires-bridge; whether the assault was committed in an attempt to prevent the hoisting of a Union Jack upon private grounds; whether the sergeant stated that he had acted under authority, but refused to produce his authority to the court without the consent of the Government; and whether he would state on what grounds the sergeant was authorised to interfere with persons who were hoisting the flag of their country on private grounds?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The appeal lodged by Sergeant Carroll was heard at the Assizes at Enniskillen on the 5th instant, by the Lord Chief Baron, who held that a technical assault had been committed by the sergeant in making an effort to prevent the erection of a pole at Maguiresbridge, and gave nominal damages of 6d. in each case against the sergeant. After the pole was erected a Union Jack or Red Ensign was hoisted upon it, and this was done in a field opposite the priest's house on a party anniversary, and presumably as a
  1618
  party emblem, and as such was a source or danger to the public peace. The Lord Chief Baron expressly pointed out that he did not decide that the police would not have had power to take down the flag, as this question was not before him. As the hon. and gallant Member was informed on the 4th November last, no general or particular instructions have been issued to the Royal Irish Constabulary with respect to the flying of the Union Jack on private property or elsewhere in Ireland.
  Captain CRAIG: Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether, therefore, the sergeant was wrong in making the statement that he had received instructions not to allow the flag to be hoisted or to give the source of his instructions unless he received permission from the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The instructions given to the police sergeant had nothing to do with the hoisting of the flag, but were simply of a general character to preserve the peace on troublesome occasions of this sort.
  Captain COOPER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he considers the Union Jack a party emblem?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; but the Union Jack, as hon. Members who have taken part in elections on both sides know, is very often made a party emblem.

  Congested Districts Board (Protection of Tenants).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that a meeting of the Gurteen branch, county Sligo, United Irish League, expressed its opinion that any person occupying any portion of Mr. M'Dermott's land in Lisbally was a grabber of the worst type and would be treated as such; and what steps he proposed to take to prevent men placed on the land by the Congested Districts Board, which had striped it off, from being subjected to intimidation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The meeting referred to took place indoors, and the police are not therefore in a position to say what happened at it. The police will give every protection which may be necessary to persons placed on the land by the Congested Districts Board.

  Clare Spring Assizes (Intimidation Cases).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked how many cases of intimidation were brought to the notice

  1619
  of the Lord Chief Justice at the recent Clare Spring Assizes; and how many individuals were made amenable in such cases?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that twenty instances of intimidation which had occurred since the Winter Assizes were brought under the notice of the Lord Chief Justice at the Clare Spring Assizes. In one of these cases a man was arrested, but the Grand Jury found no bill.

  Old Age Pensions Act.
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Chief Secretary if he could state why the old age pension granted to Mrs. Nancy Cannon, Carrowcannon, Falcarragh, by the Dun-fanaghy sub-committee on 17th February had not yet been paid? I have been asked to address this question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Am I to take it that all similar questions are to be addressed to that right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I certainly, as between myself and the hon. Member, hope the questions will be put to my right hon. Friend.

  Alleged Shooting Affair (County Clare).
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary what steps he proposed to take to bring to justice the person who fired at a man named O'Dwyer, in county Clare; and whether O'Dwyer was so intimidated that he denied he was fired at at all, though twenty pellet holes were found in his hat and one in his ear?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In this case the man who is said to have been fired at denies the truth of the statement and refuses to give any assistance to the police, who therefore see little prospect of bringing his assailant, if any, to justice. He has marks on his face, but says that they were caused by the bough of a tree, and his cap has holes in it such as would be made by shot. The police cannot say whether he is intimidated or not.

  Intimidatory Notices (Kinvara).
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that notices had recently been posted in Kinvara, threatening with death anyone who pays rent or acts as a traitor to his fellow-tenants, and that the notices bear a photograph of a coffin with a skull and cross bones and a smoking rifle; and what steps he proposed to take in connection with the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Four notices of the kind, written in pencil, were found posted up on the 27th of February. The police are inquiring into the matter, and will afford protection to anyone who may appear to need it.

  United Irish League (Dromard Branch).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been drawn to the meeting of the Dromard branch of the United Irish League on 27th February, when the branch decided to publish a black list of all who would not join; and what steps he proposed to take to protect the persons referred to from intimidation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Constabulary authorities are not in a position to say whether it was decided to publish a list such as is mentioned in the question, but no such list has been published in the newspapers or otherwise, nor has any complaint been made to the police on the subject.

  Vice-President of Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether, having regard to the announcement he made in this House on the 24th April, 1907, that it was the fixed intention of the Government that the office of Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) should be a Ministerial office, held by a gentleman sitting on the Government Benches and responsible to this House for the work of his Department, he would state the reasons which had led the Government to change their fixed intentions and allow this office to be held by a gentleman who had no seat in this House?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There has been no change in the fixed intentions of the Government, who are still of opinion that the office in question should be a Ministerial office, held by a gentleman in sympathy with the party in power, sitting here on these benches, and responsible to this House for the work of his Department. It is unfortunately true that the Vice-President lost his seat at the recent General Election, but, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, it is only right to allow him reasonable time to seek re-election elsewhere.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which seat in Ulster he hopes to be able to win?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Ulster is not the whole world.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether this position of Vice-President of the Irish Department of Agriculture will be held by a person holding a seat in any part of the United Kingdom except Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think there is no reason whatever why the Vice-President should hold an Irish seat.
  Captain CRAIG: Then we might have a Welshman in the position of Vice-President?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The post is open to the honourable ambitions of all hon. Members in this House.

  Lisnaskea Petty Sessions.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary, in connection with the recent Maguiresbridge disturbances, whether his attention has been directed to the action of certain magistrates at Lisnaskea petty sessions, on Saturday, 26th February last, when two Protestants, named John A. Boles and William J. Boyd, were sentenced to two weeks and fourteen days' imprisonment, respectively, the resident magistrate dissenting, while all the cases against Nationalist prisoners were dismissed; whether the majority of the magistrates adjudicating were Nationalists; whether the Sergeant Carroll who gave evidence on behalf of the police against the Protestant prisoners is the same Sergeant Carroll who illegally prevented the flying of a Union Jack in private grounds for which he was convicted and mulcted in damages; whether the Lord Lieutenant has been requested to release Boles and Boyd; whether he has done so; and what further steps it is proposed to take in these cases?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that two persons, named Boles and Boyd, were sentenced to fourteen days imprisonment on 26th February, at the petty sessions named in the question, and that the resident magistrate dissented. I am also informed that on the same occasion cases against certain other defendants were dismissed, and that the resident magistrate concurred in this decision. I am not aware of the political opinions of the majority of the magistrates. Sergeant Carroll gave evidence in the cases. I have already informed the hon. and gallant Member of the result of the sergeant's appeal against the conviction referred to in the question. A Memorial praying for the release of
  1622
  Boyd and Boles was presented to the Lord Lieutenant on the 7th instant, and His Excellency decided to exercise the prerogative of mercy, and has ordered the discharge of the two prisoners, thereby shortening their sentences by three days. No further action appears to be necessary.

  King's Scholarship Examination.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary if he could state when the programme for the King's scholarship examination of 1911 would be issued, and whether the expressed intention of the National Board to make a second language an essential part of the programme would be embodied in it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the programme is in the printer's hands, and will be issued within the next few days. The Commissioners of National Education have decided not to make a second language an essential part of the examination until 1912.

  Ground Game, Ireland (Destruction of Crops).
  Mr. POWERasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to the destruction of crops that takes place in certain parts of Ireland by rabbits and ground game; and would he consider the advisability of introducing legislation with the view of enabling farmers to protect themselves against such ravages?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not aware of any demand for legislation on this subject.
  Mr. POWER: Does the Ground Game Act which prevails in this country apply to Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not sure. Since the hon. Member has put the question on the Paper I have endeavoured to ascertain whether any general complaints have been made with reference to general destruction made by rabbits, and I am told that it is not the case generally.
  Mr. POWER: It is very much so in Waterford.

  Galway Assizes.
  Mr. STEPHEN GWYNNasked whether it is necessary that the assizes should open in Galway on 17th March, that day being observed in Galway as a public holiday?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The dates for the holding of assizes at the several assize towns are fixed by the going judges of assize, and the matter is not one over which the

  1623
  Executive Government has any control. This is not by any means the first time that assizes have opened on 17th March. In the present year the Spring Assizes at Belfast and Londonderry, both open on that day, and other assizes open on the 16th, and, presumably, will be continued on the 17th.

  Dromagh Estates, County Cork.
  Mr. GUINEYasked the Chief Secretary what steps the Estates Commissioners are at present taking to acquire the lands of William X. Leader, D.L., situate at Dromagh, county Cork; if Mr. Leader offered these lands for sale to the Commissioners to be acquired by voluntary arrangement; if an inspection took place; and, if so, can he say what was the amount offered to Mr. Leader, and the number of acres proposed to be taken; are there a number of evicted tenants on this estate and district scheduled for reinstatement; whether he is aware that a number of small holders on the estate were prevented from purchasing their holdings under the Land Act of 1903, as they were included in the lands proposed to be acquired, the Estates Commissioners insisting that Mr. Leader should not sell to them pending negotiations; and whether, in view of the injury inflicted on these parties, on the evicted tenants and other landless people by the delay which has taken place in the acquisition of these lands, the Estates Commissioners will now take such steps as may be necessary to come to a speedy arrangement with the owner?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners recently instituted proceedings under the Evicted Tenants Act with a view to the compulsory acquisition of some 960 acres of land owned by Mr. Leader in the county Cork. They had previously been in negotiation with him, and had an inspection made, but no agreement as to price was come to. The proceedings are still sub judice, and the Commissioners must decline to disclose their estimated price. Applications received from tenants evicted from this estate and others will be considered in the allotment of the land, if acquired. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that the Commissioners insisted that Mr. Leader should not sell to the tenants who had not agreed to purchase their holdings, pending his negotiations with the Commissioners for the sale of the lands in his own hands. Their holdings were not included
  1624
  in the sale of the tenanted lands, as no purchase agreements were lodged in their cases, but it is open to the parties to enter into and lodge purchase agreements at any time.

  Congested Districts Board (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary how many new officials have been appointed, or are proposed to be appointed, by the Congested Districts Board, under the Act of 1909, with the amount of their proposed yearly salaries, estimated travelling expenses, and other appointments; will the new officials be selected by competitive examination or, if not, in what manner and on whose nomination; and what will be the total annual amount of the expenses of administration of the Board as soon as the increased staff has been appointed, including all travelling expenses of the members and officials of the Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The following new officials have been appointed by the Board: Seven assistant inspectors at £120 a year and travelling expenses, estimated at £75 a year each; one temporary valuer at two guineas a day, when employed; one shorthand clerk at 30s. a week; three instructresses in lacemaking at £1 a week, and two in dressmaking at 30s. a week; one manual instructor at £10 a month. The assistant inspectors were appointed after competitive examination, the instructors, both men and women on the recommendation of the Board's industrial inspector, the valuer and clerk by the Board. The annual cost of administration, including travelling expenses, is estimated at £37,000. The Board propose to appoint some additional temporary valuers at two guineas a day, with a guinea a night subsistence allowance.

  Heard's Estate, County Cork.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether his atention has been called to the judgment of the Master of the Rolls in an application last week under the Land Purchase Act of 1909 in respect of Heard's estate, county Cork, in which he stated that the financial provisions of the Act were that the vendor was to put his head in a noose and the Treasury were to be allowed to draw the knot, and complained of the regulations under which cash and stock might be advanced by the Treasury, remarking that they might make a million pounds last for a million years, but at the same time they might starve land purchase

  1625
  altogether; and, having regard to the nature of the regulations governing advances under the Act of last year, as disclosed in the judgment of the Master of the Rolls in the case mentioned, he will state what are the intentions of the Irish Government in regard to the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question on the same subject asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh, and to the two questions asked by the hon. Member for South Antrim on the 8th instant in reference to the recent regulations.

  Viceregal Commission on Irish Railways.
  Mr. HORNERasked the approximate date when the Report of the Viceregal Commission on Irish Railways will be laid?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Final Report of the Viceregal Commission on Irish Railways is at present under the consideration of the Commissioners, and will, it is expected, be ready for submission to His Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant and presentation to Parliament at an early date.

  O'Mahony Estate, Macroom.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners have inquired into the claim of Timothy W. Kelly, evicted tenant, of Shanacashel, Gueeves, Kil-michael, Macroom, on the estate of John and Timothy O'Mahony; was this man evicted in 1896; did his brother acquire the farm in 1897 and allow the former tenant back as caretaker; is he in every sense a bonâ fide evicted tenant, entitled to reinstatement under the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907; did Mr. Vaughan, inspector of the Estates Commissioners, report in favour of his claim, and estimate the fair rent of the holding at £9; were the landlords offered twenty years' purchase of this rent and did they refuse, demanding twenty-three and a half year's purchase of the old rent at £11 15s.; has the present tenant offered to surrender the holding to the Estates Commissioners if he is suitably compensated for his out-of-pocket expenditure on it; and will the Commissioners exercise their discretion in favour of the evicted tenant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have inquired into Kelly's application for reinstatement in a holding, now occupied by his brother, from which he
  1626
  appears to have been evicted in 1896. The Commissioners have decided not to take any action in the matter.

  Indian Tobacco and Cigarette Duties.
  Mr. CROFTasked whether the Indian Government have just imposed protective duties on cigarettes; and whether, in view of this abandonment of Free Trade in the Indian fiscal system, the Government propose to take any action?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The duties in question have been imposed for revenue and no other purposes, and involve no alteration of the fiscal principles of Indian finance.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked whether the Home Government were informed of the intention of the Indian Government to raise the import duty on cigarettes; and, if so, whether the Government sought and obtained the views of the trade in this country on the effects of these changes before signifying their approval to the Indian Government?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. All the proposals of the Indian Budget were framed in concert with the Secretary of State in Council. The answer to the second question is in the negative. It is not usual to make public in the way suggested impending changes of taxation in India or elsewhere.
  An HON. MEMBER: Is not the effect of this duty on cigarettes protective?
  Mr. MONTAGU: That is a question of opinion; but, as I said the other day, the Government of India are considering the question of putting a corresponding Excise duty upon tobacco manufactured in India.
  Mr. FLEMINGasked whether, in view of the fact that the Government have frequently expressed their approval of inter-imperial preferences, they have made, or are prepared to make, representations to the Indian Government to grant preferential duties for cigarettes imported from within the Empire?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to both questions is in the negative. The Indian import tariff is solely for revenue purposes, and in the view of the Indian Government the grant of preferences within it would not be consistent with its object. The question seems to assue that the Government of India stands on the footing of an independent State or a self-governing

  1627
  Colony. This, of course, is wholly inconsistent with the statutory enactment defining the relations of the Government of India to the Home Government.
  Mr. GOULDINGasked what was the total quantity of imported cigarettes on which duty was collected in India during the last financial year; and what reduction in consumption has been assumed in consequence of the increase in the duties?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The quantity of cigarettes imported into India in the year ending 31st March, 1909, was 2,995,692 pounds. The Secretary of State has not been furnished by the Government of India with an estimate of the reduction in consumption anticipated during the coming year.

  Purchase Agreements (Ireland).
  Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked the Chief Secretary whether purchase agreements lodged between 15th September, 1909, and the date of the passing of the recent Land Act have all been rejected by the Estates Commissioners; whether these agreements were valid when lodged and in the only form in which, at that date, they could have been received by the Land Commission; whether interest had been collected by the Land Commission from the tenants under these agreements, thus leading the tenants to believe that they would be acted on; whether, before rejecting these agreements, any steps were taken by the Estates Commissioners to bring about a fresh ararngement between the parties which would enable the purchase to proceed; and whether, in view of the hardship involved in the enactment operating retrospectively to nullify agreements which, when entered into and lodged, were quite legal, he can hold out any hope of amending the law so as to permit these agreements to be financed on the old terms?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Purchase agreements under the Act of 1903 lodged subsequently to 15th September last (the date mentioned in Section 13 (a) of the Act of 1909) are not "pending purchase agreements," and cannot therefore be financed under the Act of 1903; they have accordingly been returned to be amended in accordance with the new Act, or to be replaced by new agreements. Interest in lieu of rent, payable on 1st November, was collected by the Land Commission in a number of the cases. That interest,
  1628
  which was necessarily less than the rent, must, of course, be allowed for when rent is collected. The agreements in question were for sale direct from the owners to the tenants, and the Commissioners have nothing to say to the arrangements as to the terms come to between the parties. The answer to the concluding portion of the question is in the negative.

  Co-operative Banks (India).
  Mr. REESasked whether the Secretary of State will lay Papers exhibiting the spread of the co-operative banks movement in India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has caused a copy of the Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of Registrars of Co-operative Societies to be placed in the Library of this House. The conference was held in November, 1909, and its proceedings exhibit the present position of the movement. If the hon. Member should think the report of sufficient general interest, perhaps he will move for its Return.
  Mr. REES: Has there not been a very satisfactory development of this important movement, and is it not very honorably associated with the name of Mr. Dupernex?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Member will study the report he will see how far Mr. Dupernex had a share in its development.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Do I understand that if a request is preferred, a Return will be granted as regards these co-operative banks?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A Return of this report? Yes.

  Swadeshi Life Insurance Companies.
  Mr. REESasked whether it is proposed by the Government of India to legislate in order to the safeguarding of the interests of policy holders in Swadeshi life insurance companies, in respect of which in many, if not in most cases, there are no substantial deposits, no periodical actuarial investigations, and no investigation of accounts by an impartial and uninterested authority?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India have the question of amending the law as to life insurance companies under consideration, and are in communication on the subject with Chambers of Commerce and other bodies competent to express an opinion.

  Indian Education Committee.
  Mr. LLOYDasked for what specific purposes, other than those already reported on by Lord Reay's Committee, the new committee is called together; whether arrangements for a public appeal form a prominent part of those purposes; and whether, if so, the Government, with a view to materially encouraging public subscriptions, will make immediate provision in next year's Estimates for a money grant in conformity with the strong recommendations laid down in the Report of Lord Reay's Committee?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The object of the committee will be, as already stated, to prepare in full detail a definite scheme of teaching in the various branches of Oriental study. There is no reason to suppose that the committee will traverse the ground covered by, or reconsider the decisions of, Lord Reay's Committee. But it would be impossible to start a school or spend money until further details of staff, syllabus, etc., have been decided. When the new committee has concluded its deliberations a statement will be made as to the proposed means of providing funds. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 24th February.
  Mr. LLOYD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say at what date we can expect the Report of the recently formed committee, and whether it will come in sufficient time to enable a sum to be included in next year's Estimates?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It would not appear that the deliberations of the committee will take any very long time, and the Report will probably be forthcoming quite shortly.
  Mr. REES: Would not the present provision of the sum of £12,000 recommended by Lord Reay's Committee promote the object in view when this second committee's Report is received?
  Mr. MONTAGU: There does not seem to be any use in asking the House of Commons to vote money before the scheme on which the money is to be spent is decided on.
  Mr. REES: Could not Lord Reay's scheme be taken for this purpose as a kind of dummy Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the recommendation of £12,500 has already been carried by the committee, and, therefore, there appears to be no reason for hesitation on the matter.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am afraid I did not catch the question.

  British Guiana.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he has yet received any communication from the Governor of British Guiana with respect to the proposal that an expert on irrigation should go out to British Guiana with the object of inquiring into and reporting upon the feasibility of irrigation and drainage schemes being undertaken; and, if so, what was the nature of the communication?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The Governor of British Guiana has informed the Secretary of State that there is no necessity, so far as he can see, for the appointment of an expert in irrigation to come to the Colony for the purposes mentioned, as the present Colonial civil engineer has the requisite knowledge and experience, and the Government are already in possession of a mass of information on the subject. The Governor added that a Bill was being drafted to facilitate the promotion of schemes for the irrigation and drainage of lands in the hands of resident proprietors, that the proposals of the Government had been explained in outline to the Combined Court, and that the elective members who took part in the discussion expressed themselves as satisfied with the scheme.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Under-Secretary whether he will make inquiries as to the number of occasions since the provisional appointment of Mr. George Garnett to the Executive Council of British Guiana questions affecting the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, Sprostons, Limited, and the Demerara Railway Company, in all of which Mr. Garnett is financially interested, have been before the Executive Council; and whether Mr. Garnett was allowed to vote?
  Colonel SEELY: The function of the Executive Council is not to decide questions of policy by vote, but to advise the Governor of the Colony, who is, however, not bound to follow their advice. The Secretary of State is aware of Mr. Garnett's

  1631
  connection with the companies referred to, but, as I explained in reply to a question addressed to me on 29th October last, he does not regard them as in any way disqualifying him for the position of an Executive Councillor.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Under-Secretary whether he is aware of any intention on the part of the Government of British Guiana to effect a reduction in the mounted section of the police force in compliance with the expressed desire of a majority of the members of the British Guiana Legislature; and, if not, whether he will make representations to the British Guiana Government on the matter?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State has no information on the subject, but will make inquiries.
  Mr. POINTERasked whether consideration will be given to the advisability of framing conditions in connection with appointments to the Executive Council of British Guiana; and whether, in the filling of future vacancies, regard will be had to securing fair representation on the Executive Council of the three interests represented by the Chamber of Commerce, the Planters' Association, and the People's Association?
  Colonel SEELY: It would scarcely be possible, and in any case it would appear to be undesirable, to attempt to frame definite regulations governing the appointment of unofficial members of the Executive Council. Due regard must be had to the interests of the Colony as a whole, and, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it would not be politic to prejudge the selection for any future vacancy by an undertaking that any particular interest shall be represented.

  Suppression of Opium Smoking (Hong Kong and Straits Settlements).
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked whether the opium dens in Hong Kong were all now closed; and what steps were now being taken there to bring to a speedy close the habit of opium smoking; and also what progress was being made at the Straits Settlements in bringing to a speedy close the habit of opium smoking?
  Colonel SEELY: I will reply to my hon. Friend's two questions to me on the subject of opium smoking together. In the case of the Straits the Colonial Government are putting themselves in a position
  1632
  in which they will be able to exercise very considerable control over the traffic in opium. As regards Hong Kong, I understand that the last remaining divans were closed on February 28th. The House may rest assured that both His Majesty's Government and the Colonial Governments will continue to exercise energy and vigilance in pursuance of their policy, and the Governors of Hong Kong and the Straits shall be asked to include in the annual reports of their respective Colonies an account of the measures taken to regulate and restrict the consumption of opium and of their effect.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Perhaps the Under-Secretary might say if any other steps have been taken in Hong Kong which are known to him? I should be grateful to him if he would.
  Colonel SEELY: I thought my hon. Friend would have been so glad to hear that the last opium divan was closed on 28th February, that he would not wish me to give any further information to-day. I have given him all I can, and if he will put down another question I will endeavour to reply to him.
  Mr. REES: Have the Colonial and Home authorities made any observations as to the Use of alternative stimulants and drugs, which are quite as harmful as opium, and which the cessation of the use of opium may bring into use?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes; that matter has received, and is receiving, full consideration. We know that there are other drugs which are quite, if not more, injurious than opium. The matter is being watched by the Government.
  Mr. REES: Will the investigation in any way affect the policy of the Government, or is merely a scientific interest taken in these alternative stimulants?
  Colonel SEELY: No; the Government, both in Hong Kong and here, have considered the matter as a whole, and have taken measures which they hope may result in checking the abuse of opium, and at the same time will not result in the increase of alternatives.

  United States and Canada (Duty on Cream).
  Mr. MACMASTERasked what change has been made in the last United States tariff in the duties on cream imported from Canada; what has been the effect of these

  1633
  changes upon Canada's export trade in cream, the price of butter in Canada, the price of butter in the United States, and the export of Canadian cheese to the United Kingdom?
  Colonel SEELY: I fear the Secretary of State has not to hand the information necessary to answer the hon. Member's question, but he will communicate with the Governor-General of Canada on the subject.

  Women School Teachers (Medical Examination).
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the President of the Board of Education whether any and, if so, what provision is being made to enable women candidates for the elementary school teachers' certificate to obtain the medical certificates required by the Board by examination at the hands of women doctors; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of making arrangements for this purpose as soon as possible?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The Board are fully alive to the desirability of making arrangements for women candidates for the certificate to be examined by doctors of their own sex, and since 1908, forty-one names of women doctors have been added to the list of Medical Officers recognised for this purpose by the Board. In June, 1908, there were eleven women doctors on the list; there are now fifty-two. Further names will be added as opportunity offers; but it is necessary that the women doctors recognised for this purpose should be practising within reach of centres convenient for the attendance of candidates, and the number of them so placed is limited.

  Teachers of the Deaf.
  Mr. POYNTER (for Mr. Ramsay Mac-donald)asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to a memorandum issued by the National Association of Teachers of the Deaf, complaining that the regulations issued in 1909 inflict injustice on old teachers; whether the Board has considered this memorandum; and whether it proposes to modify the provisions, so that teachers that have been serving for a certain number of years may be exempt from disqualifications applying to the promotion of assistants and the transference of head teachers from one school to another?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The memorandum referred to has come into my hands for the first time to-day, and I have not yet had time to consider it. The Board had, however, previously received a communication on the subject from the Council of Headmasters of Institutions for the Deaf, and they are considering the desirability of including in the next issue of the Regulations a provision to the effect that teachers of the deaf who have been so engaged for a certain period, but do not possess the qualifications prescribed by the regulations for head teachers, shall not on that account alone be debarred from promotion to headships.

  Free Education (Liverpool).
  Mr. CLYNES (for Mr. George Roberts)asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, on the occasion of parents applying for free education for their children in some of the council schools in Liverpool, they are asked how much money they earn, what rent they pay, how they spend their money, and how many children there are in the family; whether he is aware that the respectability of parents is judged by the streets in which they live, those who happen to live in certain streets being refused the application without inquiry; and whether he will make representations to the Liverpool education authority on the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There are in Liverpool certain public elementary schools in which fees are charged. Fees are charged in these schools in accordance with the provisions of the Elementary Education Act, 1891 (commonly known as the Free Education Act). I find that a considerable proportion of the children attending these schools have their fees remitted or reduced. I understand that it is usual in such cases to ascertain as far as possible by inquiry whether the circumstances of the parents of the children applying for admission free of charge are such as to warrant the remission or reduction of fees. The inquiries to which the question refers are no doubt made with this end in view. Such investigations should, of course, be conducted as delicately as possible. I have no information on the point referred to in the second paragraph of the question, but I do not understand that any question of respectability arises.
  Mr. CLYNES: Does that apply to the council schools or to all schools?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say what are the specific schools that now charge fees, but there is nothing in the Statute to prevent council schools charging fees under certain conditions.
  Mr. BYLES: Is it the policy of my right hon. Friend to terminate the practice of paying fees in any council school?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The only possibility of terminating that would be by amending the Statute. The Statute provides that in certain cases what may be called vested interests in the way of fee charging should be continued under certain limited circumstances.
  Mr. HODGE: Are not the parents entitled in many cases to claim free places?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes. I understand that free places are given in Liverpool schools under certain conditions which are defined, not by the local authority, but by Statute.
  Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman ascertain if the lines of the inquiry into the condition of these parents are as stated in the question?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have given all the information I have. I cannot add to it.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that a considerable time frequently elapses between the date of a claim being lodged with the pension committee, and that in consequence deserving persons are sometimes kept for months from the pension to which they are entitled; if it is possible to give instructions that the pensions shall be payable from the date when the claim was lodged; and if, where it is impossible to deliver the book of orders personally within a reasonable time, such books might be sent to the pensioner through the local postmaster?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Pension officers are required to investigate every claim and submit it to the Committee as soon as possible after it is received. The investigation sometimes occupies a considerable time, especially if evidence of age has to be obtained; but the regulations allow of claims being preferred four months before the date when the claimant will attain the age of seventy. There is no authority for allowing the pension to be paid at a date
  1636
  earlier than that specified in Section 5 (2) of the Act, namely, the first Friday after the claim has been allowed, or, in the case of a claim provisionally allowed, the first Friday after the day on which the claimant becomes entitled to receive the pension. The question of allowing the first book of pension orders to be delivered by post is under consideration. Delay in delivering the book does not, however, entail any ultimate pecuniary loss to the pensioner
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked in estimating, i.e., for purposes of old age pensions, the income derived from a croft, on what grounds fair wages to a son or daughter are not allowed for to the same extent as would be allowed to a stranger employed on the croft?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Pension officers estimate, but do not decide, what is the amount of a claimant's means. A reference is suggested to the Scottish Local Government Board as to the lines adopted by that Department in deciding appeals.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked, in view of the fact that if a pension is refused there is nothing to prevent a claimant lodging a new claim, which would come before the pension committee and be duly considered, on what grounds a claim for an increased pension does not in practice come before the pension committee but is left solely to the discretion of the pension officer?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under the proviso to No. 17 (1) of the Statutory Regulations the pension officer is not bound to make any report to the committee on a question raised by a pensioner claiming an increased rate of pension, if the officer is satisfied that there is no evidence in support of the allegations made by the pensioner. Otherwise the question must be sent on to the committee with a report. So far as I know it has not been alleged that any pension officer has abused the discretion given him by the proviso.
  Mr. CULLINANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a revision of old age pensions granted in England, Scotland, or Wales has taken place; and, if so, will he state the number of persons deprived of pensions in the respective countries?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There has been no special revision of the old age pensions in any part of the United Kingdom. The number of pensions withdrawn on questions

  1637
  raised in England, Wales, and Scotland respectively during the year ended 31st December last was:

  England

  …

  …

  …

  3,024

  Wales

  …

  …

  …

  151

  Scotland

  …

  …

  …

  404

  Mr. CULLINAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the instructions which have been issued to pension officers in Ireland were issued to pension officers in England, or whether special attention was directed to Ireland in the way of giving different instructions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There was no such distinction made so far as I am aware.

  Small Holdings Act, 1908.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can hold out any hope this year of amending the Small Holdings Act, 1908, so as to give compensation to farmers who are disturbed by the county council in order to provide small holdings?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): I am not in a position at the present moment to give any formal undertaking, but we recognise the great importance of the subject, and it is receiving our careful and sympathetic consideration.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the Government support a Bill brought in by a private Member?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: That is a question, of course, for the Prime Minister.
  Earl WINTERTON: Will it take into consideration the fact that the cases of hardship arising under the Act are increasing every day, and that great discontent is felt in country districts with its working?

  Swine Fever.
  Mr. STANIERasked whether the Board of Agriculture will appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the general question of swine fever?
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINSasked whether the Board of Agriculture are still of opinion that the methods employed against swine fever are adequate to eradicate the disease; and, if not, whether they will now cause a fresh inquiry to be made into the pathology of the disease, the manner in which it is propagated, and the best means which can be employed with a view to restrict its ravages?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We are disposed to think that the question of the continued prevalence of swine fever in Great Britain, and the practicability of the adoption of further measures with a view to secure its speedy extirpation, might, with advantage, be investigated by a Departmental Committee, and arrangements for the purpose are now under consideration. The inquiry would naturally include the various matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras refers in the question which stands in his name, to which this reply will also be applicable.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will the terms of reference to the Committee include the consideration of the steps which are being taken in other countries, notably Ireland and Holland, with very great success to stamp out this disease?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The terms of reference will be so wide that it will be able to consider everything it should consider.
  Sir W. COLLINS: Will the proposed Committee include among its Members competent pathologists?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I expect so.

  Carcases Washed Ashore (Contagious Diseases).
  Mr. STANIERasked whether there is any record at the Board of Agriculture of carcases of animals washed ashore in Great Britain as is done in Ireland; and, if so, are they examined to see what was the cause of death, and if they died of a contagious disease?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No, Sir.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only carcase wrecked on the shore of Ireland last year was the Budget?
  Mr. STANIER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many contagious, diseased animals were picked up there?

  Diseases of Animals Act (Report).
  Mr. STANIERasked when the Report for the year 1909 of proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts will be issued?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Report will be issued at no very distant date.

  Death of Calves (Newport, Salop).
  Mr. STANIERasked whether the Board of Agriculture has any information as to

  1639
  the death of a large number of calves on the Chetwode Aston farm, Newport, Salop; and if he could make inquiries into the cause of death?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We received a communication from the Secretary for Higher Education for the county of Salop on this subject a few days ago and have asked for further information respecting it. I will communicate the result of our inquiries to the hon. Member.

  Fraserburgh and Aberdour Light Railway (Grant).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the terms under which a grant of £17,000 has been given to the Fraserburgh and Aberdour Light Railway; and whether the House will have an opportunity to consider them?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A grant has been offered in respect of the Fraserburgh and Aberdour Light Railway, subject to certain conditions. I will furnish the hon. Member with a copy of the Treasury letter containing the conditions, which would be inconveniently lengthy to state orally. Grants under the Light Railway Act, 1896, are made from funds placed at the disposal of the Treasury by that Act, and do not require formal confirmation by Parliament before being made.

  Trawling in Moray Firth (Prosecutions).
  Mr. WARINGasked the Lord Advocate how many cases of trawling in the prohibited area of the Moray Firth have been reported to the Scottish Fishery Board by the fishery cruisers during the months of January and February; and whether any prosecutions have taken place or are pending for the attempt to land illegally trawled fish in British ports?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): Eleven foreign trawlers were so reported on twenty-two occasions during January and February, namely, six Danish trawlers on twelve occasions, four Norwegian trawlers on eight occasions, and one Belgian trawler on two occasions. The method of prosecution under the Act of last Session, as my hon. Friend is aware, is not prosecution, but confiscation, by the Customs of fish caught in prohibited areas and brought to a port in the United Kingdom. Confiscation of fish caught in the Moray Firth has already taken place, namely, in the case of the Danish vessel "Thora," which was observed at work in the Moray
  1640
  Firth on 26th February, and whose catch of fish was seized at Grimsby on the 2nd instant.

  Court Houses in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether the High Court of Justiciary is always granted to the magistrates of Edinburgh for their April licensing court; if so, will he say why this court is so granted; is it through want of accommodation elsewhere; and will he grant a similar privilege to the magistrates of Glasgow should they desire it, who are frequently forced to hire a hall for then April licensing court?
  Mr. URE: The reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative, the reason being want of sufficient accommodation as suggested by him. I understand that the Justiciary Building in Glasgow is not vested in the Crown, which is, therefore, not in a position to grant or refuse its use.

  Rosyth Naval Base (Residential Quarter).
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Lord Advocate whether any scheme for developing the residential quarter of the naval base at Rosyth on garden city lines is to be undertaken by the Scottish Local Government Board?
  Mr. URE: I understand that the Admiralty are proposing that a certain area of their property at Rosyth should be developed on garden city lines. A conference has been held between representatives of the Admiralty and the Scottish Local Government Board in order that the Admiralty may be advised as to the best means by which the scheme can be carried out.

  Warships in East India and China Waters.
  Mr. REESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any and, if so, how many battleships and first-class cruisers are stationed in the East India and China waters?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): There are four first-class cruisers on the China station; none on the East Indies station.
  Mr. REES: Are they one station for division purposes?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, there are two stations. The question is too complicated for me to enter into the discussion of it now, but for these purposes there are two separate stations.

  Pair Wages Clause (Portsmouth and Devonport Contract Work).
  Mr. HUDSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say to what extent the Sussex Portland Cement Company, Newhaven, are contractors for His Majesty's dockyards at Portsmouth and Devonport; and whether this firm is under conditions to observe and carry out the Fair Wages Clause of 1909?
  Mr. McKENNA: The fan named holds an Admiralty contract for the supply of cement to Devonport Dockyard. They are also supplying cement to the contractors for the new lock at Portsmouth. As regards both of these contracts, they are subject to the Fair Wages Clause drawn up in accordance with the House of Commons Resolution of 13th February, 1891.

  Austrian and Italian Navies ("Dreadnoughts").
  Mr. BARNESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the four "Dreadnoughts" which he stated on 26th July last year were going to be built by the Italian and Austrian Governments have been laid down yet, or whether any moneys have yet been voted for their building?
  Mr. McKENNA: One "Dreadnought" has been laid down by Italy, and another is shortly to be laid down—£970,000 and £132,000 respectively being voted in the financial year ending 30th June next. The Austro-Hungarian Estimates are not yet published, and no official information has been received as to any "Dreadnought" ships having yet been laid down for the Austro-Hungarian Government.

  Naval Manœuvres (Threatened Coal Strike).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the reserve stores of Welsh steam coal have been largely increased since July last, when it was found necessary to reduce speed during the naval manœuvres in view of a threatened coal strike in South Wales?
  Mr. McKENNA: Additional storage accommodation for steam vessel coals, the provision of which was in hand in July last, has since become available for use and it has therefore become practicable to make considerable addition to our reserve stocks.
  Mr. ARBUTHNOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that except under unforeseen or exceptional circumstances there will be no special reduction
  1642
  of speed during the manœuvres as the result of the coal strike or threatened coal strike?
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no, I could not give any such asurance as that. If a strike existed at that time I have no doubt we should think it advisable to reduce the speed.

  ACCOMMODATION FOR MEMBERS (TICKETING OF SEATS).
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Mr. Speaker, may I ask your ruling on a point relating to the ticketing of seats? I understand that some Members are in the habit of coming down and filling up seven or eight cards with the names of their Friends and putting them on seats. I want to know whether it is not the fact that the only way a Member can secure a seat is by coming down himself and writing his name on a card, and in addition being himself present at prayers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet is quite correct. The rule is, "One Member, one seat." If the hon. Baronet will look at one of the cards he will see that it is clearly stated at the bottom that a Member is only entitled to secure his own seat. May I also remind the Members of the House of the fact which, I believe, they sometimes omit to notice, that a card only retains the seat provided the Member does not quit the precincts of the House?
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: May I ask whether it is in Order for a policeman to put a card on a seat on behalf of a Member?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly not; I think the Member should put his own card on the seat. The rule is, "One Member, one seat," not one policeman, one seat.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have any statement to make about the business of the House next week?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): We intend to take on
Monday—Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair on the Navy Estimates;
Tuesday and Wednesday—Navy Estimates (Votes A and 10) in Committee;
Thursday—Reports of these Votes; and Friday—Report stage of the Civil Services Vote on Account, and Ways and Means (Committee). If opportunity offer, we will also take one or two non-controversial Bills.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that is a considerable departure from the programme announced by the Prime Minister. May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it is not now intended to take Vote 1, and why Vote 10, which was not mentioned by the Prime Minister, is now introduced? [An HON. MEMBER: "It was introduced."] No, it was not; I was on the look out for it.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I was not aware that Vote 1 was mentioned by the Prime Minister. I think I shall be able to explain that at the time I answer another question of which I have had private notice, as to why the Vote on Account is to be taken practically for six weeks. It all bears on the same point, I would prefer the right hon. Gentleman to raise the question in Committee. I could hardly answer it by the process of question and answer across the floor. I propose that he should put the question when we come to the Vote on Account.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was anxious to meet the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter, and I proposed at his request to ask my question about the Vote on Account in Committee instead of now. But I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to make a statement which concerns the Navy Votes as well. I do not know whether that would be in order in Committee, and whether we can discuss it there. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be most convenient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make his statement now, or to reserve it for Committee?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is impossible for me to say, because I do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to say.

BILLS PRESENTED.
The following Bills were presented, and read the first time:—
Sir JAMES GIBSON—Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, Extension—Bill to extend the powers and provisions of The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, with respect to the construction and carrying of sewers
1644
to water mains and pipes of statutory Trustees and Commissioners of water undertakings. (To be read a second time upon Thursday next.)
Mr. MORTON—Railway Tickets—Bill to prevent a time limit being set upon the use of passenger tickets. (To be read a second time upon Tuesday next.)
Mr. TENNANT—London Electric Supply—Bill to constitute the London County Council the purchasing authority in respect of the undertakings of certain electric lighting companies in London to which The London Electric Supply Act, 1908, does not apply; and for purposes incidental thereto. (To be read a second time upon Monday next.)
Mr. STRAUSS—Leasehold Enfranchisement—Bill to provide for the enfranchisement of leaseholds. (To be read a second time upon Monday, 18th April.)
Mr. BIRRELL—Census (Ireland)—Bill to provide for taking the Census for Ireland in the year 1911. (To be read a second time to-morrow.)
Mr. JESSE COLLINGS—Agricultural Education in Elementary Schools—Bill to promote agricultural education and nature study in public elementary schools. (To be read a second time upon Friday, 15th April.)

SUPPLY [2nd Allotted Day].
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1910–11.
  VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, namely:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  Class IV.

  £

  Board of Education

  2,100,000

  Class II.

  Foreign Office

  12,500

  Board of Trade

  50,000

  Class I.

  Royal Palaces

  10,000

  Osborne

  2,500

  £

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  27,500

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  10,000

  Campbell-Bannerman Memorial

  500

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  14,500

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  25,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  17,500

  Revenue Buildings

  70,000

  Labour Exchange Buildings, Great Britain

  25,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  95,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  27,000

  Harbours under the Board of Trade

  15,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  1,000

  Rates on Government Property

  41,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  35,000

  Railways, Ireland

  17,500

  Class II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  House of Lords Offices

  6,000

  House of Commons Offices

  10,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  22,500

  Home Office

  25,000

  Colonial Office

  12,500

  Privy Council Office

  2,500

  Mercantile Marine Services

  12,500

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  3

  Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

  26,500

  Charity Commission

  7,500

  Civil Service Commission

  7,500

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  12,500

  Friendly Societies Registry

  1,750

  Local Government Board

  34,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,250

  Mint (including Coinage)

  10

  National Debt Office

  3,000

  Public Record Office

  5,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  20

  Registrar-General's Office

  8,500

  Stationery and Printing

  100,000

  Woods, Forests, etc., Office of

  4,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  20,500

  Secret Service

  10,000

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland, Office of

  21,000

  Fishery Board

  4,250

  Lunacy Commission

  1,250

  Registrar-General's Office

  1,000

  Local Government Board

  3,500

  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I gave him brief and private notice, and for which, doubtless, he was already prepared. The question is: Why, in the Vote on Account which was circulated this morning, there is taken a sum sufficient to last for only six weeks instead of following the practice which has been pursued uniformly, I think, since the year 1896, of taking Supply for four or five or more months, or, in other words, for such a time as will cover the normal length of the Session, and relieve the House from again having to pass subsequent Votes on Account of a similar kind,
  1648
  as was formerly the Parliamentary practice? This Vote, I notice, is taken for a period of only six weeks. That would, of course, be six weeks from 1st April. Particularly interpreted, that would bring us to 13th May; in other words, to a point which must be, I think, within our Spring Recess, whatever is that Recess. The 13th May is the Friday before Whit-Sunday. If it be the fact that the Treasury have drawn the Estimate accurately for six weeks, I cannot conceive a more inconvenient time at which the authority for payments should lapse than at the very moment when, in ordinary circumstances, the House has adjourned for the Whitsuntide Recess, and when, according to the programme foreshadowed by the Prime Minister for this year, we shall be in the middle of the combination of Easter and Whitsuntide holidays, which he has called the Spring Recess. I do not desire to make any comment on the proposal of the Government at this point, but I reserve my right to do that later if it be required. I shall be much obliged if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain to the Committee what the reason is for departing from the ordinary practice?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not really the case that we are departing from any very ancient precedent. We are simply reverting to the practice which was the established practice in this House up to the year 1896, when Votes on Account were taken, as a rule, for six weeks, or in some cases for a month, and in some for a couple of months, the reason being that it was very desirable that the House of Commons can have control over the Executive. In 1896 the party to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Chamberlain) belongs, being in office at that time, for the first time departed from what I still think was an excellent practice, and they made the Votes on Account for three, four or five months. We thought that that was weakening the control of Parliament. We protested strongly against it at the time. The right hon. Gentleman says it is very unusual. Well, the circumstances are rather unusual. I am glad I have been able to make an observation which commands universal assent. Therefore, the very foundation of the Government's action is one which is accepted by all quarters of the House. And the reason why we depart from what has been the practice, which was not introduced until 1896, and is not a very old one,

  1649
  and why we have taken this occasion for reverting to the older and better Parliamentary practice, is because the financial position is quite an unusual one. The practice referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, he points out, has been uniformly pursued by the House of Commons since 1896. There are other financial expedients which were uniformly pursued by the House of Commons up to the present from a period long before 1896. These have been departed from, and that forces us to depart to this extent from the practice of extending the Votes on Account beyond six weeks. The same observation applies to Vote 10 of the Navy. The reason why we did not take Vote 1 was that if we took Vote 1 it would vote more money than we want. With a view to restoring the complete control of the House of Commons over the Executive, I think that the House of Commons ought to have another opportunity, especially about that date, of expressing its opinion about the Executive, from whichever side it is brought in. I think it is very important that the House of Commons should have full control over the Executive, and especially at that time. For those reasons we do not think it expedient to invite the House of Commons at this stage to arm the Executive with funds that will make it practically independent of the House of Commons as far as funds are concerned for more than that very crucial period in its history. That is the real reason why we made this departure not from a very old-established precedent, but from a very bad precedent that was set by our predecessors in office, by the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs. That is the real explanation, and I think it is one that will commend itself to the House of Commons.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just made is one of some importance, and I confess that a declaration of policy of this kind would, I think, be better made by the Government on their own Motion and as part of a formally considered policy than surreptitiously embodied in the Vote on Account, presented to the House of Commons without a word of explanation, and left to the Opposition to comment on and elicit the reasons for. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that he never approved of the principle of bringing into the Vote on Account sufficient to last the duration of the ordinary Session.
  1650
  He rightly says that that was an innovation made by the party to which I belong, which, however, I think found a new reason and foundation when, at the instigation of that party, the Supply Rules of the House of Commons were changed on the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The old practice was that no fixed days were allotted for Supply. Every Government could in turn postpone Supply to the very end of the Session, and then, when all the business had been concluded, might sit night after night late in July, or very frequently, I think, in August. I remember, even in my Parliamentary life, at least one occasion when it was September. The House sat until three or four o'clock in the morning, or later, rushing through Votes in Supply, many of which were never discussed at all, and most of which were discussed under circumstances of the greatest inconvenience and the least possible utility to the public service. For that scheme my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) induced the House to substitute the present Supply Rules, by which a certain number of days must be allotted in the very best period of the Session to the discussion of Supply, and by the practice which he established, and which all Governments are likely to follow, the decision as to what Vote is to be put down on any particular day, is practically left to the critics of the Government—to the Opposition in the first place—or if the Opposition have exhausted their criticism, then to the critics of the Government on their own side. Under the old system, when the Votes in Supply were thrust back to the last moments of the Session and then taken, as I said, at all hours of the night and day, Parliament was naturally, and properly, reluctant to granting large sums on account to the Government, because that made it independent of Parliament for all purposes of Supply for the time for which the Vote on Account was granted. When fixed days were allotted, one in each week, to Supply, and the Government was obliged to come to the House week after week, putting down whichever Vote the House most desired to discuss, it became quite unnecessary, and indeed, a pure waste of time to multiply Votes on Account. A Vote on Account was put down as the first Order on any given day, making that day what is called a counting day in Supply. Accordingly, when you put down a Vote on Account you subtract one day that might be taken for the discussion of the actual

  1651
  Votes concerned. If you multiply Votes on Account then you have to give a day for each Vote on Account, so that each time you have an additional Vote on Account you render it necessary to subtract a further day from the number of days allotted to Supply. The House loses by this practice, and though the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he and his Friends protested at the time it was introduced and voted against it, I think they have become fairly reconciled to it, because for four years they have pursued it themselves without a twinge of conscience, without a hint that it was an inconvenient practice established by their predecessors which they intended to subvert.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not inconvenient.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Improper practice. I think that was the adjective. I take whatever adjective the Chancellor wishes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a great master of adjectives. Though they may be in doubt as to the propriety of the practice, the Government themselves have followed it for four years, and if they were in office next year they would set it up again. They are breaking through it this year for a purely temporary purpose, as, indeed, the Chancellor admits, and this suggestion that the practice is improper or undesirable does not carry conviction to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, or to any Gentleman in this House. That was only introduced to give a little colour to an otherwise shabby manoeuvre in the Parliamentary game which the Government have been playing since we met. As the days pass the policy of the Government is constantly being altered and constantly being subjected to new developments. I have pointed out already that the Votes to be taken next week on the Navy Estimates are different from those which the Prime Minister announced a week or so ago. They are altered, as the Chancellor tells us, because if the Government take Vote 1, as they originally proposed, they would get a great deal more money than they had need of, and the Executive would be able to pay the sailors for a longer period than the six weeks which seems desirable to the Government.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I venture to correct the right hon. Gentleman. I did not say that. As the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, that is not strictly accurate.
  1652
  It is not a question of paying the sailors for a longer period; it is a question of coming to the House of Commons to ask for fresh funds when these are exhausted. Nobody suggests that the sailors should not be paid the very moment the money is due. When the Vote is exhausted, the Executive for the time being can come to the House of Commons.
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman and the Committee must see that the question of the Navy Vote is not one we can discuss now.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am in some difficulty, as the House knows. I see that you, Sir, are in a difficulty also. [Cries of "Order."] Let me make my meaning clear. I am quite certain, Sir, that you do not think that I was guilty of any discourtesy to you. The Chairman has to administer the Rules of the House; sometimes those Rules are inconvenient to all parties, and then the position of the Chairman is one of some difficulty when he has to consider whether it is desirable for the sake of convenience, and at the general desire of the Committee, that he should give a latitude to an hon. Member who is speaking which goes beyond that to which he is strictly entitled. What occurred in this case was that this alteration in the business of next week was mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Question time. He gave notice of the change in the ordinary way. I had intended at the same time to ask the Government for an explanation of the present Vote on Account, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that an explanation could not be given very well in answer to a question, and it would be more convenient if I deferred my question until we got into Committee, and the explanation he gave on the Vote on Account would be also an explanation of the Vote for the Navy. I did at once call attention to the fact that we might have some difficulty in discussing the change as affecting the Navy in this Committee, and I tried to get the Speaker's guidance on the subject, but Mr. Speaker said he did not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to say, and therefore he could not indicate before we went into Committee whether what he said would be in order or not.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On a point of Order. I accept the absolute accuracy of the narrative given by the right hon. Gentleman, but at the same time he could

  1653
  have only asked me a question with the Speaker in the Chair; it could not have been discussed then. The right hon. Gentleman asked for an explanation, and that explanation I have given. I could not have said more, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could have said more, with the Speaker in the Chair. It was at Question time, and he might have asked this question, but he could not have discussed it.
  Mr. LOUGH: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, as both the right hon. Gentlemen have alluded to the Supply Rules of 1896, it will be possible for other Members of the House to refer to them also?
  The CHAIRMAN: It depends entirely whether the arguments are relative to the points before the Committee.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will try to conform to your ruling, Sir. I will not discuss the question of the Navy Vote, and I pass from it with two observations. The Government have evidently altered their policy since the Prime Minister announced the business for next week. At that time it had not occurred to the right hon. Gentleman to deal with Supply in this way. I think I can arrive at the date of their change of mind more closely than that. When they put down the Army Estimates they did not take Vote A and Vote 10, but they took Vote A and Vote 1. What has occurred, then, within the last few days? What fresh comings and goings, what new threatening letters have the Government received, that they again alter their programme, and now settle that means are to be found for carrying on the King's Government for six weeks and no longer? I believe it is pretty clear what the Government had in their minds. I think it has been pretty clear from the moment when they declined to take the Budget, in accordance with the statement of the Prime Minister, as the first act of this new Parliament. They are threatened men; they hold their official life by a precarious thread that may be snapped at any moment, and they know it.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Why do you give them more money?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why? Because giving them more money will not prolong their life. If it would, that might be a very good reason for restricting the Vote. But I think it is obvious what are the Government's intentions. They propose
  1654
  to provide just enough to go on into the middle of May. By that time they think their own life will be about coming to an end, and the one thing on which they have determined, and the only object that amidst all these twistings and twinings they are steadily pursuing, is to leave the greatest financial confusion behind them they can. That is what I call a shabby game. The Prime Minister talked solemnly of carrying on the King's Government with credit as long as the right hon. Gentlemen beside him were Ministers. There is little credit from their present proceeding, there is little thought for the dignity of the Crown, for the due conduct of public business, and for the convenience of the public service. Everything of that kind is made subservient to their party and in the hope that they may stave off defeat, if fortune is kind to them; but that, at any rate, they may leave a financial morass behind them for anybody who tries to follow in their footsteps. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose fault is it?"] We are a minority in the House, within two, however, of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and whether that majority of two will remain after the petitions have been heard can only be known when they have been decided. We can only enter our protest against the public interests being once again sacrificed to the party necessities of a weak and feeble Government.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: May I introduce the cold light of reason after the histrionics to which we have just listened. First of all, I think the fears and the terrible heartburnings of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to what is to happen after 15th May may prove to be entirely unfounded. He reckons that on 15th May the Government will be gone, and that he, the future Chancellor of the Exchequer, will find himself in a morass of their digging. No, Sir, the morass is not of their digging, the morass was dug down the passage, and the order to dig it came from Birmingham, from that Birmingham which indifferently manufactures false gods for the heathen and false policies for British statesmen. Let him not be too sure that this Government will be gone by 15th May. The man that once did sell the lion's skin while the beast lived was killed with hunting him. I have seen nothing in the exploits, not even in the questions, of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that entitles them to feel confident of their strength to beat even this despised Ministry. They are a leaderless lot. [An HON.

  1655
  MEMBER: "Who is your leader?"] My leader sits on this Front Bench—my leader is any man who leads the party against Protection. I am here because you on that side have forsaken the policy of the late Lord Salisbury, and of every Conservative Minister who ever had brains in his head. If I am here it is because you have engaged in a conspiracy for which you have found pliant tools, and because you sent down a dog in the manger to every seat—
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I wish to ask how is this relevant to the Vote under discussion?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is getting rather wide of the Question, but I think he was led into it by an interruption.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I was endeavouring to give a courteous reply to an insolent question. I want to come to close quarters with the right hon. Gentleman. He says that up till the invention of the system of allotted days the principle of a Vote on Account was to give a small Vote for a short period. I hope I rightly understood him.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say that.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: That is what I understood.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Historically that is not quite accurate.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: That is what I was about to say.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Vote on Account was usually, I think, for three or four months, or four or five. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen are so anxious to contradict me that they will not listen to what I have to say. Before 1896 the Vote on Account was usually for two months at the outside. After 1896 it was usually for a period almost comtemporaneous with the Session. Since the new Rule came in that was found to be the most convenient practice.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I am sure I have no desire to misrepresent what the right hon. Gentleman said. I did understand him to say that there was a defect produced by the allotted days, resulting in lengthening the time and increasing the
  1656
  amount of the Vote on Account. But at any rate it was not so. I think I am right in saying that the allotted days were first invented in 1902. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! No!"] I will leave that point, and I will come to the nature of the Vote on Account and the propriety of making it long or short, large or small in amount. Up till 1896 the habit was to take a very small Vote on Account for a very short period, £3,000,000 to £5,000,000 for four or five weeks. In my opinion, as one who has a certain amount of financial purity in his composition I think that is the right method, because what is a Vote on Account? It really is an anticipation of the grants for the Crown in Supply. It is not required for the Army or the Navy, because for those two Services you get a large amount voted in Vote 1 or Vote 10, as the case may be, and you can transfer one part of the expenditure to another. Therefore, if you once get a great lump sum either for the Army or the Navy you have money in your pocket to carry on the services. That is not so in the Civil Service, since for the Civil Service there is no large lump sum taken in a single Vote, and even if there were there is not the same power of taking a portion from one part and putting it on to another. I do not say there is no power, but in order to do so you have to get Treasury sanction. That is the reason for the Vote on Account.
  Up till 1896 the practice was £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 for from four to six weeks. In 1897 the Vote on Account was raised to £10,000,000 and was for sixteen weeks, and in 1903, when the shadows of death were falling over the Administration of which I am speaking, it was raised from £4,000,000 to £21,000,000, and from four weeks to twenty-one weeks. I protested against it at the time. I pointed out that the lengthening of the period and the increasing of the amount of the Vote in Supply tended to deprive, and materially deprive, the House of Commons of its control over the finances of the country. I said then, as I venture to say now, that the only way by which the House of Commons could retain control over the finances and inspire some respect in a Ministry is to insist upon the Vote on Account being for a short period and for a relatively small amount. I observe that last year the Vote on Account was for £26,000,000 and for twenty-four weeks, and this year, to my very great gratification.

  1657
  His Majesty's Government have returned to what I consider the true principles of finance, and they have placed before this House a Vote on Account for a small amount and extending over a short period. What is the complaint? Why not? Surely we have been long enough under the rule of the late Government, we have been long enough committed by them to every kind of financial enormity, and atrocity, and impropriety. It cannot become eternal with us. There must come a time when a Government with some conscience, like the present Government says to itself: "There is great trouble in the finances, there are some complications, there is some confusion, but at any rate we will do what we can, and we shall keep the Vote on Account for a small amount and for a short period."
  I comprehend that the whole objection of the right hon. Gentleman opposite lies upon the assumption that His Majesty's Government is not going to last six weeks after 31st March. I venture to think that is a very gratuitous assumption, and whether his prophecy comes to pass or not, I do not think he himself will take very much part in bringing it to pass, nor any of the Gentlemen I see on that Bench. It will require another leader from another clime before that is achieved. But has the right hon. Gentleman reflected that there is a possibility His Majesty's Government may still be in office on 15th May. If so, and if there then be confusion in the finances owing to the Vote on Account being run out, the difficulty will be the difficulty of His Majesty's Government. It is they who will again feel the want of money, but they will again, instead of waiting five, six or seven months, as the Government of the right hon. Gentleman did, after that six weeks, come, as they should come to the House of Commons for further Supply, and the House, I have no doubt, will cheerfully grant it.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I desire to add an observation on the subject of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat. He has told us at considerable length that the view he takes is an entirely sanguine one as to the precise moment of the decease of the Government. Those considerations have never elicited on these benches the same excitement, or the same anticipation, as they have on the benches opposite. It is in their own party organs, and among their own supporters below the Gangway on
  1658
  both sides of the House, that we have these warnings of their instant decease, and that they have long since passed the time when any self-respecting Government could continue in existence. But it is unnecessary to examine the precedents with the care with which the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) has done it, because the defence of the Government is not based upon that ground at all. The case made on behalf of the Government by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not that we have here a healthy reversion to a more convenient and salutary practice at all. The case made—which was cheered so loudly from the benches opposite—is that some special emergency has arisen which makes it right and necessary to do what it has not been right and necessary to do in the last four years. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman by the side of the Chancellor of the Exchequer readily assents to that. Then do not let Ministers cheer the attempts made from behind them to establish the proposition that this course has been adopted by a single reference to general grounds of financial convenience. We know then where we are. This course has been adopted without any reference at all to the considerations of financial convenience which played so large a part in the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bowles). It has been brought to the attention of the House in a covert manner as part of the scheme of the Government for dealing with the House of Lords in the crisis which has arisen between the two Houses. In other words, it is one step and one stage in the policy of evasion and chicanery which the Government has been pursuing.
  The hon. Member for King's Lynn says that the treatment which the Budget received in another place was dictated from Birmingham. That it was unreservedly approved from Birmingham I gladly admit, and I rejoice and take pride in that recognition. But what is the reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of castigating the House of Lords for the step they have taken, are adopting all these kinds of backstair and subordinate methods. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone listening to me as to the reason why these illicit and subordinate methods are adopted by the Government. They are adopted because their lives hang on a moment's purchase. They are trying to make a deal with Irish Members below the Gangway, and their one obsession is that the Budget may not be defeated on

  1659
  the floor of the House of Commons, as they well know it would be if they introduced it to-morrow. Why sneer at Birmingham? Or let me put it this way: Why should democrats sneer at Birmingham? The only justification for sneering at Birmingham is that Birmingham was more successful in diagnosing the probable view of the democracy than hon. Gentlemen opposite were. Everyone knows that if the Budget proposals were submitted at the present moment to the House of Commons they would be rejected and the action of the House of Lords vindicated. It is because the Government know that and dare not introduce their Budget—
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see what these remarks have to do with the matter under discussion.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I will conclude my observations by saying that it is well within the knowledge of every Member of the House who faces the facts without concealment that the only reason why a frontal attack is not made on the House of Lords and that these indirect and subterranean methods are adopted is, that right hon. Gentlemen opposite know that if a frontal attack were made, they would be immediately defeated. In the belief that these methods of dealing with the House are not straightforwardly intended on the part of the Government, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Lord H. CECIL: The Government having taken an unprecedented course, are defending it with unprecedented discourtesy. I do not think that such a proceeding has ever been witnessed as that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when faced by a Motion to report progress, should remain in his seat and not offer to the House any defence of the conduct of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that the House of Commons sits here to do his bidding, and that he is entitled to take no part in its proceedings unless it suits him. He ought to follow the precedents of men much more eminent than himself, and reply to a Motion made by a Member of the House in proper course and at the proper time. The right hon. Gentleman has announced—why it was not announced by the Prime Minister I cannot conjecture, but for some unknown reason the Prime Minister is absent—a change in public policy of the gravest possible character. I do not think
  1660
  it is possible to overrate the gravity of the statement which has been made this afternoon. It appears to be the case that the Government contemplate, in the event of their being turned out of office, advising the House to refuse Supplies to the Crown at a later period of the Session. I brush aside as an irrelevant pretence, which no one affects to believe, and which no one can be assumed to believe, the doctrine that it is a more convenient course to have a Vote on Account for five or six weeks.
  Mr. THOMAS LOUGH: Is it in order to discuss upon this new Motion the question which was before the House a few moments ago?
  The CHAIRMAN: When a Motion to report Progress is made the arguments have to be relevant to that. I was waiting to see what the Noble Lord was going to say.
  Lord H. CECIL: My argument is relevant to the Motion, because I think it is improper that the Committee should proceed to vote until the Government have made a better justification of the peculiar character of the Vote now before the Committee. It is evidently contemplated that at a later period supplies should be refused. It has indeed been pretended that it is a more convenient course, but I think that has been sufficiently exposed. To use the limited time which under the Rules of the House is allotted to Supply for the purpose of passing a second Vote on Account cannot be a convenient course.
  Mr. LOUGH: I submit with great respect that the Noble Lord is pursuing a most inconvenient course. On the Motion for adjournment he is discussing the main question. Many of us wish to speak on that, but I submit it is out of order to do so while the Motion to report Progress is before the Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Motion to report Progress was moved to call attention to the action of the Government in proposing the Vote on Account in this form, and the Noble Lord's remarks seem to me perfectly relevant.
  Lord H. CECIL: As far as I understand the procedure which the law requires it will also be necessary to bring in and pass through all its stages a second Consolidated Fund Bill. No one can pretend that that is a convenient course. I assume, therefore, that that is merely a pretence.

  1661
  I would entreat the Government to give up this habit of putting forward arguments in which no one believes, and which are set up for the moment to give a little graceful colour to what they think otherwise is too ugly for the public eye. The true bottom of this matter is that the Government intend at a later stage of the Session, if they are turned out of office, to ask the House of Commons to refuse Supplies to the Crown. It is unnecessary to say that such a course has never been taken since the reign of Charles I. The course which the Government, apparently, are now menacing has never been taken within the constitutional period of English history. [An HON. MEMBER made a remark which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.] The hon. Member apparently looks back with satisfaction to the period of the Great Rebellion. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope, then, that hon. Members will not pretend in future that they are the advocates of constitutional conservatism. I do not myself believe that, when it comes to the point, the courage of the Government will equal their present audacity, and that they will actually take the course which is now threatened. It is a matter of the utmost gravity that such a threat should be made at all. One is almost tired of pointing out that the assurances of the Government have no value, but are thrown on the scrap heap whenever they have served their purpose. This very course of refusing Supplies received elaborate notice from the Home Secretary at an earlier period of the Session, when he dealt with the matter in a very proper manner and used statesmanlike language It now appears that that language is wholly repudiated by his colleagues. He said on 22nd February:—
  "A refusal of Supply by the House of Commons would unquestionably produce an instantaneous dead-look. There is no doubt about that. The majority of the House possesses that power at the present time, but I do not think any responsible Member of the House, wherever he may sit, would recommend the House to exercise their power of refusing the necessary Supplies."
  Do the Government assent to that? Then they do not contemplate that course. Then what becomes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's phrase about "controlling the Executive"? Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when it suits his convenience to reply to criticisms, will deal with that point. The Home Secretary went on to say:—
  "That is a weapon which, in bygone days, could be directed against other estates of the Realm."
  1662
  Do the Government intend to direct that weapon against other estates of the Realm? Is that their plan? Why not give the usual Supplies? Why not follow the convenient course of the past? The Government are asking for a limited Supply evidently with a view to subsequent refusal. It cannot be seriously contended that it is a more convenient course that the House of Commons, with a limited time allotted to Supply, should do the same work twice over at short intervals. That is evidently an unreal contention. What remains? The case of constitutional control over the Executive, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He proposes to exercise control—not, of course, if he is in office; he will probably think then the less control the better—but if he is out of office, he proposes to exercise by means of Supply a hitherto unprecedented control of the Executive. What control does he propose to exercise? How does he propose to exercise it? Evidently by refusing the Supplies which will then be necessary. Is that a weapon which can be directed against other estates of the Realm? That is a proper question to which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reply. Finally, the Home Secretary went on to say:
  "The refusal of Supply to meet the necessary expense of the Navy, the Army, of the Post Office, of school teachers, of old age pensions, and of the Civil Service, would bring our system of civilised society to abrupt and complete chaos."
  No one outside the limits of a lunatic asylum would offer the obselete course the Government are recommending the House to-day.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEmade an observation inaudible in the Press Gallery.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Yes, you are taking your new course. The Government were in office for four years, and each Session they recommended the taking of Supply for four or five months. The right hon. Gentleman pretends that that is an inconvenient course now. He did not think so in previous Sessions. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman does not really think it an inconvenient course. What, then, does he mean? Is it the intention to refuse Supplies in the future? There can be no other motive! In the words of his colleague, the course projected "Will bring our system of civilised society to complete and abrupt chaos." Is it not manifest that the Government are playing fast and loose with the very foundations of the Constitution? They are entering upon a campaign

  1663
  which can only be described in the simplest language as revolutionary, and they are defending and sheltering it under all sorts of excuses and pretences. Their design is to wreck the Constitution at all hazards. That really is in truth the issue between the two parties at the present time. We on this side of the House are wishful to work the Constitution; they desire to use obsolete powers. [Laughter.] Those were the words used by the Home Secretary.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I can only admire the Noble Lord's condemnation of obsolete powers.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: If the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the Constitution is greater than it appears to be he will know that no obsolete powers have been used either in this place or the other. I have known the right hon. Gentleman for a long time, and can only hope that he will have accurate views on constitutional laws. [Laughter.] The issue is not to be set aside by Ministerial laughter. It really is a very grave matter that the Government should have brought the country into the position in which it finds itself, and that they should be even now threatening to throw the whole fabric of Government into chaos in order to carry out a party game which they are playing. It is an unscrupulous and the most unconstitutional course that any Ministry or body of public men have taken over the Parliamentary history of England. It is right that an immediate protest should be made by the Opposition, in order that we, at any rate, may draw public attention to what is going forward, and wash our hands of all responsibility.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Noble Lord is really very fond of delivering lectures to individual Members of this House, to Ministers, and to parties. In this case he seems to be under the impression that the Constitution began in 1896. What does he complain of? He complains that we have reverted to a practice which was the unbroken practice of Parliament prior to 1896. That is what we are doing. What is all this fuss about? We are charged with evasion, chicanery, backstairs methods, and with something that is too ugly for the public eye. Why? Because we have reverted to the practice which Lord Salisbury in his Government of 1896 practised for six years.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Under quite different conditions.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Was he guilty of backstairs methods, chicanery, evasion? Was he guilty of doing things not fit for publication because he asked for a Vote on Account for a month instead of asking for four or five months? That is really what it is. The Noble Lord delivers a lecture to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the Constitution. Really if he goes back a little beyond 1896 he will find that this is the unbroken practice of Parliament. What does it mean? Supply is the only weapon which the House of Commons has to control the Executive. It is on a Motion, when Supply is to be voted, if the House of Commons wants either to criticise the conduct of individual Ministers, the Ministry as a whole, or the policy of the Government that it has that opportunity. The only way in which the House can do it is by means of Supply. Sometimes it is done by saying we reduce the amount by £100. That is the method of the House for withholding Supplies. And their refusal to pay is bringing the whole machinery of Government to a standstill. Really the Noble Lord ought to understand what is really the practice of the Constitution before he delivers these elaborate lectures as to what the practice, policy, and spirit of the Constitution is. I am amazed at the attitude of the Opposition, for what we are proposing will give the Opposition the power in two months' time to have an expression of opinion from the House of Commons upon the con duct and policy of Ministers of the Government. Because, I say, we are adding to their opportunity for criticism, we are guilty of back-stairs' influence and other things. I should have thought, in view of the very poor opinion some hon. Members hold of Ministers, that they would have welcomed every opportunity for criticising them. We are giving the Noble Lord an additional opportunity. What does he do? Instead of thanking us, he abuses us for giving him that opportunity. Perhaps such a bad use has been made of the opportunities given up to the present that I really think we would be perfectly right in limiting these opportunities as much as possible. What is the difference really between the two parties here? The Noble Lord and his Friends want to get on with out the financial control of the House of Commons. We want to get on without the financial interference of the House of Lords. That is the real difference between us. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear. hear."] I am glad to say that there is a

  1665
  Friend opposite who agrees with that very fair statement of the difference between, us. At any rate, there is one man who is candid enough to admit that that is his policy. Why should they complain? The Noble Lord for a whole week has been saying that we have not got the cash for the purpose of paying these Supplies. Very well! We are limiting the amount which we are voting to the cash we have in hand. That is not a bad practice. It is what every business community practices. If the Noble Lord were Chancellor of the Exchequer he would know perfectly well that all the money I have got is what I have said, and it is just enough for six weeks.
  An HON. MEMBER: What about the Income Tax?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Income Tax is not the only tax.
  Another HON. MEMBER: It is the main one.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not by any means the main one. If hon. Gentleman opposite had allowed the Budget to go through there would have been no trouble at all about any of the taxes. The Noble Lord complains that there has been no explanation. There is only one explanation, and that is that we think it is very desirable that we should revert to the practice of Parliament before the year 18–. Well, the hon. and learned Member is, comparatively speaking, a new Member. I was here in 1896, and I can assure him that all the great financial authorities of the House, like the late Sir William Harcourt, were exceedingly shocked at the departure which was made at that time. They protested in the strongest possible manner against it. My recollection is that Lord Courtney, also a great authority, protested against it, though I am not quite clear about that.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: My suggestion was that the Government anticipated at that period they would possibly have been defeated on the Budget, and wishes us to be exposed to these difficulties, and not themselves.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Well, I do not mind saying to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I think it would be a very good thing if they had had the opportunity of clearing up the difficulties which they created. They are responsible for these difficulties. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about
  1666
  the country," and, "Old Age Pensions?"] How does it affect the country if we vote the money to carry on the business of the country until 13th May, and that we should come to the House of Commons before that date and ask for more money—whichever Government is in power—and so give the opportunities to the House of Commons to express an opinion on the matter? I can assure hon. Members opposite, who say they really represent the views of the country, and the finance of the country, that the House of Commons, which really represents the country, will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the financial situation for the time being. As a matter of fact, it is the only course we could have adopted, and I venture to say it is the only course that any Government, having a full sense of its responsibilities under the very unusual conditions which prevail at the present moment, could take. There is the Opposition, who surely ought to have every opportunity to criticise the finance, and their opportunities for criticism will be multiplied. But that they should protest against it is a thing to me absolutely unheard of.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman offers two justifications for the course that the Government have taken. The one is that they are really following a sounder constitutional practice than that which has prevailed for the last fourteen years. That is the most flimsy excuse which hon. Gentlemen opposite could have presented to the mind of anyone, so flimsy that I am astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have thought it worth while to offer. I have already pointed out—and I am not going to repeat myself—that at the time when this practice prevailed the House had no other opportunity of discussing Supply at regular intervals throughout the Session. That opportunity is now provided by our Supply Rules, and the House gains nothing by having a succession of Votes on Account, and a succession of Consolidated Fund Bills, unless the majority of the House wishes to prevent the Government being carried on. It is the more absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to press that explanation upon the House, because in another sentence he destroys it altogether. He does not pretend, in the rest of his speech, that the Government have been dying to take this course for four years, and have been prevented by untoward circumstances. He does not pretend that they

  1667
  are going to take it in the future. He only says that in the month of May circumstances will be such, so peculiar, and so critical, that it is necessary that the Government should be enabled to exist in office without giving up office, and that we shall have a new Consolidated Fund Bill and a new Vote for the Navy in the course of that month. What does that mean? It means, as my hon. Friend says, that in the view of the Government circumstances may arise in which they may desire to exercise the power of refusing Supplies, and so producing the chaotical confusion of which the Home Secretary spoke the other night. But, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, why do the Opposition object to that which gives them one more opportunity to attack the Government? If they are in office and we desire to have a discussion the Vote for the First Lord of the Treasury's salary could be put down, and no First Lord of the Treasury would refuse such a request coming from the Opposition. We should get our opportunity, and a very proper opportunity if we desired it, to express dissatisfaction with Ministers as a whole.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that by putting down a Vote for the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury he could impugn the policy of the Ministry?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, certainly.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Impugn the policy of the Government upon the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury? You could impugn anything that was relevant to the Treasury or to the work done by the First Lord at the Treasury, but by a Vote on Account you could not impugn the whole policy of the Government.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I say, with all respect to him, that he is mistaken. On the Vote for the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury you could impugn anything that he has done in his official capacity.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Oh, that is nothing.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Well, that is a novel doctrine. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says what the First Lord of the Treasury does in his official capacity is nothing.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me. The First Lord of the Treasury is the nominal head of the Treasury, but the Treasury is not run by him. As Prime Minister he is the head of the Government, but what is strictly relevant to the office of First Lord of the Treasury is the Treasury and not the policy of the Government. It is not because he is First Lord of the Treasury that he is Prime Minister, and therefore you cannot impugn the policy of the Government purely because he is First Lord of the Treasury.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I differ from the right hon. Gentleman. I have seen it done since I have been in this House—
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: When?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot give the reference across the floor of the House, but, at any rate, we all know that if we wanted to challenge the policy of the Prime Minister we could do it by moving to reduce his salary. However, it is not worth while quarrelling over the matter. Even if the Chancellor were right upon this narrow point, if we could discuss nothing upon the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury, but such patronage as he exercises at the Treasury, or such particular documents as for convenience he may in his official capacity see or sign, I agree you could discuss nothing upon such a Vote, not even instance the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, which has been discussed for years. But that is all besides the issue, except in so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer tries to convey that he is really conferring a favour upon the Opposition by giving them an opportunity of attacking the Government which they would not otherwise have had. If a Motion for the reduction of the salary of the First Lord is not wide enough a Motion of want of confidence in the Government would always secure such opportunity when given notice of by responsible persons. But I regret I spent any time in controversy with the right hon. Gentleman upon that subject; it is really not important. That is not the object of the Government; they do not pretend it is their object; their object is to retain control of the Executive by the Government up to the middle of May, and the way they propose to exercise that is by refusing Supplies to the Government of the day should the occasion arise. They are not going to refuse Supplies to themselves, and

  1669
  therefore they are contemplating a situation in which they will resign, and in which another Government will have taken office. For what purpose could that Government have taken office except to dissolve with the least possible delay and once again to appeal to the country? The whole object of the Government is to make it impossible for their successors in office to take an appeal to the country without delay. That is the whole object. If the Government remain in office this is pure waste of time. If the Government go out of office it enables them to prevent another Government which comes in making an immediate appeal to the country. I hope the country will notice that, with all their brave talk, the last thing in the world this Government wants to do is to allow the country an opportunity of pronouncing upon their conduct.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I, as a Member of a permanent minority in the House, be permitted to say a few words from that point of view with regard to the position of the Government? I think, perhaps, I may claim a further right to speak upon this question, for the reason that a very strong and a very effective protest had at one time to be made from these benches with regard to the policy of proposing large Votes on Account. On 4th March, 1901, the Government then in office, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester was a Member, brought in a Vote on Account for the sum of £17,000,000, and in order to make the Committee realise the good old times in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did such things quickly, I may inform them that this Vote for £17,000,000 was passed by the Closure in one evening of Parliamentary time. That did not exhaust the case. Upon that Vote of £17,000,000, of course, there were entered nearly all the great Departments of the State, and by arrangements which have to be made on all those occasions a certain Vote was given priority, namely, the Vote upon Education in England. I do not criticise the Gentlemen who took part in the discussion, but it was found so important that it occupied every moment of the time of the House that evening. What happened? Of this £17,000,000 of money, £2,000,000 were Irish expenditure, and of that expenditure £600,000 were for the purposes of the armed police force, which is the garrison in Ireland. When an Irish Member got up to attempt to say a word upon these
  1670
  £2,000,000 of taxation on Ireland extending over all Irish administration, the then Leader of the House, the present Leader of the Opposition, moved the Closure. That was followed by a very remarkable and rather painful scene. Some Members of the Irish party refused to vote, and, according to the Rules of the House in those days, they were named to the Speaker and ordered to leave the House, and as they refused to do so they had to be taken out by the police, who were brought into the House for the purpose. One result of that little scene may not, I think, be unwelcome to some Members of this House, and especially to the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). Before that scene a Member was compelled to vote either in one Lobby or another, or else leave the House. Now a Member has only to retain his seat if he does not wish to vote, and I daresay that will be very convenient to the Noble Lord when his party are producing a Tariff Re-form Budget. That scene of 4th March, 1901, will help to bring to the attention of the House the state in which the rights and privileges of this Assembly were under the saturnine sway of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
  For my part I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has returned to constitutional precedents of the past in keeping in his possession all those large Votes on Account that for a lengthened period of time were followed by every great Liberal statesman in this House. Sir William Harcourt opposed these lengthened Votes on Account; Mr. Gladstone was a determined and inveterate enemy of large Votes on Account; and it is astonishing to me to hear Gentlemen who claim to be Constitutionalists complaining that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is keeping the control of this House over the finance of the country. What is finance? It is the instrument by which the House of Commons is able to control the Executive and the policy of the nation, and when the Noble Lord goes back to the days of Charles Stuart I have to tell him that I have seen Governments of his own party that were almost as regardless as Charles I. was of the rights and liberties of the people and of control over finance. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) took part in the Debate which followed the expulsion of the Irish Members in March, 1901, and I cannot put the case better than by quoting

  1671
  just one sentence from his speech in that Debate. He said:—
  "The fact is that there has been on the part of the Government and the majority of the House for a number of years a deliberate attempt to put on foot a movement to stifle the voice of independent criticism on the Estimates, and to reduce to absolute nullity what is the first and greatest constitutional right of this House, namely, the discussion of grievances before the voting on Supplies."
  I must recall to some Members of the Committee the important part which in the memory of some older Members the discussion of Supply took in our proceedings. How was the Government of Lord Rosebery in 1895 put out of office? It was put out of office by a vote on a small item for the War Office for cordite. I will not say it was put out on false pretences. Does any man who studies the Constitution and the rules and powers of this Assembly not know that as long as you hold the finances in your hand you control the Ministry and its policy? And when you give away control of the finances you make the Executive independent of the House of Commons, which is the voice and the creation of the people and the nation. Hon. Gentlemen are apparently very alarmed that they may come into office at a time when this Vote on Account will come to an end. I observe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire used in rapid succession two self-destructive arguments. He stated that the effect of the Government holding back finance would be to compel their successors to go immediately to the country.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: To prevent them going immediately to the country.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Well, I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would not have made that complaint against the Government. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a terrible picture of the chaos and the difficulties which the new Government would have to face. Why, the bigger the deficit the more the right hon. Gentleman ought to enjoy it, because the bigger the deficit the bigger is the opportunity for a Tariff Reform Budget which will make the foreigner pay. For my part I think the Government have adopted the right policy. It is not their business, nor the business of the House of Commons, to make it easy for any body of men, either in this House or elsewhere, to interfere with the sacred, and for centuries
  1672
  the undisputed right of this House to have the sole control of the finances of this country.
  Mr. THOMAS LOUGH: I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the excellent innovation he has made in our practice. The charge made against him is that he has come to the House of Commons oftener than is necessary in regard to financial matters. My object in rising is to ask a question as to the announcement which has been made with regard to the Naval Estimates. I wish to ask whether in view of the postponement of Vote 1 he will give us some assurance that that course will not interfere in any way with us raising the question of this increase in the Navy Estimates at the earliest opportunity?
  The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with this Debate.
  Mr. LOUGH: But the announcement was made at the commencement of this Debate by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, but that question cannot be discussed now, and it does not arise on these Estimates.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lough) has added his congratulations to the Government for reverting to a procedure which will give the House of Commons more opportunities of discussing finance.
  Mr. LOUGH: Hear, hear.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to hear that I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman. All I have to say is that evidently he does not know much about the Rules of the House, or he would not make that remark. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has also made a similar error. The right hon. Gentleman asks how is it that the Opposition are annoyed, because we are going to give more opportunities for discussing finance? I would like to refer the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lough) to Sub-section 2 of Standing Order 15, which provides:—
  "Not more than twenty days, being days before the 5th of August, shall be allotted for the consideration of the Annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account."
  The number of days that will be given is twenty, neither more nor less, unless three additional days are asked for later.

  1673
  Consequently, whether we have a Vote on Account now or afterwards will make no difference, because twenty days will have to be given, including Votes on Account. Consequently, the main argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer really has no existence at all. The right hon. Gentleman said that on 13th May the House would have an opportunity of again discussing the Vote on Account for the Civil Service Estimates. That is the Friday before Whit Sunday, and we have already been told that the House is going to adjourn for a longer Recess than usual at Whitsuntide. Consequently, on 13th May the House will not be sitting, and there will be no further opportunity to grant a Vote on Account, and the natural consequence must be that there will be no money to pay for the various items which are included in this Vote on Account. We shall not come back until 14th or 15th May, and between 13th May and the day we come back there will be financial chaos. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really been desirous of going back to the precedent which has been alluded to, he could have made his Vote on Account for eight weeks, which would have covered the Whitsuntide holidays. I have never heard a weaker defence put before the House of Commons by a person so capable as the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that we are bound to give twenty days to Supply, and, therefore, this proposal will not increase by a single moment the time to be devoted to financial matters, and it is really imposing upon the ignorance of the House to pretend that by this proposal the right hon. Gentleman is really desirous of giving additional facilities to discuss finance He is desirous of doing nothing except to arrange that when the General Election comes there will be confusion and chaos, and it will be said that that state of things has been caused by another place. I claim that the chaos will have been caused by the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall give my vote on this occasion with greater satisfaction than I have ever given a vote before.
  Mr. JAMES F. HOPE: The situation with which we are now confronted must have arisen on former occasions in the days when a short time Vote on Account has been taken. This happened in the year 1886, when Mr. Gladstone's Government was in power, and it happened again in 1895. How was the situation met in
  1674
  1886 and 1895? On both those occasions I presume some provision was made, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what that provision was, and whether the retiring Government did not consent to a further Vote on Account being taken?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: My own recollection is that there was a further Vote on Account, but I should not like to give a definite answer without looking the matter up. I remember the question was raised because I was a Member of the House at the time. May I point out that in the Home Rule Parliament Votes on Account were taken by the Liberal Government for two months. They were very hard pressed for time, but notwithstanding that they only took Votes for two months; after that they came back and asked for another Vote, and the Opposition thought they were taking the right course. May I also point out that the Liberal Government of 1880 proposed to get a Vote on Account for three months, but there was so much opposition raised to it, not only by the Tory Opposition, but also by Irish Members and Labour Members that the Government had to abandon that course, and they reduced the period from three months to two months. Therefore, to talk about this proposal being a violent departure from precedent is perfectly ridiculous. Upon a point of Order I should like to ask whether the whole policy of the Government can be arraigned upon the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury. I submit that only those questions can be raised which are absolutely relevant to his office in the Treasury, I mean such formal matters as he is cognisant of merely as First Lord of the Treasury, and that his general administration as the head of the Government cannot be reviewed or arraigned upon his salary.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I would like to ask whether it is in order to discuss anything on a Vote on Account which is not included in that Vote? I submit that it is obviously impossible to discuss Navy Estimates upon a Civil Service Vote on Account, because there is no money for the Navy included in the Vote. The only money included for the First Lord of the Treasury, and the other Members of the Government in a Vote on Account is the particular portions of the salaries of the Ministers. If, therefore, you can discuss their general conduct on a Vote on Account you can equally discuss their general conduct on the Vote for their salaries.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The point in dispute, I think, is one which can only be settled by the Chair. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman is that the policy of the Government can be discussed on the Vote for the salary of the Prime Minister. That is what I challenged at the time, and I invite the ruling of the Chair on that important question.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My point is that you cannot discuss on a Vote on Account anything which is not included in it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I never said you could.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman did say that. If you can discuss the conduct of the Government on a Vote on Account it is because the salaries are included in it. On the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty you can discuss the matters which relate to his Department only, but on the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury you have always been able to take a much wider view.
  The CHAIRMAN: I much prefer to answer such questions when they arise. If it is any convenience, however, I will give the answer in the words of a predecessor of mine in the Chair, who said:—
  "The only thing for which the Prime Minister is answerable is some administrative act clone by him as First Lord of the Treasury."
  That is, in Supply, when the Treasury Vote is considered. With regard to what can be raised upon a Vote on Account only those questions can be dealt with contained in the Votes under discussion.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he is in a position to promise that if he is a Member of the Government in future the precedent he is setting this year will always be followed, and not the precedent of previous years?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should just like to correct one statement I made. I said, in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), that the Vote on Account taken by the Home Rule Government was for two months. It was for one month to begin with—in 1886. Really, if the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) were in my place, would he answer a question of that kind as to what he would do? He must remember that the question ought to be
  1676
  addressed to the Prime Minister, but even if the Prime Minister were here he would not say what he would be prepared to do in future years. This is a proposal we submit to Parliament to deal with this particular financial position.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: If I were in the place of the right hon. Gentleman, I certainly should not put forward arguments and excuses which are irrelevant.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The horn Member for Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) spoke just now as if the question of Supply had been in some sense ignored since 1896. The fact is, if these frequent Votes on Account are to come into existence again, many sections of the House, and probably the Irish Members, would lose a day for dealing with one of the special subjects they desire to discuss in this House, and which they can do better on the Vote than on a general Vote on Account. When these suggestions are made that we should again and again come to the House for Votes on Account I think we ought to remember that they are put forward by a Government which, during the time it has been in office has consistently refused any extra days for Supply, though those extra days were given in the time of their predecessors. We are therefore extremely limited in the number of days on which the various subjects, and especially Civil Service subjects, can be discussed in any detail in this House, and I think it ought clearly to be expressed again that the new rule of Supply, which gave the opportunity to the Opposition of always bringing forward the most debateable point in Supply at the earliest possible moment really takes away all the arguments brought before us in connection with the days of Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt, Lord Courtney, or anybody else. I only rose to make quite plain, to those who perhaps have not been in the House, both sides of the Rules. I think it is just as instructive to point out how rapidly the Government have altered their policy. Apparently this policy was not in existence when they put down the Army Vote, because on that occasion they took sufficient money to carry them on a longer time than six weeks. It appears to me the change of policy must be due to some form of negotiations of which we are ignorant, and which have taken place since the discussion of the Army Estimates. It is always interesting to call attention to.

  1677
  these matters. They come extremely rapidly, and I think we ought to mark time as they pass.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Both statements of the hon. Gentleman are absolutely without warrant. His first statement was that there has been some change of policy since the Army Estimates were put down. This was decided before the Army Estimates were put down.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Why was the amount taken for the Army?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Because we want to take the amount for six weeks. That is stated on the face of the document circulated. This is the way in which we have managed to ask the House of Commons to sanction Supply for six weeks.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say he is only taking six weeks' Supply for the Army?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is a Supply of six weeks to the Treasury to deal with all the demands upon it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is it not more than six weeks' Supply for the Army? That is a perfectly plain question. What we have asserted is that you have taken, not six weeks, but a longer Supply for the Army, whilst in the case of the Navy you deliberately limit it to six weeks. Why is there this difference of treatment if, as the right hon. Gentleman says, nothing has occurred in the interval between the presentation of the one and the other?
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I only wanted to ask whether it is not the fact that money voted under Vote 1 on the first day of Supply on the Army Estimates has, in other years, been sufficient to carry on the Government for very much more than four months?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is the same question put in another form, and, therefore, I will address myself to the right hon. Gentleman. He asked why we take for the
  Navy six weeks' Supply and for the Civil Service a six weeks' Vote, when for the Army we take a Vote which undoubtedly goes beyond six weeks. It is for the simple reason that you have to take some Vote or other, and it is very difficult to take a Vote which does run to six weeks. If there was a vote on the Army which exactly ran to that figure, we would have taken that Vote, but we had to take a Vote which enabled us to discuss the whole question of the Army, and we took the only Vote for the purpose. We have fitted the thing so as to enable the House of Commons to have general control over the Executive.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Would not Vote A have given us the opportunity for a general discussion?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It would not have given us cash; that is the difference between the right hon. Gentleman and our-selves. Vote A would not have given us any money for the men. We had to put down some Vote which would give us money, inasmuch as we want to pay the Army, see everybody is paid in proper time, and that there is no delay in payment. We had, therefore, to put down a Vote which involves cash, and we put down that Vote which was the only one to suit the circumstances. The second statement made by the hon. Gentlemen the Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy)—and it is not the first time it has been made in the course of this Debate—was that there have been some negotiations which have led to a change of policy. There is absolutely not a shred of foundation for that statement. The Government have done this entirely on their own initiative, without any negotiations on the subject, because they thought it was suitable to the position.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do now report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 225.

  Division No. 7.]

  AYES.

  [5.40 p.m.

  Adam, Major William A.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Attenborough, Walter Annis

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Cator, John

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Bird, Alfred

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Boyle, W. Lewis. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Boyton, James

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Barnston, Harry

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Banbury)

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Cooper, Captain Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Quitter, William Eley C.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Homer, Andrew Long

  Rankin, Sir James

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Croft, Henry Page

  Jackson, Sir John (Devonport)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Ridley, Samuel Ford

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Fell, Arthur

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshtord

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Stanier, Seville

  Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Foster, John K. (Coventry)

  Llewellyn, Major Venables

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Strauss, Arthur

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Grant, J. A.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwich)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  White, Maj. G. D. (Lancs. Southport)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Morrison, Captain James A.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

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

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Hills, John Waiter (Durham)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  NOES.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hazleton, Richard

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

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Holme, Norval Watson

  Agnew, George William

  Cowan, William Henry

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Alden, Percy

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Henry, Charles Solomon

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crossley, William J.

  Hindle, Frederick George

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Cullinan, John

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hodge, John

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hooper, Arthur George

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Barclay, Sir Thomas

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hudson, Walter

  Barnes, George N.

  Doris, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Barton, William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Beale, William Phipson

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Joyce, Michael

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Keating, Matthew

  Boland, John Pius

  Gibson, James Puckering

  Kelly, Edward

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Kemp, Sir George

  Bowles, Thomas Gibson

  Ginnell, Laurence

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lambert, George

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Greenwood, Granville George

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Guest, Capt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Hackett, John

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hancock, John George

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Barghs)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Clough, William

  Harwood, George

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Clynes, John R.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hayward, Evan

  Marks, George Croydon

  1680

  1681

  Martin, Joseph

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Menzles, Sir Walter

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Twist, Henry

  Middlebrook, William

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rees, John David

  Verney, Frederick William

  Mooney, John J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Vivian, Henry

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Muspratt, Max

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Neilson, Francis

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wardle, George J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robinson, Sidney

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  O'Grady, James

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  O'Kelly, James

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Seddon, James. A.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Parker, James Halifax

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Pearce, William

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Snowden, Philip

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wiles, Thomas

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Sutton, John E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Taylor, Theodore c. (Radcliffe)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Toulmin, George

  TRAINING COLLEGES AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I rise to call the attention of the Committee to a subject discussed with considerable frequency in the last House of Commons—the regulations in relation to training colleges and secondary schools introduced by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman who now presides over the Board of Education. I anticipate I shall be told that there has been no considerable modification of the position since the matter was discussed in the last House of Commons. But there is one circumstance which, I think, entitles me to consider that the matter should be raised in the present House, and that circumstance is to be found in the distinction between the general view held in the last House of Commons as to denominational teaching and the view which may be supposed to be held by the present House on that subject. In the last House of Commons an overwhelming majority of the Members were definitely pledged to the view that there should be no denominational teaching in schools, and, if that were the view held by the majority, it might not be altogether unreasonable to deal in some way with the denominational training colleges in which teachers are produced for the express purpose of giving denominational teaching. If you, by your general educational policy, contemplate the continuance of denominational teaching, then it is highly reasonable to take precautions for educating teachers qualified to give
  1682
  that teaching; but if you take the view generally held in the last House of Commons that denominational teaching is approaching an early legislative conclusion, there is something to be said for the statement that one must clarify the denominational atmosphere of these training colleges. Certainly, the constitution of the present House of Commons, if examined from this point of view, shows some rather remarkable conclusions. In the first place one does not find that hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite, and who in the last House of Commons strongly opposed the denominational claims advanced from these benches, were consistent at the General Election. Take the case of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who supported the anti-denominational policy of the right hon. Gentleman during the last four years. At the time of the election he wrote to the Roman Catholic clergyman in Huddersfield announcing a strong desire to maintain the existing facilities enjoyed by Roman Catholics in the form of subventions from the rates. If hon. Gentlemen have now been converted by us to the view that rate-aid should be given in future for denominational purposes they surely will agree it is an opportune moment to consider whether we should not also revise these training college regulations, which considerably reduce the opportunity of training teachers to give that particular form of instruction. In Liverpool, and I

  1683
  think I may say in Lancashire generally, we had the happiness of seeing hon. Gentlemen opposite who for four years had been bitterly and contemptuously opposed to denominational teaching, giving specific pledges with regard to the denominational schools of Roman Catholics. If it is the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as it is our view, that these facilities should still be given, it must be reasonable that there should be some modification of the regulation introduced by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and to some extent maintained by himself, in the matter of providing teachers to give this instruction. We recognise, therefore, that the objections to rate-aid are no longer entertained by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The passive resistance movement is now revealed in its proper light. Hon. Gentlemen are divided on the denominational question, but on this side of the House we have not modified our views, and, seeing that the eighty Irish Members may be presumed to hold to-day the views they entertained in the last House of Commons, it will, as the result of a short calculation, be seen that there is a considerable Majority in the present House of Commons hostile to the policy which is responsible for the change in the training colleges. I may call attention to an address given by Archbishop Bourne in September, 1909, in which he declared that the then Minister of Education, by his regulations regarding secondary schools, was engaged in sapping and undermining the whole structure of Catholic education. The Catholic Members of Parliament seemed powerless to stop it. The Minister of Education, by offering a premium—he did not like to call it a bribe—to those who were willing to forego definite religious teaching, was gradually rendering the continued effective existence of Catholic training colleges so difficult that in the end, if he had his way, he would destroy them altogether. The position is this: There is, accepting that statement by Archbishop Bourne as being representative of the views of hon. Gentle- men from Ireland below the Gangway, a Majority of Members who may be presumed to disagree with the general character of the regulations which were introduced by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors. What are the circumstances under which those regulations were originally introduced? As the House knows, the Government of the day and the Board of Education are powerless, so far as the elementary schools of the country are concerned,
  1684
  to introduce those far-reaching changes, which until recently, at any rate, represented their policy, without legislation. In other words, the Government could not deprive the denominations of the dogmatic teaching which they enjoy to-day unless they could carry through both Houses of Parliament an Act appropriate to that purpose. They tried to do that on several occasions in the last House of Commons, as far as elementary schools were concerned, and were unsuccessful, but they found themselves much more fortunately circumstanced when they came to deal with the training colleges, because the Board of Education had power to impose any condition to their grant that they might choose. The Committee will recall what occurred in 1907, when the heart of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was full of rage at the loss of the Education Bill associated with the name of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. He introduced the regulation which has been the subject of so much controversy and so much dissatisfaction. Until that time the training colleges, denominational, undenominational, and secular, were equally recognised by the State, and I think the majority will agree that that is the only sound principle, so far as the relations of the State with the training colleges are concerned. It is most important that hon. Gentlemen should appreciate what is the extent of the claim based on pecuniary obligations which the State is in a position to make in regard to these training colleges. During the last twenty-five years the State has given no help towards building any one of these colleges, and its view apparently has been that those who made themselves responsible for the expense were deserving well of the community as a whole, and ought to be guarded in making provision for the teachers, and that the denomination which provided its own building would be rewarded for its public-spirited efforts by getting a grant.
  6.0 P.M.
  I may point out to the House that every class of teacher is, of course, required. If a Roman Catholic teacher is not required for one school, he is required for another, and the same applies to the Jewish or Church of England teacher; in other words, there is room, and, indeed, there is a necessity, for a training college to which those professing every school of thought should be admitted, and that the teachers of all these schools should be equipped for the religious teaching they have to give.

  1685
  In these circumstances, both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, and not to a very considerable extent, but to some extent, the Wesleyan Methodists, all went to considerable expense in building these training colleges, and in 1907 the extent of the provision which had been made can be given in the following figures: In that year the Church of England had provided 3,327 residential places, the Roman Catholic community 629, the Wesleyans 270, and the Undenomi-nationalists 1,128. I would pause for a moment to ask the House to consider how meritorious a public service has been discharged by these communities, who had, at their own expense, provided these training colleges, which would make the teachers in our elementary schools more efficient. I do not think there is anyone who will not admit that benefit. Teachers, after all, must be trained if they are to be efficient, and it is universally conceded that residence at a training college is a very great advantage. The position, then, was that the religious zeal and the liberality of the Churchmen, Roman Catholics, and Wesleyans had provided these buildings for a purpose which everyone must concede to be a most useful public purpose, and had done so without costing the State a farthing.
  I do not think I am putting it too high when I say it was an implied condition of honour that the Board of Education in permitting these buildings to be built and encouraging their founders to incur the necessary expenditure—that it was an implied condition of honour that the Board would never use its arbitrary powers to deprive the denominations of the only consideration they had for the sacrifices they had made. Nobody supposes that the members of the Church of England or the members of the Church of Rome would have gone to the expense of providing these training colleges in order that they might be used by persons who did not share their religious views, and the one critical moment at which it is necessary to analyse the nature of the contract made between the Board of Education of the day and those who built these institutions is the critical moment when the money was expended with the knowledge of the Education Department for a specific purpose. Then the obligation of honour inures. It can be crystallised in a sentence by saying that the Board of Education accepted value from those who built these colleges, and in return recognised their right to train the teachers according to
  1686
  the religious views of those who found the money for the buildings.
  I have told the House quite shortly what the position in 1907 was as far as the Church and Nonconformists' places were concerned, but besides these it is, in order that the House may have the complete facts to form a judgment, necessary to say that there were in 1907 3,541 places in day training colleges which were free from all denominational conditions. So that in 1907 the position was this—the figures may be a little modified since, but I am not concerned with that, they are sufficiently accurate for my purpose—in 1907 there were 4,236 denominational places in these training colleges as contrasted with 4,669 undenominational places, and 801 open places in undenominational hostels attached to church colleges. If there has been any change in the figure since I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will contradict me when I say it has been in the direction of increasing the proportion of undenominational places to denominational places. If that is so, I think it is not putting the contention too high to say that then, both in 1907, and even more so in the present day, there has been ample provision in the training colleges, day and residential both, for denominational and undenominational teachers, and that no one has been able to found a grievance successfully upon the inability of persons who wanted to qualify on undenominational lines to obtain the facilities they require. How do those figures compare with the additions since 1907–4,236 denominational places and 5,470 undenominational places?
  Considering that the educational policy of the Government in this House is dead, and looking at the educational policy of the last four years, I do not think that is a bad proportion of undenominational places to denominational places, because the right hon. Gentleman must realise, and the House must realise, that having regard to the definitive failure of the campaign which was carried on in the last Parliament, and having regard to the clear and candid adoption of most of the principles of the Act of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the candid acceptance in Liverpool and many other parts of the country by Gentlemen who were contesting seats at the last General Election of the necessity of State aid, surely this House must ask itself whether regulations which were justified as long as there was a prospect, through disability,

  1687
  of denominational teaching being destroyed in the schools, can be permitted to survive in the House of Commons, in which I have shown that a clear majority is in open revolt from the educational policy the Government were carrying on in the last Parliament. What were these regulations which were introduced by the predecessor of the present President of the Board of Education in 1907. As the Committee will probably be aware, it was made impossible in the future to build new denominational colleges, and a conscience clause was introduced for boarders in all church training colleges and all Roman Catholic training colleges, and the result of this regulation, which caused extreme indignation, was that Churchmen and Roman Catholics were compelled to receive Nonconformists into their training colleges, even to the exclusion of their own people, on whose behalf they built those colleges. The highest legal advice was taken on behalf of these training colleges as to the illegality of the regulations and as to their consistency with the trust deeds of these colleges, and, having taken this advice, the information was made public, and the right hon. Gentleman the predecessor of the present President of the Board of Education gave a thoroughly characteristic reply to the effect that the training colleges should alter their trusts. That was the suggestion which came from him, and it had the merit of simplicity because the suggestion was that, having received it from the Board in its administrative capacity, they should go back to the Board in their judicial capacity as Charity Commissioners and invite them to alter those trusts. A more shocking proposal was never put forward for dealing with a fiduciary obligation by a Minister whose special duty ought to have been to protect these trusts.
  Fortunately, the rule of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was succeeded by that of the right hon. Gentleman who now holds that position, and if he will allow me to say so, I and many of my Friends clearly recognise, without surrendering some individual grounds of criticism, the complete change of tone and manner which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced into the conduct and policy of his office. This spirit of moderation and conciliation was reflected in the changes which the right hon. Gentleman made in the proposed regulations of his predecessor. I cannot say
  1688
  that the alterations which the right hon. Gentleman made went anything like as far as we now think in this House of Commons they should go, but I must make this admission, and I desire to make it in the fullest possible manner, that I do think they went quite as far as it was possible for the right hon. Gentleman to go in the last House of Commons, or having regard to the known opinions of his supporters it would have been reasonable for us to expect he should go. But the position to-day has altered considerably, and no one is more capable of recognising that than the right hon. Gentleman, and I would ask him to consider what was the extent of the modification which he introduced? The explanation is a little involved and a little lengthy, but I think I can summarise it with sufficient accuracy for this House if I say that the conscience clause under the proposal of his predecessor was to apply to all the colleges under the regulation, and the right hon. Gentleman's conscience clause was not to apply to applicants for admission to those training colleges who were actually members of the denominations which had founded the training college. That was the first considerable modification, and the second was that the conscience clause was not to apply to more than half the applicants, and I think I am right in saying that the provision as to the building of new denominational colleges which had been made by his predecessor is retained in the modified regulation of the right hon. Gentleman. While admitting that the regulations are a great improvement on his predecessor's I want really to ask the right hon. Gentleman how far he can justify them even in their modified form in a House of Commons as at present constituted? I suppose he has no intention of moving to reintroduce any one of those Education Bills of the last Parliament. He would agree, as I have already pointed out, that if he tried to introduce either No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, or No. 4 it could not survive a Second Reading Division. That case has gone. It has definitely joined the list of lost causes which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have been accumulating for many years past. If that is so, what follows? It follows that the opinion, not of the House of Lords, but of the House of Commons, which has come back fresh from the constituencies to attack the House of Lords, is not prepared to sanction the suppression of denominational teaching in schools, and is further determined to insist

  1689
  that all those who were in enjoyment of that education shall continue to receive that assistance from the rates which you spent nearly two years of Parliamentary time in the last House of Commons trying to put an end to. If that is so, another consequence surely follows. Denominational teaching is to survive, and those who are to give it must be adequately equipped and educated. No one at this period of our educational controversy will deny that those who are going to give that religious education must be taught to do so. If they are to be made efficient as such teachers, where are they to receive their education? The answer, of course, is that they can only receive it at these training colleges, and that the regulations of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor have very gravely impaired the efficiency of those training colleges for this necessary purpose. I may be told that this was a modus vivendi introduced by the right hon. Gentleman and accepted by Churchmen at the time. There is an element of truth in that, but it is not more than an element of truth, because they accepted the modus vivendi which the right hon. Gentleman proposed for this very simple reason, that it was an alternative only to the far more oppressive proposals of his predecessor. It would be as reasonable to say, when a man is asked for his money or his life, that he had been a willing agent in parting with his money as to say that either the Church or the Roman Catholics were willing agents when they assented to the modified proposals for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible. The truth is that these regulations, even as modified by the right hon. Gentleman, were and are bitterly resented both by Roman Catholics and by members of the Church of England, and there are very few of us on these benches who were not specifically asked whether, if we were returned to this House of Commons, we would do all that was in our power to procure their modification at the earliest possible opportunity. It happens also to be within my knowledge that a similar pledge was in some cases very freely given by some hon. Gentlemen, at any rate, on the benches opposite.
  The particular points on which I attack the policy of the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor are these. These regulations were originally introduced by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor for purely partisan objects. From first to last
  1690
  no educational ground was ever alleged. It was put forward purely and simply on the denominational ground. It was put forward just at the moment when indignation was general among hon. Members opposite because of the loss of the first Education Bill of 1906. As these grounds are now out of date surely it is a convenient moment for reverting to the sound and healthy rule, which for seventy years has been adopted in our educational system, that in dealing with secondary school grants and training college grants the State shall be absolutely neutral. That was the old principle, and the only question the State ever asked itself in the old days, up to the unhappy tenure of power by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, was, are they or are they not secularly efficient? No one on these benches would hope or ask for any grant unless the condition precedent of secular efficiency was established. We contend for this proposition, that when once the standard of secular efficiency—set it as high as you like—is satisfied, from that moment the State has no right to do anything except to remain neutral in the matter, and that attitude of neutrality would not have been abandoned by the late Government in 1907 if it had not been for the exasperation produced by the failure of their earliest Education Bill. It is not too late yet for the Government to revert, and, indeed, they might under all the circumstances be very well advised to revert, to this healthier tradition of which I have spoken, and if they are in any way inclined to do that I might point out that there is very respectable statutory authority for the impartiality which I am attempting to press on their attention. Under the Public Elementary Education Act of 1870 the Board of Education is not at liberty to discriminate between voluntary and provided schools in the making of grants. That principle is precisely the same whether you are dealing with schools or with colleges which provide teachers for your schools.
  In the matter of higher education there was a provision comparable in scope in the Education Act of 1902, to the effect that the local education authority, in making grants in aid of higher education, shall not impose religious or anti-religious conditions upon the schools. Let the Committee see what a paradox follows if one contrasts this provision of the Act of 1902 with the recent administrative treatment of these colleges by the Board of

  1691
  Education. Under the section which I have just read the local education authority, in making grants in aid of higher education, cannot impose religious or anti-religious conditions, but the term higher education technically includes training colleges also, and, therefore, we are face to face with this paradoxical position, that Parliament, by Statute, has forbidden the local education authority, as invidious, to make these discriminations which the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor have been making administratively and as a Departmental matter in the last four years. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is highly improper that the Board of Education should deal administratively with so contentious a matter. There is no Government Department—I do not care whether it represents hon. Gentlemen opposite or the political party to which I belong—that I myself would trust to apply administrative principles on a vexed controversial question of party politics of this kind, where there was so much temptation to subordinate the principles of administration to political views. It only requires to be stated for the position to be clear. For four years hon. Gentlemen opposite have been attempting to do this. During all that time provocation and dissatisfaction have been caused by the obligation on the part of the Board of Education to deal administratively and judicially with these highly vexed questions. Surely the only road of safety was that the Government should have said, "We will maintain the neutrality which the Board of Education has observed ever since the building grants were first given, for a period of time which now amounts to almost seventy years."
  I may be asked whether the Church of England or the Roman Catholics made any offer at all to the Government which afforded a more reasonable basis for compromise than the so-called compromise which was ultimately adopted. I think I remember feeing a document which was signed by one archbishop and several bishops of the Church of England, in which they made proposals to the Board of Education of that day, the effect of which was that, by establishing hostels in connection with Church of England training colleges, Nonconformists, who genuinely desired to avail themselves of the educational advantages of those training colleges, should be allowed to do so without excluding any Church of England teachers from the opportunity of obtaining
  1692
  denominational instruction in those training colleges. I cannot help thinking, under all the circumstances of the case, that that was an extremely liberal offer on the part of the Church of England, and one that the Government of the day would have been very well advised to accept.
  I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman this view, which I, and I think almost all my friends, most strongly entertain—the practice was not commenced by the right hon. Gentleman, it was initiated by his predecessor—that training colleges, to their great prejudice in the curtailment of their educational usefulness, and in breach of the implied bargain upon which they incurred expenditure in the matter of buildings, have been treated by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in a manner which is tyrannous, which unnecessarily impairs their usefulness, and which was only adopted in its origin for purely party purposes. The right hon. Gentleman showed in the fourth Educational Bill which he introduced, though it was a Bill which may of us thought was foredoomed to failure, that he could recognise this principle—that compromise in these matters is far better than any attempt at dictation or tyranny. That is the one lesson that I have derived after four years of discussion of Educational Bills and politics. I have never spoken in this House or in Lancashire as a very strong denominationalist myself, and I have frequently stated, in answer to questions and otherwise, that if I were sending a child to school I should be perfectly satisfied with the Cowper-Temple form of instruction, but as far as training colleges and schools are concerned, I carry more deeply from every Debate and from the failure of each successive scheme this conviction: that whether you are a denominationalist, as so many of my hon. Friends are, or whether you are not, you will never solve these educational questions either in your schools or in your training colleges unless you realise this elementary truth—that large numbers of devout and conscientious persons believe that matters deeply affecting the future welfare of their children are bound up in these questions, and you will never settle it as long as you leave them with a bitter sense of grievance that they are being made to pay for the facilities in similar matters which other creeds enjoy while they are themselves grudged the same facilities.
  Mr. SAMUEL HOARE: I rise to support the Motion. It is only because during

  1693
  the last two or three years I have been brought into somewhat exceptional connection with training colleges in the county of London that I put before hon. Members one or two lessons which I have drawn from that personal experience. I do not for a moment suggest that I should pose as an expert, but during the two or three years in which I have been a member of the educational authority for the County of London I have had an opportunity of studying the actual administration of the Board of Education regulations, not only in the county council training colleges, but in the denominational training colleges as well. During that time I have been incessantly engaged in the work, particularly of the county council training colleges, and I have been brought into contact with the denominational colleges as well. I therefore have had a somewhat exceptional opportunity of seeing how the regulations of the Board actually work. I welcome this opportunity of discussing the regulations. Up till now they have only been issued at the very end of the scholastic year. They have been issued on the eve of the breaking-up of the training colleges for their summer holidays, and it has been extremely difficult for hon. Members to discuss them. It has been extremely difficult for the principals and staffs of training colleges to make their arrangements for the ensuing year. To-night we have an opportunity of discussing the regulations issued last June, two months before the regulations of 1910 will be issued, and I do hope that after what we have to state we may look forward to some modification or withdrawal of the objectionable features of the regulations of 1909 when the new regulations come to be issued. We have an exceptional opportunity to-day, because for the first time since 1907 this question can be considered on its own merits, quite apart from any partisan question. My hon. and learned Friend has already alluded to the change that has taken place in this House. The result of that change has been that there is no longer the same pressure from behind to induce the President of the Board of Education to issue regulations in the same form as last year. He has on more than one occasion shown a conciliatory attitude towards denominational schools and denominational education, and I do hope, now that political pressure has, at any rate, been lessened, he will extend to colleges that consideration which he has shown himself ready to extend to schools.
  1694
  We know that the regulations of 1907 were not introduced for any educational reason at all. They were introduced as a means by which certain hon. Members attempted to get back in the colleges what they failed to get in the schools. Now we can consider this question simply on its own merits from the educational point of view. The House is already in possession of the salient points of this controversy, and I need not recount them. They know what the effect of the regulations is, and they also know, owing to what I believe to be the beneficial policy of the Board of Education, that training colleges are every year playing a more important part in the training of teachers for elementary schools. We may look forward to no distant time when the training college will be the only avenue of entrance into the scholastic profession. The training college has become even more important than it was in the past. My hon. and learned Friend has already alluded to the actual number of places in the two kinds of training colleges—denominational and undenominational—and I do feel very strongly that the time has come to reconsider the position for three reasons. In the first place, the President of the Board of Education, in conference last year with certain representatives of the Church of England, made a modification of the regulations of 1908 by what is known as the modus vivendi, under which 50 per cent. of denominational places were withdrawn from the scope of the regulations issued by his predecessor. It seems to me that the whole of the conditions of that compromise have now come to an end. If I understood the compromise rightly, it was an attempt to meet the President half-way in the matter of training colleges, and to get back something in the elementary schools. At that particular time compromise was in the air. Now the compromise with reference to the elementary schools has come to an end. One of the main conditions in the modus vivendi as to the 50 per cent. has ceased to exist. The withdrawal of the pressure on the benches behind the right hon. Gentleman has entirely changed the position of affairs, and I would like to draw attention to the fact that during the last four years the number of places in training colleges has undergone a very large and important change.
  There may have been some grievance on the part of undenominationalists in the past that when they wished to enter training colleges a great majority of the

  1695
  institutions were in the hands of various denominations. By the policy adopted in the last three or four years by the Board of Education a great stimulus has been given to the foundation of undenominational colleges. The Board have offered a grant of three-fourths of the cost of the building and site of any municipal training college, and the result has been that local authorities, and particularly the County Council of London, have been building these undenominational colleges on a very large scale. Let me give the figures as they affect London at the present moment. I find that in the County of London there are 1,764 places in County Council undenominational training colleges. In two other undenominational training colleges there are 669 places. In the denominational training colleges in London there are 1,450 places. The result is that you have in the County of London about 1,000 undenominational places more than you have of denominational places. You could only justify a further extension by saying that even with this great excess of undenominational places there was still a demand on the part of undenominationalists to obtain admission that they could not get. What is the state of affairs? During the last two years I have received a good many letters on the subject of training colleges from aggrieved ratepayers in London, and the purport of a large number of them is that at the present moment we have not too few municipal places in training colleges in London, but too many. The result is that only in the last two or three weeks I introduced proposals to the London Education Committee which would reduce the undenominational municipal places by no less than 160 a year. There will, therefore, be in future, if these proposals pass the London County Council, 320 less undenominational places than there are now in the county of London, for the simple reason that they are not required.
  I shall be told that while there may be an excess of undenominational places in day colleges, that does not affect residential colleges. I do not know the state of affairs as to residential colleges elsewhere, but, at any rate, in London there is no attempt which cannot be satisfied to gain admission to residential colleges. The largest residential college is an undenominational; and the most important and efficient in London is
  1696
  not a residential college at all, but a day college. That seems to me to dispose entirely of the grievance that undenominationalists cannot obtain admission to residential colleges when they so desire. Let me appeal to the President of the Board of Education by putting two points to him. The first is an educational point. At the present moment the denominational colleges are doing magnificent work. We have found in the county council during the past few years that the best students turned out are from denominational colleges. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that it has been the practice of the county council during the last few years to pick out the best students from the various training colleges and to put them on what is known as the "college list," which enables them to find immediate employment. It is fact that upon this college list during the past four or five years the pick of the students of the training colleges of the whole country have been students from denominational colleges. If the right hon. Gentleman strikes a blow at these denominational colleges, it is patent that he strikes a blow at the best form of training now given in the colleges of the country.
  There is the further point that these regulations are extremely complicated. It is very difficult even for the principal and staff of a college who wish loyally to carry them out, to do so, and serious complications arise. It is extremely difficult for a principal to make provision for an unknown number of undenominational students one year when he has not the least idea how many will attend next year. I am not stating a hypothetical case, for I know what has happened in my own experience. The result is that a loss of grant is being inflicted on particular colleges. While I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, on educational grounds, I would like, in the second place, to appeal to him on religious grounds. Everyone is aware that 999 out of every 1,000 teachers are required to give religious instruction at some time when they become teachers in elementary schools. But the only colleges in which a student is absolutely certain to receive any religious instruction at all are the denominational colleges. We are told that whilst you need most intense application to be able to teach natural science, history, mathematics, and other branches of the school curriculum, you can teach the Bible by instinct, and need no special

  1697
  instruction to enable you to teach it in the elementary schools. At any rate, as regards the elementary schools of London, I do not believe that anybody would be so bold as to say that Bible instruction is given as adequately and completely as it should be. I have seen reports which state that this teaching has not been efficiently given. How can you expect it when the majority of the teachers may not have had an opportunity of receiving any religious instruction in the undenominational colleges to which they have been? We are also told that the students themselves do not require it, and that they have reached an age when it is unnecessary to inflict instruction of this kind upon them, and that there is no demand for this instruction. We have found from our practical experience even in the undenominational colleges that there is a very strong demand.
  We found that until last year in the county council and municipal colleges in London there was no religious instruction being given at all, either denominational or undenominational. We thought that was a most unfortunate state of affairs. We therefore took the opportunity of giving to the students a chance of saying whether or not they desired religious instruction. You are aware that under Part 2 of the 1902 Act a local authority can provide facilities for students who desire explicit denominational instruction. We determined to put that clause of the Act into force. I may point out that no pressure whatever was brought to bear upon any student. I may also point out that the students' time table was already exceedingly full, and that it would be putting individual students to some inconvenience to ask them to attend any further lectures. These facilities have now been in force for only a few months, and at the present moment we have got a class attended by no less than one hundred Anglican students, purely voluntary, in one of our colleges, and we have got a class of fifty Nonconformists in another, and a class of fifteen Roman Catholics in a third. That seems to show that even in the undenominational colleges, where you would not expect this demand to be so keen, there is a very real and genuine demand for explicit religious instruction. But at present the only colleges in which students are absolutely certain of getting religious instruction, independent of county council majorities, are the denominational colleges. If you destroy these colleges or if
  1698
  you mutilate them you are taking a very long step towards secularising the colleges and schools altogether. We know that the President of the Board of Education is not anxious for what is known as the secular solution. He showed it in his introduction of Chapter 10 in the regulations last year. Unfortunately he withdrew that particular chapter, so that at the present moment there are no safeguards in the undenominational colleges at all for any religious instruction.
  I appeal to him first of all in the interest of education, and I appeal, in the second place, in the interest of religious instruction, to withdraw these totally unnecessary and harassing articles in the regulations. The Church of England training colleges—and what I say applies equally well to denominational colleges of other denominations—are only too anxious to continue to take their part in the education of the country. If he will only treat them fairly, if he will only ask them as a matter of grace what he is now insisting upon as a condition of their existence, I feel sure that they will meet him. I am sure that the President of the Board of Education knows that in one particular college of which I am thinking at the present moment—St. Gabriel's, at Kenning-ton—they are only too anxious to receive into the house attached to the college Nonconformist students. I am perfectly certain that what is true of that college is true also of a great many others of the denominational colleges. If he would only ask them as a matter of grace, and not put a pistol to their heads, I am sure that they would be only too anxious to include among their students the students of denominations other than that for which the college was explicitly founded. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. F. E. Smith) has alluded to another point, the change in the conditions in this House; and that I do not press further. I would rather appeal to the President in the interest of justice and education, and I feel sure that that appeal will carry a great deal of weight with him.
  Mr. ROWLAND BARRAN: The Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith), in reviewing the training colleges and the building of them, said that they were rewarded according to their works. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been more accurate if he had said that they were rewarded according to their wealth and not according to their work. That is the whole

  1699
  history of the denominational colleges as dealt with by the party who sit on the opposite benches. That was the main principle which dominated their action. There was another principle that was acted upon in the methods which they adopted as regards training colleges, and that was the giving of power to the wealthy denominational Church of England, and practically to them alone, because they were the only denomination who had the money to build the training colleges apart from the Roman Catholics. In doing so they went contrary to what is the main principle of a very large number, if not a large majority, of the people of this country, the principle which we hold that it is the duty not of denominations, but of the nation at large to provide the training college education which is necessary for the staffing of the schools. The hon. and learned Member who moved the reduction of this Vote took for granted that if one party of the State makes a bargain with a certain denomination, that if they build training colleges the small sum which they spend in building shall carry with it the right for ever to a grant from the Government, which will keep those training colleges in all their expenses, that it is a matter of justice to continue that arrangement. He said that that was a fair bargain and that it was a condition of honour to continue such a system.
  First of all, is it a fair system? I do not agree that the making of the bargain originally was a question of honour. Very far from it. I think it was a question of great discredit to the party who for all those years gave so great a power to one or two denominations for so small a sum. But, more than that, I say it was a discreditable thing that money should have come into the question at all, and that the possession of money should have been allowed for all those years to determine whom they would have to train the great majority of the teachers of this country. But there is even a greater question of principle. There are two schools of thought in this country, those who think the training colleges should be under the control of denominations and those who think that training colleges ought to be under the control of the State and of the municipality. So far from its being a question of honour that the system which was established of keeping power almost entirely in the hands of a denomination should be continued, I say that if you allow that, if you allow the purchase by
  1700
  one or two denominations by finding the money to build these colleges to continue as a principle, you allow that consideration to outweigh the other and to prevent a reversal of the policy. I claim that, although the Conservative party believed that it was desirable to keep the training in the hands of denominations, yet, if a reversal of that view was accomplished in the country, it was certainly in the power and it was the right of those who came to rule in this House to adopt a different system.
  It was within their right obviously to say, "We shall sweep away this idea that the purse is going to govern the question. We shall sweep away the idea that because a certain denomination provides colleges, the rent of which forms only a small proportion of the annual expenditure, the whole of the rest of the annual expenditure is to be found by the State." Your new Government is entitled to say, "There can be no question of honour in saying that the bargain which has been made is a bad one, and, more than that, that it has been a thoroughly unjust one, and to the country that the great number of places in the training colleges that are obtained, practically, for one or two denominations for so small a sum is not in any way desirable." The hon. Member for Liverpool spoke of the number of places in the training colleges themselves. Then he went on to speak of the number of places in the lay training colleges. Then he added the two together, and he spoke of the two corresponding numbers of denominational and undenominational places in both classes of colleges, well knowing that students from the one class of college are never, and never have been, when they are seeking for places in the educational world, on the same footing as students who have gone to another class of college.
  7.0 P.M.
  The grouping of the two, as the hon. Member must have known perfectly well, was an unjust and an unfair grouping and tended to give a wrong impression to those who listened to it and who are not accustomed to dealing with these questions. The position when these regulations were put in force was this. There were every year thousands of Nonconformist students who had passed examinations which qualified them for entering the training college, but because they were Nonconformists they were excluded from the training colleges, where many who had passed their examinations with lower marks were allowed to enter, and they were kept for the whole of their lives on a lower basis

  1701
  of salary through the country, and they were excluded from these places where everything except the amount of rent was provided by the Government. Does anyone on the other side say that that is not the basest and grossest form of bribery—[Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the basest and grossest form of injustice by which those who have long purses can give those who agree with them better places than those whose friends have not long purses, or who even hold a different political creed, and simply believe that the training colleges ought to be in the hands of the State and ought not to be in the hands of denominations? The hon. Member stated that the duty of the State in these matters was to be neutral. The duty of the State through all these years was not to be neutral, but its action, so to speak, was to wink at a certain system which produced the result which a certain party wanted; and as long as they remained in power they were enabled by means of this apparent neutrality to keep the greater part of the teaching in their own hands. That is not neutrality—it is really a slim method of obtaining their own way. I will not go into what view the Irish Members may take upon this question, but one thing I have quite clearly in my mind, that during the education Debates not only in the last Parliament, but in the Parliament before, and during the Education Bill of 1902, there were none more scathing in their denunciations of the injustice that was put upon Nonconformists by methods of this kind than the Members from Ireland. It is quite true that in that Parliament the Government made it worth the while of the Irish Members to support them. It is quite true that on three separate occasions the Government would not have succeeded without the support of Irish Members. Their own followers not only spoke against the injustice in connection with this training college question, but actually voted against their own supporters on the question, and Irish Members, in 1902, three times came to the assistance of the Government on a question similar to this in order to save them from defeat. It may be that the Irish Members take a different view as to the training colleges to-day, and they may take a different view on the question of interest now in their own training colleges, but throughout the whole of the education Debates, although
  1702
  their votes have not always been with us, their speeches have been with us, and they did not, in the country, claim that the Noncomformists have been treated in regard to the question of training colleges in anything like a fair manner. The speaker who has just sat down gave the House to understand that, excepting for these training colleges, you could not be sure of getting anything which you might call religious education. I cannot make that tally with the hon. Member's own speech, for he gave us an account of how, under the London County Council, members of the Church of England, and some Nonconformists and Roman Catholics, could get religious training voluntarily under that authority.
  The same is true in other places, and there is no doubt whatever that the statement he made is grossly inaccurate. Those who wish for training in religious teaching outside these colleges are able to get it. I admit that when at the present time different municipalities are building training colleges in a way with which I thoroughly agree, the grant being 75 per cent. of the cost of both building and site, I regard that as the only proper solution. It is the theory of many of the best educationalists, who have held it for many years, that it is the duty of the State, through the municipalities rather, perhaps, than by the State, to take upon itself not only the cost of the site and the building, but that, in respect of the training colleges which are already established, they should also take the responsibility of practically the whole of the maintenance. Training colleges are being planned or being built, and there is ample proof that Nonconformists, Catholics, and others, all wish to get into training colleges that are not controlled by one particular denomination. If, when these training colleges are established, there is ample room for all students, so that no one is excluded simply on the ground of his belief or disbelief, it may not then be necessary to have a conscience clause in the denominational colleges. The Government may not desire it, or it may not be necessary. But so long as any are excluded from colleges which are almost entirely maintained out of grants, with the exception of rent, from taking their places according to the merits of their examination, I hope the regulation will be enforced that a number of places shall be retained by means of a conscience clause, so that every teacher, when he has finished his

  1703
  school training, shall be able to take his place on his merits in some training college. I believe there will be in the course of a year or two ample room, and possibly there will be no necessity for the conscience clause. There has not been room up to the present time—leaving out the day training colleges, which are on a different footing—and I hope that the President of the Board of Education will not withdraw or modify in any way the regulation, and that the requisite accommodation is found in the training colleges.
  Mr. TOBIN: As a new Member, speaking for the first time, I am glad to have an opportunity of saying only a few words upon a subject which in the Lancashire constituency which I represent is one of the keenest possible and the most earnest interest. Everyone in this House, as the Committee knows perfectly well, is aware that the borough of Preston is devoted to denominational schools. I believe that at Preston all the schools are denominational, Church of England or Roman Catholic, save one or, at the most, two, which are Board schools. Consequently the people of that constituency take the greatest interest in any question that affects the religious teaching given in the training college—the religious training of the teachers who are to teach in the public elementary schools. It seems to me that the policy of the Government during the last four years, as regards these matters would, if it had been successfully carried into law, have in fact been hostile to religious teaching in public elementary schools. And so I believe, too, that the policy of the Government, as embodied in the regulations of the Board of Education, are, in very truth, in their effect hostile to religious training in our denominational training colleges. I have a two-fold grievance in connection with the regulations of the Board of Education. I complain of the existence of some of those regulations, and I complain, too, of the non-existence of other regulations—I refer especially to the regulations contained in Chapter 10. I complain that those regulations, which were undoubtedly approved by the present President of the Board of Education, were strangled by him almost immediately after their birth. The first grievance that I have is as to the existence of certain regulations which lay down that 50 per cent., at least half of the vacancies an denominational training colleges, must be absolutely left open to
  1704
  students belonging to any religious denomination whatever. I say of regulations of that kind that they are unfair to the denominational training colleges; it seems to me, also, that they are absolutely unnecessary by reason of some matters which I will allude to again, and which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool.
  I object, also, to these particular regulations, because it seems to me that, in very truth, they may adversely affect what has been called the family life in these training colleges. First of all, in considering whether they are unfair or not, these regulations particularly say that 50 per cent. of the vacancies of denominational colleges must be left open to students of denominations, no matter what they are. They are unfair, and I do not think that one ought to disregard the history of these colleges. One must not forget that members belonging to particular denominations found the money themselves, in the first instance, for the building of these training colleges. Of course, one does not forget that the Government made Grants in Aid up to a certain period, but those grants they made were not large, and undoubtedly the vast bulk of the expenditure fell upon the members of particular denominations. They were glad to put their hands in their pockets, but they intended that their money should be for religious teaching in their own particular faith, and should be given to students who wanted to be trained to become teachers; they were thoroughly glad to incur this expenditure in the confident faith that the Government of this country would continue to recognise the denominational character of the schools to which they contributed their money. Then came the grievance of the undenominationalists—the Nonconformist grievance. I understand they came forward and said, "We have no room; we can find no room for undenominational students. We want access to your denominational schools for our Nonconformist students." That is what they want. I will not go now into whether that grievance was well founded or not, but one cannot, and ought not to, forget that, after all, when Nonconformists made that grievance there were training colleges which were undenominational. There were two residential training colleges which were undenominational, and, above and beyond that, there were these hostels, which were close to the denominational

  1705
  training colleges, where the Nonconformist students could obtain lodging. The Nonconformist students dwelling in these hostels were consequently made free of access to the denominational training college; they had all the advantage of living there, and they shared the intellectual life and the social life of the institution without being subject to the liability of having to attend religious service or attend any religious instruction whatever. I do submit that, under these circumstances, having regard to that history, it is unfair that those colleges should now have this liability imposed upon them of opening them to the extent of one-hall the number of actual vacancies to students belonging to another religious faith.
  The next grievance against this particular rule is this, that I do earnestly believe that it adversely affects what is called the family life of all these denominational training colleges. One must not forget the kind of life which these denominational students lead there. There they are, all with one common interest, all bound for the same profession, all in those denominational training colleges belonging to the same religious faith, and having their own daily service in chapel, which constitutes, and very properly constitutes, a great bond between the students in those colleges. I do not think it is fair for one single moment to compare the life of the students in denominational training colleges with the life of undergraduates in the colleges of the Universities, as people so often do. You must remember that these denominational students, after all, are going in for the same profession. Undergraduates of the Universities go in for different professions, for the Army, for a short period, or for politics, for the Bar, and what not, while the denominational students are all bound for the same profession. The point is this, that in that profession when they become teachers they will have to teach, and they may have to give religious instruction, and therefore when they may have to give religious instruction subsequently, surely it is well that religious instruction should be given adequately and properly. How can they best be trained to give it but in the atmosphere of their own particular religious denomination? That is why I do maintain earnestly that you ought, in these denominational training colleges, maintain what is called the religious atmosphere, whether it be Church of England atmosphere or Roman Catholic atmosphere.
  1706
  As I said just now, these regulations are unnecessary; it is not as if the denominational training colleges or the authorities there, sought to thwart any Nonconformist students who sought admission or sought to impose any obstacles whatever in their way, because they have opened, close by their gates, hostels in which Nonconformist students may dwell, and at the same time get all the benefits of the denominational training college. I think the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool alluded to the offer made, I think, in 1907 by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Who can doubt that that same offer is open to-day on behalf of the Church of England—namely, that the hostels near the denominational training colleges should be thrown open to Nonconformist students, who are made free of access inside the walls of the denominational training colleges? But the Archbishop, as I understand, suggested, as a wise and prudent measure of reciprocity, that at the same time the undenominational training colleges should in return afford the same facility to denominational students dwelling in hostels outside the walls of those colleges. I want to say a word about the regulations which do not exist—those embodied in Chapter 10–Regulations which, it seems to me, with all respect to the President of the Board of Education, were very wisely framed, and were very wisely considered, and very unhappily withdrawn. I will read the material words of Chapter 10, which was withdrawn entirely after it had obtained the approval of the President of the Board of Education. These are the words:—
  "Religious Instruction.—Such colleges as do not already provide for the training of students in the giving of religious instruction, whether distinctive of any particular denomination or not, shall provide a Course of training which shall prepare students to give such instruction in, and explanations of the Bible as is suited to the capacities of the children."
  Surely that was a wise regulation most unhappily withdrawn, because what, after all, did that regulation consist of? Only this, that there should in every training college throughout the land be afforded to those who were students in training to be teachers the opportunity, if they wished to avail themselves of it, of attending religious instruction which they afterwards would have to teach. That regulation was withdrawn by the President of the Board of Education in his speech on the Education Estimates in July of last year. I do trust that is not a final withdrawal. I do trust the President of the Board of Education may come into line, and into

  1707
  the line that he marked out for himself when he drafted and approved of that regulation. I hope and trust that withdrawal is not final, and that hope and that trust is not simply as a Churchman, but as well because I am convinced that the people of England, or, at least, the great majority of them, are determined that the Bible shall be taught, and shall be explained properly, to the children in the public elementary schools. If the people of England are determined that the Bible shall be so taught, and shall be properly explained in the public elementary schools, is it not worth while seeing that it is well taught and properly taught? How can it possibly be well taught unless those who have to teach it are themselves trained in some form of religious instruction?
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT: I only intervene to emphasise what fell from the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division and other speakers, namely, that the Catholics in this country are strongly opposed to the existence of these training college regulations. There appears to be an idea in some quarters, and I rather gathered from some remarks that fell from an hon. Member opposite, that he might possibly be of that opinion, that the Catholics in this country are not so strongly opposed to these training college regulations. It is quite true that our opposition in public has perhaps been more emphasised on the secondary school regulations, which, to our mind, are grossly unjust in that they deprive us of being allowed to start any new secondary school at all with any hope of obtaining any grant. In public we have emphasised that point no doubt more than we have our grievance against the training college regulations, but there is also another reason, perhaps why we have not been so violent, so to speak, in our opposition to the training college regulations, and one which, I am sure, is well known to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is simply this that, as he must know well, and as was brought out for his predecessor, and put before the late Prime Minister by a deputation of Catholics received by him, and headed by the Catholic Archbishop—they were officially and definitely informed that if these training college regulations were applied to the Catholic colleges it would be absolutely our duty to ignore them altogether and treat them as a dead letter. I simply rose to emphasise this point, to make it quite
  1708
  clear that we Catholics are as strongly opposed if not more strongly opposed, if possible, than those of the Anglican communion to these regulations. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, considering as we know that these regulations were framed originally at a time of great strife and great stress, and as we know he has himself shown a more conciliatory spirit with regard to the whole question of education, that he will see his way now to give us a promise of removing these obnoxious regulations, both as regards training colleges and secondary schools.
  Mr. TUDOR WALTERS: I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Walton. If I understood the case he made out, it was this, that, as a matter of equity and common justice, any denomination that built a training college had the right to the full control, practical maintenance by the State, the denomination taking entire charge, having full management, and imposing its conditions on all the students who were trained there. That appeared to me, if I may say so, with great respect, to be a very illogical deduction. If you look at the relative payments of the owners and builders of the college and by the State in maintenance, I think you will find the proportion, as far as the State contribution is concerned, is about seven-ninths, and the denominational contribution about two-ninths. Therefore, seriously to submit to this House that those authorities who contribute two-ninths of the cost are to have the full control and entire responsibility for its management, and to admit and exclude according to their own devices, does not seem to be a proposition that is based on equity and justice. I venture to submit to this Committee that the only claim the denominationalists have is for two-ninths of the students to be of their own persuasion and to be admitted according to the test they may impose. If it is to be the basis of the argument that the bargain, or the alleged bargain, with the State and the denominational body is to be on the ground of contribution, then in equity and in justice clearly the State should nominate, the State should control, and the State should lay down conditions of entrance for a due and proper proportion according to the cost incurred.
  But on educational grounds these seminaries appear to me to be very undesirable. Personally, I have never looked with favour upon schools devoted to the sons of the clergy, or schools for the sons of Non-conformist

  1709
  ministers. Men who are brought up in the atmosphere of one denomination and associated with one class are always the narrowest type of men you can discover. To send young men to training colleges where the atmosphere is entirely of one type is not to produce the best type of teacher, or to produce the teacher who has that broad outlook which is essential for a really efficient teacher. What does this claim of the denominationalists amount to? It is that by the payment of this small proportion of the cost in the erection of the college they are to have State patronage for the large sums of money expended out of the Imperial Exchequer for the purpose of maintenance. In other words, because one community is a wealthy community and can afford to find money to build a college, they are to have entrusted to them patronage to this very considerable extent. I certainly do not think that it makes for educational efficiency or in a real advantage in the training of teachers. I was impressed by the maiden speech made by the hon. Gentleman who spoke after the hon. and learned Member for Walton. I think the admissions in the latter part of his speech were very significant. Though he was posing, in the commencement of what was a very excellent speech, as an advocate of the denominational colleges, in the latter part of his speech, explaining his own practical experience in London, I think he made out a very good case indeed for the undenominational college, where he told us the instruction that was given was voluntary instruction that the different types required. There was an atmosphere of freedom in the undenominational college, and there was no injustice to the Churchman or in- justice to the Roman Catholic. There was a class for training Roman Catholic teachers; also a class for Church of England teachers, and a class for Cowper-Temple teachers. If you are to have religious instruction for teachers at all, that seems to me the way to do it, and that is the kind of atmosphere which should prevail in the college. I imagine there would be no superiority or inferiority of one section as compared with another. To set against that the policy of the denominational college which insists upon all conforming to one standard and all receiving one kind of instruction seems to me not to make for educational efficiency, nor to create the kind of atmosphere which is healthy and beneficial to the teachers.
  1710
  The real remedy for the whole business is that the State should provide the money for the training colleges, for their building as well as for their upkeep. It seems to me an entirely illogical proposition to fasten upon our educational system this plausible theory of maintenance by the State and building by the denominational authorities, with the whole and sole control vested in the hands of the latter. The amended regulations enforced last year seem to me to be not only very fair but very generous in the concessions they made. In my opinion the cause of religion is not advantaged by the position taken up in respect of these denominational colleges. An atmosphere of the type created by the hard and fast rules and regulations which the denominational colleges require is contrary to the real spirit of religion, and is not likely to be beneficial to the teachers trained under such auspices. I hope the Minister for Education will not make any further concessions. The present regulations are fair and reasonable. No cause has been made out, as far as justice is concerned, for any change, and I venture to say there is no case on educational grounds; while, in my opinion, at any rate, in the interests of religion it is not desirable that the peculiar and special prerogatives of the denominational training colleges should be further bolstered up.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I think the last speaker went to the root of the matter when he described the conditions of the denominational schools. Personally I agree with him to a considerable extent in that I believe that the ideal of education is not in being brought up entirely with those with whom you agree. But there is a higher ideal than that, and that is religious liberty as a whole. There are a vast number of people equally entitled to their opinion with myself, who desire that their children should be associated only with those with whom they have agreement in religion. I think the true attitude of the State towards those who are willing to spend their time and money in giving religious instruction should be one of benevolent neutrality. If schools can turn out children who satisfy the State requirements, I think the State, if it were possible, ought to recognise them; but I admit that there are great difficulties in putting that ideal into force with respect to elementary schools. I need not go into the difficulties, but none of them exist in regard to the training

  1711
  colleges. Training colleges can be and are carried on by different denominations with perfect efficiency, and thus it has been that colleges which have existed now for sixty or seventy years have been able to draw to themselves those teachers who desired their teaching. The only grievance which for a time obtained was that Nonconformists for some reason or other did not or were not able to build training colleges themselves, and undoubtedly Churchmen got an advantage in the teaching profession by reason of the existence of Church of England training colleges.
  What was the service performed by the Church? It was that she stepped in and did that which the State ought to have done. No doubt the Church did this excellent service on behalf of those who believed in her tenets, but it was a service which did good to the State as well as to the Anglican church. No one can question that it was a public service deserving the admiration of those concerned in it. The students who went to the training colleges were provided not merely with religious instruction, but with social and educational advantages. The State invited and encouraged the Church to build these colleges, and undoubtedly the colleges were built in the faith that the State would recognise the services of those who had been encouraged to erect them. The only defect in the system was that apparently it did not extend to the Nonconformist communities. I myself regret it very much, but Nonconformists were for a time insufficiently accommodated. I do not inquire into whose fault it was. It may very well be that the resources of the Church of England were greater than those of the Nonconformist communities. I do not pass any opinion upon that. At any rate, for a time, Nonconformists were handicapped, and they were unable to get the education they desired because the Church colleges built for and accommodating Church men, were not able to receive Nonconformists. That difficulty, however, has now, to a large extent, passed away. Even in 1907, when the predecessor of the present President of the Board of Education passed regulations which would have ruined the Anglican training colleges, a practice was begun which those who were entitled to represent the Church promised should continue. It was promised in a spirit of true tolerance and hospitality that Nonconformists should be welcomed in hostels
  1712
  attached to the Church of England training colleges, that they should have whatever social and educational advantages those colleges afforded, and that they should be under none of the obligations which might vex their consciences, such as attending chapel and entering into the religious life of the college. I submit that that offer was tolerant, generous, and hospitable to Nonconformist teachers. If it were accepted—I believe it has been largely—it would secure the very result desired by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tudor Walters) of bringing together in social and educational concord those who in certain religious matters are unable to agree. That is precisely the condition in which most of us lived at the universities. We were brought into contact with those who held different religious views from our own; but it would be preposterous to suggest that that circumstance was a bar to entering into social friendships, which have been of great benefit to both parties.
  I will not go into the past or into the efforts made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor to ruin the state of things which I have described. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dews-bury (Mr. Runciman) is now Minister for Education, and I would make a most earnest appeal to him, in the altered conditions of the time and in the altered tone which prevails in this House in respect to these matters, to recognise the determination which exists among the people of this country—a determination which I am certain no party will be able to put an end to—that their children and their teachers shall be brought up and trained in their own faith. Neary half the children of the country are educated in voluntary schools with religious instruction as a part of their curriculum, and religious instruction is also given to a great number of children educated in the council schools; so that probably nine-tenths of the children of the country in one way or another receive, at any rate, some religious instruction in the schools. How, then, is it possible to maintain that it is undesirable that the teachers who are bound to give that instruction should learn what they are obliged to teach? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not take up that wholly untenable position. Further, it is against public policy that a change so great as that which has been made by these regulations, or what remains of them, should be effected on the authority of the Minister

  1713
  for Education. You have here a state of things which has existed for sixty or seventy years with the assent and encouragement of Parliament. For sixty years these colleges have been recognsed in a manner which gave them as strong a prescriptive right as could be imagined. It is quite true that Parliament might take away that right. Parliament could do anything. But I submit that it is against public policy that any other authority, even so great an authority as the Minister for Education, should be able, by a mere stroke of the pen, to take away a right which has existed, and for which great sacrifices have been made for so many years. Every time there is a change of Government you revive what we should all now deplore—a bitter and exasperating controversy. It seems to me to be perfectly clear that if the Minister for Education should change a long-continued practice of this kind merely by an edict from his office that it is absolutely inevitable that those who succeed him—and some day or other there must succeed him some who do not hold his opinions in regard to this matter, but hold strongly contrary opinions—will retaliate, and alter the thing back to the position in which it stood. That would be a deplorable thing. We want harmony and continuity in educational policy, and I submit that you cannot possibly enjoy it unless you treat, at any rate, as continuous the practice which has existed for so many years, and which has been encouraged by Parliament, and which has not been reversed by Parliament. All these arguments, strong in themselves, become doubly strong at the present moment, when, as my hon. and learned Friend showed in his speech at the beginning, without any provocation—it is the fact—that the majority of this House are in favour of denominational education, and adjure the opinion held by our predecessors in the last very controversial Parliament. I do not desire to say a single provocative word upon the matter, but I earnestly hope that the spirit the Minister for Education has brought to the consideration of these matters may prevail, and that he may see his way not to retain this regulation, it being entirely unnecessary now, but once and for all to abolish it.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: May I say one or two words on this topic before the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education addresses the House. Speaking as a Churchman who has taken some interest
  1714
  in education, I wish to say that I rather dissent from the views expressed by the hon. Member opposite that Churchmen in any way take an antagonistic view of undenominational training or undenominational colleges.
  Mr. TUDOR WALTERS: I did not suggest that.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I am glad that the hon. Member did not suggest that, and I should like to state here in Committee that so far as the views of Churchmen are concerned their desire is that there should be absolutely equal treatment of training colleges, and indeed of all schools in all matters of creed or doctrine. They appeal to what they consider a higher principle—the principle of religious equality and of religious tolerance, which ought to express itself in giving all round facilities, and not giving exclusive privileges, to either denominationalists or undenominationalists. One other point in answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite. He mentioned what the Church had done in the past. Now Anglicans in the past have been pioneers in the work of training colleges, but I think he forgot this fact, that when grants were made from the State before 1870–none have been made since that date—they were made on the basis that these church training colleges were placed under trusts by means of trust deeds. The Government which was responsible for these grants made them upon that condition. That being so, surely the denominationalist colleges may say it is very hard that after subscriptions have been given to them on that basis, and in view of the Government imposing these trust conditions, that suddenly regulations should be introduced which we have been advised on the highest possible authority are absolutely inconsistent with these conditions, which in the old days the Government itself imposed.
  If I may say so in regard to this matter, I do not make any especial claim for what denominationalists have done in the past. But I may contrast it with what has been done by undenominationalists, not in the way of blame, but by way of contrast. It has never been the case that denominationalists have desired to exclude Nonconformists from the training colleges. So far as Anglicans are concerned, nothing is further from their views on educational matters than an idea of that kind. But it is a very different thing to say that because undenominational colleges have not been provided, and denominationalist

  1715
  colleges have been provided, that those who provide denominational training or excluded undenominationalists for whom similar facilities ought to have been provided—although up to a certain date they were not provided—should have injustice done to them. It is not a question of excluding undenominationalists. No one is more anxious in this matter than Churchmen that there should be ample opportunity provided in training colleges for every undenominationalist in the country who desires to be trained in undenominationalist religious training or creed. But I think I may say this, and probably the hon. Gentleman opposite will agree with me, that religious teaching is the keystone to our denominationalist system. It is no good this House laying down principles as regards religious teaching, whether denominational or undenominational, unless we provide qualified teachers to carry out the principles which we desire to see carried out in our public elementary schools, and it is equally useless to lay down principles as regards religious teaching without at the same time we make provision that the teacher should be trained and qualified to give the form of religious education which we require.
  As regards No. 10, I do not wish to go into that matter again, but I agree with all that has been said, that it is most unfortunate, in the interests of undenominational religious teaching, that the proposals originally brought forward in No. 10 were withdrawn by the right hon. Gentleman as head of the Education Department. If we are to have this teaching at all, it is essential for denominational or undenominational colleges that better training should be given. And I rejoice myself that on a recent date a much larger range of facilities has been given in undenominationalist colleges than was possible in the old days. I agree, too, that it is the duty of the State to make certain, after a sufficient time of preparation, that there is accommodation in the national training colleges for every Nonconformist teacher who desires to have the advantage of a training college education before he embarks upon his teaching career. Let it, therefore, be quite certain at the outset that no Churchman, and no one speaking on behalf of Churchmen, wants anything like a monopoly in regard to the teaching in our training colleges. Our position is exactly the opposite. We desire equal facilities all round. We desire that there should be no difference in treatment of
  1716
  denominationalists and undenominationalists, but that all should have the same facilities quite irrespective of a particular creed or doctrine.
  I want to say one word in addition to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I happen to be a member—I do not know that there is any other Member of the House also a member—of the Executive Training College Committee which had certain negotiations with the right hon. Gentleman. So far as those negotiations have run they are private, and I would not seek to give them, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if I am not right in saying this: That, first of all, it was made perfectly clear that what is called the modus vivendi was only accepted for temporary purposes; and, secondly, was it not also made perfectly clear that it was accepted for temporary purposes, not on the basis of the training colleges not getting the grant in the ordinary sense of the term, but on this basis: that the grant, though nominally given to the training colleges, was really given in the nature of bursarships to students to enable them to have the advantage of a training college education? What was felt by those who represented the training colleges was this, that it would be grossly unfair when students were expecting the advantages of a denominational training college that they should suddenly be deprived of that whereby their career as teachers might be seriously interfered with. It was from the point of view of conserving the just rights of the students who had expectations of the advantages of the training colleges that the modus vivendi was entered into. It was pointed out at the time, and has been pointed out again, that the regulations as originally proposed were not in accordance with the trust deeds of the denominational colleges, and therefore it was essential for the managers of those various colleges—I happen to be a manager of some myself—to make some temporary arrangement, so that the student who probably had been brought up in the expectation that he should find facilities if he wanted them, should find them. It would have been a monstrous thing, I think, when these teachers, who were looking forward to the teaching profession, and as preliminary obtaining a certain amount of religious teaching in training colleges, should have been deprived of it, and the managers and those responsible made every effort, not for the maintenance of the training college itself—because that could have been done—out

  1717
  to maintain the promises which they had held out to the teachers who wanted the advantages of these training colleges. It was pointed out quite clearly, and I want to make it quite clear now, that the modus vivendi which is contained in the regulations now before the House was only accepted as a temporary measure, and with the proviso which I have now introduced.
  There is one other point. There seems to be a misunderstanding in regard to the Church policy on this question of training colleges. Here, again, I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he comes to speak, as to whether he will corroborate or not the view I am now putting forward. What Churchmen or Anglicans proposed was this: They said. "We are quite willing as regards our denominational colleges that there should be attached to them undenominational hostels." Indeed, in the case of St. Gabriel's, to which reference has already been made, there is an undenominational hostel attached to a denominational college, and the undenominational hostel in that case has probably the same accommodation as the residential college itself. So that in that case Churchmen themselves provide in their own training college that an equal number of Nonconformists should have the advantage of religious training before entering upon the teaching profession. What they said was this: If the church training college is to carry out its true purpose of encouraging a religious atmosphere in the social life of the college itself you must have a uniformity or homogeneity as regards the particular religious training which you are giving to residential students. I do not believe that anyone who has had anything practically to do with these training colleges will come to any other conclusion that if you want the best possible results in respect to religious teaching in any particular college you must encourage, as far as possible, social unity amongst the teachers who are being trained in that particular college, and may I say one word in answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite. I should like to know from what statistics he derives the opinion that these denominationalist training colleges produced narrow-minded teachers?
  8.0 P.M.
  The whole opinion that I have got, and I have got a good deal, is in the opposite direction, and I think also the right hon. Gentleman cannot have attended to the statistics given in the admirable speech of the hon.
  1718
  Member opposite because he has had experience as regards the training colleges and training college regulations; and he told us from his experience—and his experience fully is in agreement with all those who have given religious training in various forms—that the best form of teaching, producing the best form of teachers, was given in the residential denominational colleges. I believe that is the experience of all persons who have dealt practically with the management of the various training colleges that have the selection of teachers in our public elementary schools. I deny absolutely as wholly inconsistent with all statistics and experience I have had the suggestion that the training in the training denominational colleges provides a narrow-minded teacher in any sense at all. I go a little further, and say that, so far from its being the desire of the Anglicans to produce any materials of that kind, it is their desire and policy, not only in the training colleges, but in all the public elementary schools that denominationalism and undenominationalism should have absolutely equal treatment, without any preference whatever one way or the other; and from my point of view the policy which was put forward in the last House of Commons, and which, I hope, will not be put forward by this House of Commons, was necessarily of a reactionary and intolerant kind. I could not understand why undenominationalists should try to debar the denominational parent from the form of religious education he requires for his child. As a denominationalist I desire every undenominationalist in this country to have the form of religious education he desires for the good of his children. I want to go a little further. I think every poor man in this country who has to send his children to a neighbouring school should have the advantage which his better-off neighbour has. Everyone knows that the parent who can select the school for his child selects the school in which the form of religious teaching is given which he desires. Every poor parent in this country ought to have the same advantage, and I do say that, to my mind, it is essentially intolerable and essentially inconsistent the primary principle of religious equality to bring forward a policy which was un-doubtedly brought forward at the last Parliament, which gave an exclusive endowment to undenominationalists, and which proposes that so far as denominational teaching is concerned, it should not be allowed in our public elementary schools.
  An HON. MEMBER: What about the single school areas?
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: If the hon. Member had really studied this matter with a view to bringing about a fair arrangement, he would have found that the children attending in the single school areas could have got religious teaching in each school in accordance with the wishes and desires of the parents.
  An HON. MEMBER: Did the Act of 1902 give that?
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I will not go back to the Act of 1902 for this reason. The Act of 1902 put denominationalists and undenominationalists, as far as the grant and as far as the rates were concerned, on practically equal conditions, and where there was any inequality—I make this statement on behalf of Churchmen—you found no one more ready than those very Churchmen to do what they could to put an end to any fancied injustice so far as Nonconformists were concerned.
  I think it is the greatest mistake that these educational questions should be discussed on the basis of religious prejudice when it ought to be discussed entirely from the educational point of view. So far as religion is concerned, everyone should be entitled to equal and the same treatment, without any particular inquiry as to what particular creed and doctrine they hold. That has been the policy of the Anglicans in this educational question, and that is their policy at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman knows that so far as regards these Church training colleges, the Anglicans have often, in connection with undenominational colleges, to provide denominational hostels. You may have a denominational college and an undenominational hostel, and you may have an undenominational college and a denominational hostel. Is he not aware that that policy is negatived by that Department of which he is the head at the present time? I ask on what principle he refuses to allow a denominational hostel to be attached to an undenominational college when he allows an undenominational hostel to be attached to a denominational college? I hope that in anything I have said I have stirred no animosity upon this education question. What we want is—and the time is coming—to have these matters settled, and to be settled upon the basis of equal treatment all round, without any question of denominational
  1720
  or undenominational treatment. We want all round equal religious equality and tolerance, and it is only in that way we shall get rid of the sectarian discussions in connection with education questions.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): With much of the doctrine announced by the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down, I should find myself in full agreement, but I think if he meant it to apply strictly to the training colleges he would find himself in conflict with the trustees, and that he was going outside the provisions of the trust, and he would discover that, bad as our regulations may be, they would not carry him and his friends anything like so far as the particular principles which he himself says ought to be applied to an educational system. I quite recognise he has not attempted to attack the regulations in a hostile manner, but he wishes that they should be reasonably applied in the training colleges, and should oppose no unfair conditions on training colleges. I think I can show that as they have been administered during the last two years—and the Committee will admit this is very largely a matter of administration—there has been no unfairness shown to the denominational colleges, and when we hear the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. F. E. Smith) say that by administrative action we have deliberately attempted to destroy the denominational colleges, he is really stretching language beyond its reasonable limits. We have not attempted to destroy the denominational colleges, but we recognise such rules in these colleges, and have endeavoured to preserve the denominational character and atmosphere of the colleges, while at the same time giving the Nonconformist the right they ought to have had years ago in institutions which they have largely supported our of State funds. The hon. Gentleman appears to have overlooked the fact which was stated by an hon. Member behind me that over seven-ninths of the income of denominational training colleges comes from the State. In 1863 the voluntary subscriptions from the Church of England towards these training colleges was £11,900, while the sum of £67,000 was provided by way of Exchequer grant. Last year the voluntary subscriptions were lower—though higher than for some years past—than in 1863–they were just over £11,000, and the Exchequer grant was no less than

  1721
  £178,000. That has really altered the situation as regards the training colleges, and I am sure no one, even on the other side of the House, could imagine for a moment that the old conditions of 1863 should prevail at this time in the residential denominational training colleges. The regulalations brought in in 1907, and which began in 1908 by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, declared that you should have in all denominational colleges what you already had in all denominational elementary schools years ago—that is you should have a conscience clause for the pupils there. I quite recognise that the effect of this on many denominational colleges might have been to alter their character. I quite recognise that, in principle, my right hon. Friend was quite right in these matters, but you can only arrive at a working agreement by compromise, and after much effort we succeeded in making an arrangement which has now held good for two years. Half the denominational training colleges were thrown open to Non- conformists and others who would have been barred by the terms of the trust. The hon. and learned Member for Walton suggested that the effect of our regulations was to diminish the number of places. I think he overlooked the fact that during the last few years the number of places in denominational training colleges has actually increased, and it is since our regulations have been brought in. In 1906 there were 4,579 recognised in denominational colleges. Since then there have been added 281 new places. It has been possible under these regulations to increase the size of some of the training colleges, although not to increase their number, and at the present time the Church of England training colleges provide places for no less than one-fourth of the teachers therein. The regulations have not destroyed their character by the institution of a con-science clause. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Walton objects to a conscience clause and upholds what I imagine to be his view with regard to the training colleges, namely, that the trusts should decide for all time how the students of these colleges should be taught, he is forgetting his own doctrine of parent rights. He would find it very difficult on any platform in the country to justify the claim that he now puts forward that in these training colleges supported to the extent of seven-ninths by State funds, he would withhold all rights in a conscience clause. That is an untenable position,
  1722
  and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member who does sometimes express reasonable views, will see that it is impossible to hold to the old position, having altered to some extent the conditions under which students enter into these colleges we have not only not destroyed the character of the colleges, but we have in some cases increased their accommodation. Hon. Gentlemen ask why we object to the building of hostels. We have sanctioned the building of hostels even recently with the object of meeting that very difficulty, and we have raised no difficulty when satisfactory arrangements could be made for housing such students when it is done according to the rules applying to the ordinary practice of the college, and so long as they are housed in buildings over which there is proper supervision provided and in which there is proper accommodation.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say he will allow denominational hostels to be built for undenominational colleges?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am dealing with the point of hostels for undenominational colleges. We will consider whether we can recognise such buildings and whether they are suitable for the purpose. The circular issued upon this subject stated:—
  "If satisfactory arrangements can be made for housing any such students—students admitted under the conscience clause—in buildings subject to proper supervision and providing adequate facilities for dining room, study and common rooms for students, the Board will consider whether they can recognise such a building, at any rate temporarily, as an annexe to college, and can regard the students who are housed in it as resident students instead of as day students for the purpose of their grants."
  That, I believe, is a perfectly fair and reasonable offer which in some places has been taken advantage of. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we are not prepared to accept the conditions offered by the denominational hostels attached to undenominational colleges. I should like to know what he means by denominational colleges? Does he mean institutions like the Borough Road College? If he does, then I say that that is a matter for the Borough Road people themselves. If we find that under their educational conditions discipline can be maintained we should be quite prepared to consider their proposal. It is perfectly possible in some training colleges for the day students to be housed as they please so long as they

  1723
  are under proper control, but to have denominational hostels supported by State funds not under proper control could not be tolerated.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I did not suggest it.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman rather suggested it in his speech.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: What I suggested was that where the Anglicans were prepared to build and bear the whole cost of denominational hostels attached to an undenominational college that could be done.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If it is for the purpose of students attending a day training college they can practically do anything they like in the way of housing their students, so long as it is outside the training college, and does not interfere with the regulations under which the students receive their training. I can understand the objection which has been taken by the Noble Lord on sentimental grounds, but I submit that no Roman Catholic college has suffered in the least by these regulations. I would go further, and say that no Church of England college has suffered by these regulations either. All told, I am informed that out of 1,700 places in Church of England colleges 177 have been occupied by those who have taken advantage of the conscience clause—that is to say, in the total number of admissions in the year beginning 1908 one-tenth of them were those who took advantage of the conscience clause. I draw particular attention to the proportion, because it bears out, first of all, that the regulation did meet a real grievance, and that there were a substantial number of students who were excluded from these colleges on religious grounds, or, if not excluded on religious grounds, had been induced to comply with religious practices in which they had not been brought up in order to enter those colleges. I believe the number of students who take advantage of the conscience clause at St. Gabriel's remains as it was before, and in this Church of England training college imbued with the Church of England spirit, manned by Church of England officers, under the control of a Church of England housekeeper and housemaid, in no way has the character
  1724
  of St. Gabriel's suffered in the least. The same applies to other colleges, where these regulations are happily working well. I commend these facts to those interested in denominational hostels, and ask them to "let sleeping dogs lie." No harm has been done, and these regulations have allowed many of those who felt they were suffering from a disqualification entirely due to their religious faith an opening in our teaching profession which might otherwise have been closed to them.
  I hope there will be no attempt to revive the old religious controversy. During the last twelve months we have lived to some extent in a period of calm. It is true there has been some friction which must last as long as the conditions of the Act of 1902 remain unamended. I have done what I could to prevent religious bitterness entering either into the central administration or the local administration, and so far as the training colleges are concerned we have had no outbreaks of the old religious alarms which were well known three, four, five, and six years ago. During that time we have been able to devote our attention more than ever to purely educational interests, not only in the colleges but in the schools, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, as well as those sitting on this side who have followed the administration of the last few years, must realise that that calm has been of great advantage to our educational system. Great advances have been made in secondary schools, and training colleges have extended their curriculum with good effect. Many of the old sources of troubles and quarrels which used to absorb so much time have passed away, and I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not attempt to urge on their friends either in this House or in the country the tearing up of a compromise which has worked well.
  The Noble Lord opposite may think that some of the colleges have suffered, but we have no knowledge of this at the Board of Education. The colleges have worked well, and in so far as they have worked well, they have justified the compromise arrived at by an agreement on both sides as a temporary expedient. That compromise ought to be tried for a further time, and there ought to be further reasons given for tearing it up than those which have been given in this Debate. I said it was a temporary compromise. I still believe it must be of a temporary nature. I feel that the whole position of training colleges will have to be reviewed in the

  1725
  coming year. I should hesitate to commit myself to any scheme or any set of Regulations which would allow denominational colleges to keep complete control of those colleges, the appointment of the staff, to impose upon their students religious regulations without a conscience Clause, and at the same time continue to get seven-ninths of their maintenance from the Stats. That cannot be contemplated as a permanent solution. If hon. Gentlemen opposite think they can revert to the old state of things with any degree of permanence, they are very much mistaken, and I would suggest in the best interests of their colleges that they had better accept the compromise, I will not say as a permanent solution, but, at any rate, as a means of preventing these training colleges being dragged down into the cockpit of quarrels and exacerbations, instead of allowing them to do the work of producing the best teachers.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to give any reply to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) with regard to the regulations which were introduced last year by the Board of Education with respect to the religious instruction to be given in undenominational colleges. It seems to me that the action of the Board of Education last year was very undignified. They introduced regulations for the religious training in undenominational training colleges, and, in consequence of certain pressure brought to bear upon them from gentlemen on benches behind the Treasury Bench, the Board without any reason withdrew those important regulations. I need scarcely remind the House that not only in the late House of Commons, but also in the present Parliament, there was a decided expression of opinion made against secular instruction in our elementary schools. We know, as a matter of fact, that religious education of an undenominational character is given in our Council schools and in all schools in which denominational education is not given. No arguments could have been stronger than those adduced by the Board of Education in favour of the necessity of giving an adequate training to those persons who were to give religious education of an undenominational character in the Council schools. I do not think I could do better than read just a sentence or two from the prefatory memorandum to those regulations from the Board of
  1726
  Education which were only issued in the summer of last year:—
  "The object of the new provisions is to secure that colleges which do not already provide for the training of students in the giving of religious instruction shall provide a course of training which shall prepare students to give such undenominational instruction in, and explanation of, the Bible, as are suited to the capacities of children. This requirement is in the view of the Board justified by the consideration that a college which trains students for the work of teaching in elementary schools ought to prepare them to deal efficiently with every side of the instruction which it will in future be their duty to give."
  I should like to know what educational reasons have induced the Board of Education to recede from that important position. It is certainly essential if religious instruction of any kind is to be given in our elementary schools that it should be given by teachers who are properly trained to give such instruction. What is the argument adduced by those who have prevailed upon the President of the Board of Education to withdraw these important regulations? I am credibly informed that there was a largely attended meeting of the Council of Nonconformist Members of Parliament to discuss the regulations for training colleges, and chiefly Chapter X. of those regulations. Mr. Runciman, who was a Member of the Council, attended, and stated he did not attach much importance to that chapter, but a resolution was subsequently conveyed to the President of the Board of Education by Sir George White and Mr. Hay Morgan, and the view taken by the Nonconformist Members was that to teach the art of teaching in training colleges was sufficient, and that no more art was required to give simple Bible teaching than to give instruction in history. I venture to say that from an educational point of view that is absolutely unsound. I believe more art is required to give instruction in the elementary principles of religion founded on simple Bible teaching possibly than in any other subject. The hon. Member for Chelsea, who has had a wide experience in this subject, and to whose speech we all listened with the greatest possible attention and advantage, stated that there is no subject in our Council schools which is worse taught than simple Bible reading. Surely, if it is worth while to give religious instruction in our undenominational schools—and it is considered absolutely essential that such instruction shall be given—it is advisable that adequate instruction should be given to those who are to teach this important subject. I would not have ventured to rise after the closing speech of the President of the Board of Education if he had

  1727
  referred in any way to this important matter, and I do sincerely hope he will be able to give us an assurance that he will reintroduce this year those regulations for which such cogent reasons were advanced in a memorandum signed by the Secretary of the Board of Education.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Before the Committee proceeds to a Division I should like to say a very few sentences; indeed, I am only led to do that because I listen to the sort of speech we have heard from the President of the Board of Education with a feeling akin to despair. Every word, every gesture, and his whole manner and demeanour indicated a moderation, a conciliatory disposition, and a desire to meet what is said on the other side, and yet every word said, or almost every word, indicated that he has not even begun to understand what the feelings are of those whose desires he is anxious to meet. He talks, for example, of the seven-ninths which the State pays for the maintenance of these denominational colleges in which denominational instruction is given. He seems to forget altogether that the State gives nine-ninths to the rival undenominational colleges. The undenominational system is to the minds of many of us quite as repellant as the denominational system is to them. Why is it that our religions convictions are to be treated as of less value than theirs? Why is it that our religion is to be treated as something inferior and something which may be considered lucky if it is allowed any opportunity at all in State institutions, whereas their religion, or at any rate the religion they like to favour, is given every advantage and every financial assistance? Let me say over and over again that in the opinion of many of us this is the great religious controversy of our time, a controversy between those who hold to an undenominational system of religion and those who belong to the Roman Catholic Church, or to the Church of England, or to some other definite body of religious teaching. It is as unfair to favour undenominational institutions, and to put denominational institutions under comparative restrictions and disabilities, as it would have been unfair in the 16th century to have favoured Papists at the expense of Protestants or Protestants at the expense of Papists. All these conceptions that the undenominational system is somehow or other the fair system for the State to help, and that denominational systems are on another
  1728
  basis, we resent, we repudiate, and we deny, and the right hon. Gentleman deceives himself altogether if he thinks that so long as he and his Friends adhere to that decision there can ever be, or there ought to be, anything approaching educational or religious peace. So long as it is maintained that the undenominational system is in a position of privilege and so long as equal rights are denied to denominational bodies, so long will there be, and there ought to be, persistent contention; and when he tells us this system ought to be accepted, and we are to let sleeping dogs lie, he is in a fool's paradise. We have not the slightest intention of accepting this system. We intend to go on with the agitation until we have uprooted the privilege of undenominationalism and forced it back into a position of equality. It is in the maintenance of those principles that I shall take part in the coming Division, and I hope many will take part with me.
  Mr. E. H. CARLILE: I gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the main reasons for the alterations of the regulations under which training colleges are carried on, made in 1897, rose from the fact that there was an insufficiency of places available for Nonconformists. That position no longer obtains. The difficulties at the present time are in the Church of England. There are 3,324 places open to members of the Church of England and 8,493 open to non-members of the Church of England. It cannot be claimed, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, that the serious modification made was in the interests of the Church of England training colleges. The grounds on which these alterations were made do not exist at the present time. They have passed away, and therefore, the right hon. Gentleman might very well adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool and revert to the position which formerly existed in connection with the training colleges of the Church of England. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the arrangement as a compromise. I have always noticed that, on educational questions, when our Friends opposite make a regulation which amounts to an attack upon the Church of England, or upon Roman Catholics, or on the Jewish denominations, whenever they desire to put them to a disadvantage and to destroy any vestige of religious liberty or equality, they call it a compromise. We do not accept

  1729
  that term. We have had no opportunity of opposing them during the last four years; in connection with our training colleges we have had no opportunity given us, either by the First Lord of the Admiralty or by the right hon. Gentleman himself, of opposing these violent attacks upon our rights. Yet the right hon. Gentleman comes to us to-night with a delightful manner of eternal peace, and with words as soft and mild as anyone can desire, and tells us it is a compromise! We have never made any compromise. We have simply had the regulations forced upon us, and they have taken out of our hands one-half of the accommodation in our training colleges to make places available for persons who utterly disregard the principles upon which those colleges exist and are maintained. Yet we are told, for-sooth, that it is a compromise. As the Noble Lord said just now, we shall never sit down under that. We will never accept such a position. There is no reason why we should. The constitution of the present House of Commons, with its vigorous Majority on behalf of the denominational system of education, should be quite sufficient warning to the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his supporters that we are not going to submit quietly to this. There is no reason why the original arrangement under which we were allowed to maintain these buildings should not still obtain. All we ask is that we should be fairly treated—that we should be treated as well as other people. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the considerable number of students in these colleges who abstain from receiving the religious instruction for which the colleges have been erected, as if they formed a useful leaven rather than otherwise among the students. Under the right hon. Gentleman's regulation 50 per cent. of the students may do so. As a matter of fact, at present only 10 per cent. do so, but doubtless he will take further steps to increase the percentage. What is the result even if you only have 10 per cent.? Say you have a family of ten. If one member of that family is thoroughly out of sympathy with the other nine, and if they all have to live and work together under the same roof and under exactly the same conditions everybody knows what serious difficulties may arise through that one recalcitant member, and what a temptation and trial he may prove to the others. The mere fact that one-tenth of the students in these colleges refuse to accept the religious training and influence which these institutions provide must constitute
  1730
  a very grievous danger to the efficiency and happiness of the students. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Tudor Walters) said that teachers trained in Church of England colleges were narrow-minded. I wish he could have a little talk with the National Union of Teachers on that subject. I believe the majority of teachers in this country, at any rate until recent times, have been trained in Church of England colleges. What, I wonder, would the National Union of Teachers say of an hon. Member who described the teachers in the elementary schools of this country as narrow-minded.
  Mr. KING: I rise to a point of Order. The hon. Member is entirely misrepresenting an absent Member, and I wish to ask if that is in Order.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): That is not a point of order, but I must say I think the hon. Gentleman is travelling far beyond the subject under discussion.
  Mr. CARLILE: I was referring to the character of the teachers trained in the colleges, and, with much respect, I submit I have not travelled far from the subject, seeing that the Question under discussion is that of training colleges and the training of teachers. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Rowland Barran) said the question in connection with the Church of England was one of wealth. But it must not be forgotten that, years ago, it was only the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Jewish people who cared at all for education. The English Nonconformists never made any sacrifice that was worth naming—[CRIES of "Oh, oh!"]—excepting a very small organisation called the British and Foreign School Society. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which you attempted to destroy."] At that time, when the Nonconformists ignored the value of education and the necessity for training colleges, the Church of England, the Roman Catholics, and the Jews were doing this work, and now, after they have made provision for the training of the teachers, the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends come and suggest a compromise, under which they propose to steal half of the places in the training colleges. The Nonconformists never really valued education until the passing of the Act of 1870, when they suddenly discovered that it was likely to be of value. Why do not Nonconformists build their own training colleges? No; they do not do that, but

  1731
  they wait until they have a Radical Government in power, and then they come in and seize half of the property of the Church, and they call that a compromise. I shall never have greater satisfaction in giving any vote than I shall have in voting for the reduction of this Vote, and I trust that the time will not be long before we shall revert to the position occupied before 1907, and when this iniquitous proposal of the present First Lord of the Admiralty, then President of the Board of Education, will be cancelled, and the authorities of the Church of England, the Roman Catholics, the Wesleyans, and the Jewish denominations shall alike have the liberty which they previously enjoyed. Nothing more than religious equality and equality of treatment is asked for, and nothing less will satisfy us.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think out of courtesy I ought to say one word in reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite. He asked me why I was not prepared this
  year to press what had been Chapter X. in the Regulation last year. I still hold my own private opinion that the change which I proposed last year would be for the advantage of the undenominational colleges, but I recognise that if it were pressed on the colleges now it would only raise an amount of religious friction which would do more harm than good, and it is in the interests of the suppression of that friction that I am not prepared to press it unduly, and put it in the form of a new regulation. I quite understand the Noble Lord below the Gangway would welcome a religious row, and there may be occasions when I may share the pleasure with him, but I do not wish it to happen while I am President of the Board of Education.
  Question put, "That item Class 4 A (Board of Education) be reduced by the sum of £100."
  The Comittee divided: Ayes. 101; Noes, 145.

  Division No. 8.]

  AYES.

  [8.50 p.m.

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

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Nield, Herbert

  Adam, Major William A.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Forster, Henry William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Balcarres, Lord

  Grant, James Augustus

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barnston, Harry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

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

  Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

  Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

  Rutherford, William Watson

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hills, John Walter (Durham)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bird, Alfred

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Boyton, James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Horne, William E. (Surrey, Gulidford)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

  Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge University)

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cator, John

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Cave, George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

  Llewelyn, Major Venables

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Winterton, Earl

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Macmaster, Donald

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Croft, Henry Page

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hoare and Mr. Carlile.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  NOES.

  Agnew, George William

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Alden, Percy

  Barnes, George N.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Barton, William

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Barclay, Sir Thomas

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Shackleton, David James

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Simon, John Alisebrook

  Clough, William

  King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Lambert, George

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lehmann, Rudolf, c.

  Sutton, John E.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cowan, William Henry

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Crossley, William J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc, Spalding)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Twist, Henry

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Middlebrook, William

  Verney, Frederick William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mond, Alfred Moritz

  Vivian, Henry

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Glanville, Harold James

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wardle, George J.

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Neilson, Francis

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Guest, Capt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Nuttall, Harry

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Hancock, John George

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Hardie, J. Keir (Werthyr Tydvil)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wiles, Thomas

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

  Haywarrd, Evan

  Rees, John David

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Henry, Charles Solomon

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hodge, John

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Hooper, Arthur George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Fuller and Mr. Gulland.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Seddon, James A.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  STATE OF THE CONGO.
  Sir GEORGE WHITE: I make no apology for once more introducing into this Chamber the subject of the Congo. There are some reasons why I think the present is a most opportune occasion on which to discuss once more this very important question. We have a new Parliament and Belgium has a new King. We have been now several months without any message, as far as I know, which has placed us in any different position from that in which we were left when the House dissolved. We have had also the Belgian Congo Budget. It is eighteen months since the annexation took place, and I think the last speech made by the Foreign Secretary in this House was on 22nd July, and in that speech he made these remarks:
  "Undoubtedly as time passes and we come to the end of the year and are still in the same position as now, the Government will have to consider what steps it is going to take to uphold its undoubted treaty rights."
  We have come to the end of the year, and the country, and this House, I think I may say, is very anxious to know what is the exact position of this great question at the present moment. The only thing of importance which has transpired in the interval
  1734
  is the reference made by the Prime Minister in his speech at the Mansion House, in which he spoke of our relations to this question as a very solemn responsibility. This question has been debated many times in this House, and it is unnecessary that I should go over a great deal of the ground which was covered in the last Parliament. The ground which was at one time debatable is so no longer, and I am quite sure I may even anticipate that the new Members who have not had the advantage of listening to the past Debates are sufficiently well acquainted with the main facts of the subject to enable them to follow the discussion. Moreover, I am anxious not to occupy too much time because I hope we may have the advantage of some speeches by new Members, who will approach the question perhaps from a different standpoint from that which we have many times occupied. I am about to take many things for granted. The atrocities, terrible as they have been, which were once disputed, are disputed no longer. Districts as large as England have been practically depopulated. The plunder, not the administration, of the country has been carried out in the most barbarous way ever known to mankind. I do not make these

  1735
  statements on my own responsibility. I will quote extracts from statements of three names which I am sure will be received with the greatest possible respect. First of all, Lord Lansdowne said:—
  "The bondage under this system is the most barbarous and inhuman, carried on under conditions and for mercenary motives of the most selfish kind."
  The late Earl Percy, who occupied a very prominent position in the House, and who always took a very deep and intelligent interest in this question, said:—
  "The accumulation of rubber was done at an infinite cost of human life and suffering"
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also said:—
  "It is intolerable to read about in relation to contemporary history."
  I could multiply these statements by eminent men in the Church and belonging to different parties throughout the country, but I am quite sure these three testimonies will be amply sufficient to justify the statement which I have made on my own responsibility. The fact is that millions of wealth have been collected from this poor country at the cost of millions of lives, a system which has been described, again by my right hon. Friend (Sir Edward Grey), as practically a form of slavery in every particular. This has existed for many years against treaties in which we have undertaken, according to the word of the Prime Minister himself, the most solemn responsibilities. Many years ago, no doubt, with the very best desires of many well-disposed people—and here I acquit the Government of any responsibility—we handed it over to men who afterwards became practically plunderers and murderers, who robbed the land, who claimed all the natural products of the land, and endeavoured by forced labour, which I have already spoken of as slavery, to gain a revenue from the poor, down-trodden population. True, we are parties to the treaties which regulated the Government, or professed to regulate the Government of the Congo Free State, and by those treaties we bound ourselves to care for the bodies of these people, and to allow Free Trade in those dominions. We practically took away any power which the natives had to defend themselves against oppression and tyranny, and what have we done to protect them, having taken the responsibility on our hands? This country gradually rose to understand what the position was, and, as a consequence,
  1736
  an indignant cry arose from all parties and all sects in this country—a cry which has not been equalled for a great many years upon any public question.
  We have had numerous Debates in this House, and it would be really interesting, if it were not so pathetic, to see how, year by year, we have been beaten back in our dealings with Belgium. I feel that it is time to speak very plainly on this question. I trust I shall not say a single word that is in any sense disrespectful to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, or anything to throw any doubt upon his sincerity and earnestness in dealing with this movement, but at the same time, those who feel most deeply upon it cannot disguise from this House or the country that we feel that in the manangement of the Foreign Office there has been a lack of firmness and foresight. The position in which we are placed at this moment is one which cannot be held to be creditable to this country. In fact, I would say that a more humilating series of facts have never been presented to this House than the whole tale of our negotiations with regard to the Congo. No doubt the originators of the Congo Free State were grossly deceived in the character and objects of the late King—I almost owe an apology for mentioning the late King in this Assembly—but these were known, and had been known for many years, to the Foreign Office. By degrees the Foreign Office became fully aware of the atrocities which were being committed under his régime. The first difficulty was in dealing with the Congo, the Free State itself not being a responsible Government with which another Government could deal, and not being a Government for which the Belgian nation was responsible. Gradually, as that difficulty became apparent to the Foreign Office—and here I do not blame the Foreign Office at all—we began to cultivate, or, at any rate, not to oppose efforts towards the annexation of the Congo Free State by the Belgian nation.
  What those of us who have taken a leading part in this matter did press upon the Foreign Office, however, was not to allow this annexation to take place without guarantees. The Foreign Office said it would not, but it did. Although it has not acknowledged the annexation, the annexation has taken place. The anxiety of my right hon. Friend to deal with the responsible Government was an anxiety which we could well understand and to a large extent share. What did he say?
  "I go further and say that we agree it must be a condition precedent to any transfer of the Congo to

  1737
  another authority that that authority should take it over on terms which will place it in a position to give assurances and to guarantee that these assurances shall he carried out and the treaty obligations of the Congo fulfilled."
  We do not dispute the wisdom of this step for guarantees, for if guarantees were not obtained it would be most difficult and dangerous afterwards to deal with the question. Difficulties would arise with the Belgian people which, we believe, might have been avoided if terms had been insisted upon in the first instance. I am sure that the Foreign Office will agree that a policy of genuine reform must be accompanied with a willingness on the part of the Belgian nation, for a time at least, to give up some of their resources instead of simply annexing this country in order to take from it such poor resources as it has left. They must be willing to tax themselves, instead of grinding the natives. Again, my right hon. Friend declared himself in favour of the Belgian solution, which is accepted by everyone, subject to the reservation that a Belgian annexation of the Congo State shall involve the abolition of the system enforced upon the Congo by the Congo Government. We say that annexation having taken place the present Belgian Government are placed in the difficult position of either having to continue the system under which they got revenue from the Congo or confess to the Belgian people that they have misled them in telling them that annexation would not cost a penny of taxation. Those conditions which my right hon. Friend laid down were quite legitimate and proper, and we ask, Why have they not been insisted upon? The reply of the Foreign Office to that is practically the same—that they could not have forbidden the annexation. But they could have prevented—and this is my point—this annexation taking place under conditions which were not fully known to the Belgian people, and if they had made a demand that these conditions should be accepted before annexation the Belgian people would have known at what cost they were going to annex, and they would have refused annexation, and the present difficulties of the Belgian Government would not have existed in the form in which they exist at this moment.
  I think I am within the bounds of truth when I say that every Belgian reformer was in favour of this plan. It was not done, however. The annexation took place, and the assurance of the Foreign Secretary that we would not recognise the
  1738
  annexation until these conditions were fulfilled has no doubt been carried out. What was to be done when annexation took place? It was stated that there should be immediate changes. As soon as annexation was voted another statement was made. The conditions, we say, have been entirely falsified. Lord Mayo, in a speech in another place, said:—
  "We ask His Majesty's Government to declare to Belgium that annexation on the present terms is totally unacceptable."
  After the annexation, what is the history of the matter? Annexation having taken place, the Foreign Secretary very naturally and properly agreed to certain delays. The Belgian Government, it was said, must have time under the new conditions to consider what reforms they could make. But is there not a policy underlying this statement? Why must they have time? They knew the system which had been going on perfectly well, and it is absolutely incompatible with the conditions which the treaties bind them to carry out. Though matters of detail would necessarily require time, the Belgian Government knew well enough what the foundation was, and when they promised that changes should take place without any delay, they knew the conditions under which they held the Congo, and they either promised what they never intended to fulfil, or—and this I hold to be the fact—they were able to fulfil the promises if they had any disposition to do so. I ask the House to remember how many years this system has been going on We have had a good deal of mercy for Belgium, but very little mercy for the poor down-trodden natives who have suffered while the negotiations have been going on or standing still. My right hon. Friend trusted the Government as a democratic Government. I hold he has been hugely deceived, so far as is shown by any information we have before us at this moment in so trusting them; and I go further, and say that he ought to have expected to be deceived. What are the antecedents of men like Secretary Renkin with whom he has had to do? He has had to do with the men who shared the plunder during these years, the men who negotiated the annexation, and the men who have all along disputed attempts to interfere in matters affecting the Congo. And yet that right is undoubted. Again, to quote authorities far greater than my own Lord Lansdowne said: "We cannot admit there is the least doubt as to our right."

  1739
  Lord Ripon said great responsibility rested upon us, and we had rights which we could not ignore.
  Then we come to, I think, the 28th November, when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took a position which gave us in this House some encouragement, and we felt that at last he had done something which might produce an immediate result. He sent a despatch demanding amelioration. In this despatch he pointed out that the minimum which would satisfy the Government in regard to our treaty rights was to put the natives in what we believed to be their proper position with regard to their common lands and the natural fruits of the forest, and free trade for British people and all who desired to have commerce with this race; and, in fact, he demanded a complete reversal of the system under which the Congo was then being governed. He had abundant evidence of the support of the nation in regard to that demand in the number of peers and some 20 bishops and nearly 100 M.P.'s who presented a document to him assuring him of the support of the country in regard to this matter, while the Chambers of Commerce also gave him the same assurance. I ask the House to mark what followed. Nothing practically here, but something like a defiant note on the other side. This despatch which was sent in November, 1908, was not answered until March, 1909, four months afterwards, although it called attention to gross violations of treaties which we were responsible to see carried out. Surely, though we know that diplomacy moves slowly, four months to answer a despatch of such importance, after the length of time we had waited, was far too long. But it took the Foreign Office three months to answer that despatch. The reason given in a previous debate was that the despatch itself had to be laid on the Table of this House with the reply which the Foreign Office sent to it. We hoped after that long interval that this reply would at least contain that which would satisfy us after waiting so long. But we found that in our judgment at least—I know that my right hon. Friend denies that there was any retreat from the position that he took up—there was nothing in this reply which gave us the same confidence as the despatch which was sent originally. This was preceded by a speech in the House by my right hon. Friend on 27th May, in which,
  1740
  replying to speeches which had been delivered, he took a somewhat alarmist note. The first remark I would make upon it is that the late King was not at all slow to notice the change, as we and he regarded it, that had taken place in the tone of my right hon. Friend. On 22nd July we had a further Debate. On that occasion the Foreign Secretary, for reasons which he gave, felt that the Belgian Government ought to have more time, and he gave them, in the extract which I read from his speech at the beginning of my remarks, until the end of the year. The end of the year has come and gone, and I hope we may have something laid before us tonight which will show us that that period of time having elapsed, the Foreign Secretary has taken some steps which will justify our confidence in him. We shall hear what has been done.
  Of course, the asking for time was said to be in order to wait for the return of the Colonial Secretary, who had gone to East Africa; but, as I said before, in our judgment there was really no reason to wait for the return of this Gentleman. He was an ex-administrator of a concessionaire company—companies of which I believe I am right in saying we have now acknowledged the legality, although they have been contrary to the very terms of the treaty itself. We regarded this simply as marking time. We felt sure when he came back he would talk of reform. Now he has come back, and what does he do? We are told that the Belgian Senate yesterday resumed the discussion of the Estimates for the Administration of the Congo, and that the Minister of the Colonies declared that they would not tolerate any foreign intervention. That is one thing which he has done. Another thing he has done is to introduce a Budget which, I venture to say, is itself the strongest proof which it is possible to have presented to the world that there is no desire to have any real system of reform. This Budget desires to take over £800,000 from the Congo during the ensuing year, and there is no doubt that two-thirds at least of that will be the result of this forced labour, or will be, according to my right hon. Friend's own description, the result of slave labour. Yesterday I was at a great meeting in the town of Hull. I passed by the monument to Wilberforce, and I could not but call back to memory the great agitation which was conducted by him, ultimately with such success, by which Great Britain bound itself for ever to oppose slavery, wherever that slavery

  1741
  might exist; yet here we have a gigantic system of slavery extending over some 800,000 square miles; and I say therefore that it is no wonder that that great meeting in Hull yesterday, consisting of at least 3,000 people, passed not only unanimously, but I will say with a great measure of indignation, the resolution which was passed, and which I was instructed to represent to this House to-night. Now I have drawn briefly and consistently with the facts a sketch primarily of our work, or the failure of our work, during the past few years. I ask you to remember once more the years of peculiar horror, those atrocities to which I have been referring—a chapter scarcely, I believe, equalled in the world's history; and in making this statement I can quote such authorities as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sir Conan Doyle, and many others, and the Foreign Secretary has said in regard to the feeling which has been excited in this country upon this question:—
  "I think it is not too much to say that no external question for at least 30 years has moved the country so strongly and vehemently."
  I feel that the great consequences of this line of conduct apart altogether from its humanitarian aspect—and that I dwell upon very strongly—have dangers greater in the present position than we should have realised if we had been firm in our determination to see the treaty rights carried out from the first. What is the position to-day, as we once more debate this question in the House? What has been promised? We shall be told no doubt that the Colonial Minister has promised that from 1st July natives in one half of the Congo will be free to sell their products and their labour. May I quote a sentence or two from an article in the "Nineteenth Century" by one of the greatest friends of downtrodden nationalities.
  "It is well to note that the portion of the Congo where the economic liberties of the native, solemnly guaranteed twenty-five years ago by the signatory Powers of the Berlin Act, are at length to be restored, includes, for its major part, the basis of the Kasai. The races of the Kasai now furnish one-half of the rubber which is exported from the Congo. They furnish it through the medium of a Rubber Trust named the Kasai Company, in which the Belgian Government holds half the shares. There is no hint of the suppression of that Trust, and without its suppression, energetically called for by Count Thesiger in his report, the publication of which involves the British Government in an endorsement of their Consul's demand, the concession is meaningless, for no independent merchant could compete against so powerful a rival which has established an organised terrorism in the country."
  Now that article in the "Nineteenth Century" bears the signature of Mr. Morell. Therefore, if we are told, after waiting all
  1742
  this time, this is the sum and substance of the concession that has been made, I think that unless some different aspect can be put upon it we shall find that it is practically of no value. As long as the Belgian Government is prepared to make no redress for past wrongs the system under which they gather their revenues must remain. I believe it is the practice of European countries generally to subsidise in the first few years of their occupation these growing nationalities. If I am asked whether the atrocities connected with this terrible traffic have not ceased, I say they have to a very large extent, but not wholly, so far as the actual cruelties by mutilation and shooting are concerned. But the greatest of all the atrocities remains as long as this system of forced labour remains, and my contention is that it grows, rather than decreases, because the natives must have increased difficulty year by year to bring the tale of rubber which is expected at their hands. This system violates the essential principles of civilisation as well as it violates the treaties which we are bound to see carried through. Why then have we permitted this? If I am asked how I know it continues, well, the returns of rubber which come from time to time, show there is no reduction in the quantity which the natives of Kasai are compelled to gather. It would perhaps be one of the greatest benefits for this downtrodden people if some trading company could be formed to try conclusions with the Belgians upon their right to exclude them under treaty. I know I shall be met by my right hon. Friend with the question, as we have been met before, "Do you want a war?" I am a man of peace, but I do want justice. We have the right to demand justice, when we have taken the responsibility which we have taken under these treaties. I want that this nation should stand before the world as one which, when it undertakes obligations, is prepared to discharge them to downtrodden people, just the same as it would to the most highly-civilised people on the face of the earth. Why, there are no greater risks now than when my right hon. Friend used the following words:—
  "…In dealing with another subject yesterday I had occasion to speak of the impossibility of taking isolated action which would be effective. I do not place any such limitations upon us in regard to the matter of the Congo…. Separate action we are prepared to take on behalf of British treaty rights and British interests."
  I ask my right hon. Friend how he was prepared to take isolated action? He had, no doubt, before his mind some methods

  1743
  by which, under certain circumstances, he would be prepared to take this isolated action, and therefore I ask him not to revert back to the questions of those of us who have debated the matter, but to take the responsibility which he was prepared to take then. Speaking, as I believe I do, for millions of the people of this country, I do protest against any fresh delay in dealing with this question. There is a difficulty perhaps which diplomatists labour under. There is some fear that other nations, who themselves are parties to this treaty, would oppose our seeing that our treaty rights are observed. I cannot believe it. I believe that in a matter of this sort, where there is no doubt of what our rights are, that they would rather co-operate, and of this I feel confident, that Germany is in no sense opposed, and would be in no sense opposed, to any legitimate action we might take to enforce our rights. I am not so confident about France. Indeed, I am not sure, if we knew all the facts of this matter, whether we might not find that France has been the stumbling-block. But I will say no more about that. I believe this, that with greater courage this question might have been settled long ago if we had demanded a change in the system, an absolute reversal of the system. If we had made that demand then we could have seen that it was immediately, or with reasonable alacrity, complied with. The Foreign Secretary told us, and probably may tell us again, that it would be of very serious consequence if the annexation is not recognised, is not acknowledged, but, at any rate, he gave them until the end of December to do so, and we hope there are some Papers to lay on the Table to show that something has been done. So far we have seen nothing; we have seen no Consular report since January, 1909. I do not know the reason, but, at any rate, I know none has been published. With the Bishop of Southwark, I venture to say what is really at issue is the reputation both of England and Europe. There was a time at least when this House had some sentiment upon these great questions, and here is a subject which I venture to say ought to move us to our very depths, long as it has been before this House and before the country. The responsibility is on our shoulders, we shall undoubtedly suffer, if he have not already suffered, in our reputation before the nations of Europe, and we shall certainly lose our name as lovers of freedom, and as those who are determined to see
  1744
  their responsibilities discharged. I ask, therefore, that my right hon. Friend, and I trust he will be able to give us some assurance that the prestige of this nation is not lowered by the detailed circumstances which I have put before the House, that he has been able, ultimately and however late, to get some substantial promise, and a promise which he will be able to see carried out, that we will put an end to one of the darkest chapters which the civilisation of this world has ever seen.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: In rising tonight to make a few observations upon this Motion, I would like to express the satisfaction which those on this side of the House take at the very friendly remarks made concerning a distinguished Member of this party, Lord Percy, who took such a deep interest in this question, and who was so outspoken in regard to the responsibilities which this country possesses regarding the administration of the Congo. It is one of the great characteristics of this Parliament, one of its highest traditions, that the Foreign Minister shall be supported by both sides of the House, and that foreign policy shall be lifted above party feeling and party contest. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Foreign Affairs will agree that on this question he has had the unanimous support of this House. Seldom has a voice been raised in these Debates, now occurring for many years, which attempted to defend the administration of the Congo, and which did not give support to the Government's Foreign Ministers in their representations and in their efforts to accomplish what was desired by this Parliament. Resolution after Resolution, statement after statement, promise after promise, have been made in this House. We have had, in the remarkable, lucid, and comprehensive speech from the hon. Member who has just sat down a statement which must cause every humanitarian, every good parliamentarian, every man who loves nationality of any kind, distress and unalleviated anxiety. I say to the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Minister that if he can carry us no further than he found us at the end of last year, in November last, and if these are the fruits of diplomacy, then I prefer less promises and greater fruition. I believe in saying so, I represent, as the hon. Gentleman who last spoke did, the unanimous opinion of this House and the general feeling in the country. If it were the case we had no rights, even then our humanitarianism, as

  1745
  it may be called, could not be open to question. The atrocities have been so great, the wrongs to civilisation have been so intense, the degradation of civilised administration has been so apparent, that we would be justified in any protest we made in this House or in this Parliament against the administration in the Congo.
  What is the situation? Is it any better? I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will point out, as the hon. Member (Sir G. White) indicated, that certain reforms have been made. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to briefly state the position, as there are many new Members in this House who have not shared in these Debates. There are fundamental errors, fundamental vices, in the administration of the Congo. They have always existed from the beginning in spite of the clear and definite provisions of the Berlin Act. In the first place, the Belgian Government, and apparently the Belgian people, hold that the Congo is simply an extension of Belgium and Belgian territory. Then it is not an African Protectorate. The distinction ought very carefully to be made, because when we take over a native country, with its native laws land tenure, and customs, we take it over as a Protectorate, the idea being to protect the natives in their rights, to give them civilisation, to give them the advantage of trade, and so lift them in the sphere of humanity. There is not, I believe, a single instance in British history of any other course having been pursued. I will take the three great chartered companies—the Hudsons Bay Company, the Nigerian Company, and the Rhodesian Chartered Company. What is the difference of these companies in their administration and the administration of the Congo in the old days and the Congo of to-day? If you take the Hudsons Bay Company you find it said to the natives of British North America: "You own this land, you own the products of this soil, you possess it; if we are to get possession of any of it it must be by fair treaty and by fair deal with you." They might have said to the natives of British North America: "You are going to be taxed in order that this country shall be administered, and you shall go out and bring in skins and pay taxes in that way." Did they do it? No. The Hudsons Bay Company said to the natives of British North America: "You go out and collect skins, and we will give you in return goods that your new standard of
  1746
  comfort and of living will demand." That is what they did, and you cannot point to a single abuse in all the history of that country of native rights, of native tenure, and of native law and custom. The same holds good in Nigeria. Every page in the history of our development of Nigeria is infinitely to the credit of the British people. The same with Rhodesia. The pages are all open for the people of this country and of all countries to read. What is the difference? We hold that the native has rights in the land, has rights in the product of the soil, and we make it possible for him to become a trader.
  How are the natives of the Congo treated as to land tenure? It is called Belgian territory, and the products of the soil, as well as the land itself, belong to the people of Belgium. They come to the native and say: "We require so much for administration under this Reform Budget presented to the Belgian Parliament, a sum of £839,000, you go out and get it," having taxed them besides that for about £300,000, for levies for food, for the officers of the Belgian and native forces there. We have been promised, and this is one of the reforms, that these levies shall now be paid for—paid for in what? Paid for in coin? The native has no chance to develop trade, because Free Trade in the Congo is not admitted. Little by little it is to be admitted, but the day is distant, and it is only in part of the territory instead of the whole; and meanwhile the concessionaire companies and the great trusts remain, pursuing their system of forced labour. If anyone examines these reforms it must be seen that they are absolutely illusory—at any rate they do not satisfy us, and they ought not to satisfy the Foreign Minister. I was one of those who, for a number of years before Belgian annexation occurred, said that this Government would make a dangerous mistake, a mistake fraught with great evils to its own prestige and to our national honour, if it did not secure from the Belgian Government guarantees that necessary acknowledged reforms should take place, and that the rights of the natives should be established beyond all doubt and question. I speak sympathetically, knowing the difficulties and obstructions that have been in his path, but I believe that if the Foreign Minister has made any mistakes in his administration this is the greatest that has occurred. However little he may be to blame, however great may have been the forces arrayed against him diplomatically, I say it is a pity that

  1747
  England, with the position that she has held in the comity of nations, should not have been able, when she had indefeasible rights behind her, and a position won by centuries of just treatment and fair negotiations with other nations, to accomplish her ends. The whole of England has been aroused, as probably it has never been aroused since the days of Wilberforce. Behind the right hon. Gentleman have stood both parties and the whole nation. He himself has used most splendid language, saying that unless guarantees were given annexation would not be recognised. Annexation has not been recognised, but no guarantees of any kind have been given. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with that position?
  We cannot now enforce our rights or compel Belgium to accomplish that which she gave assurances would be accomplished, without action which must necessarily be much more rigid and stringent than any action which would have been taken before annexation was accomplished in the Belgian Parliament. I do not know whether it is now possible, without action which might be considered almost belligerent, to secure from Belgium the guarantees so long delayed. But that is no reason why we, having been deceived by the course of events, having been deceived by assurances, having had our hopes roused by statements by the Foreign Minister, should not say that even now strong and decisive action should be taken.
  Mr. J. D. REES: Belligerent action?
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I do not suggest that England would go to war with Belgium. The hon. Gentleman is very ready to twist my sentence. I say that action which would be considered on our part perfectly fair diplomatic and national action might be considered belligerent action on the part of Belgium. That is possible; but that action might not be in-itself either belligerent or intentionally warlike, as the hon. Gentleman, with his great experience of government, knows as well as I do. The Foreign Minister in the last Debate on this question led us to hope that, as there was a change as he indicated in Belgian feeling, as fresh knowledge came to the Belgian people through the Belgian Parliament, as the Colonial Minister got his first-hand knowledge, we should find a real change in the administration of the Congo, and that we should receive assurances which would be equivalent
  1748
  to guarantees. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has received such assurances. But if the Congo represents reform I do not think that either this House or the right hon. Gentleman himself can be in the least satisfied. It still compels by forced labour £839,000 out of something over a million pounds of revenue, and the remainder of that revenue is got not through the regular courses of trade, but by taxes on Government importations themselves. There is practically no trade in the Congo, particularly in the rubber portions. It is all taxation—the gathering of the fruits of the earth by the hands of the people, who are forced to gather those fruits under the plea that they are receiving the benefits of civilisation. Not a single traveller from the territories where rubber is gathered has ever suggested that there are any signs of civilisation among the people who have by forced labour been compelled to provide the revenue for the administration of the Congo.
  I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will give us all the information he can, but I would make this appeal to him, believing that in doing so I do not misrepresent Members on this side of the House. We have come to a time when really strong action is necessary. When behind strong diplomatic action there lies the convinced feelings of a people and of civilisation generally, diplomacy need not proceed to the activities of belligerancy. Every person knows well that one nation which does wrong cannot do that wrong continuously against the consensus of opinion of mankind. I believe that the consensus of opinion of civilised mankind is against the present administration of the Congo as it was against that administration in the days when King Leopold was alive, because there are as yet no signs of any real reform. With that in my mind I trust sincerely that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us who have lost hope some hope, and to give us who are on the verge of despair some light in this darkness; if It is in the power of England to set this matter right. She has the United States beside her, and will have Germany, at least in sympathy. I think that we are entitled to expect that after all these years of negotiation and diplomacy some better result should proceed from the power and influence of England, sustained as it is by its unchallengable and unchallenged rights—except on the part of Belgium itself.
  Mr. SILVESTER HORNE: I must ask the indulgence which I believe the House always extends to a new Member addressing it for the first time, and I am glad to have the opportunity of rising on a question where the ordinary lines of party feeling do not run. We have been told with great truth by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend that this is a question on which the united support of the public has been behind, I believe, the Foreign Secretary. I am told by those who know that something like fifteen or sixteen Debates on this subject have taken place across the floor of the House of Commons. This is in itself evidence enough of how protracted the struggle has been to secure anything like right, justice, and freedom for the Congo natives. That has not been because the nation has been divided. This question has never been a party question. It has never been the monopoly of a denomination. I believe I am right in saying that all the churches of this country without distinction have been behind the Foreign Office in the endeavour to get respect paid to the treaties under which we stand. It is certainly true that in all the great towns' meetings that we have had, that as a rule the mayor has been in the chair. These towns' meetings were not party meetings, and were not so in order that we might illustrate the fact that the whole public opinion and conviction of the English people demands that their treaty rights should be respected. Indeed, I can imagine a cynic might very well say, Well, we can win party victories, but it would seem when the cause is so obviously just that it commands the united support of all sections of the public that then the cause is most desperate." It is unnecessary that we should reargue the justice of this case, or I think the obligations under which this nation lies to insist on its treaty rights being observed. The curious thing is that it is only of late that we have heard from Belgium itself some very distinct challenges as to our rights of intervention at all. I believe the House will agree with me that no greater menace to British credit, reputation, interest and honour has of late been known than this deliberate challenge to our right of intervention which has been accepted by our Foreign Secretary, and spoken of in public for so many years. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk told us, it was only in November last that the Prime Minister reminded his audience in the Guildhall that
  1750
  "the Congo represents a Territory and population towards which we have undertaken a most solemn responsibility." Nobody in this House has insisted on how solemn these responsibilities are more than the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. Our honour was engaged at the very initiation of the Congo Free State for the guarantee of the freedom and the humane treatment of the natives of that territory. It is not a very welcome thought to some of us that through all the years of outrage, when every Consular report was a perfect surfeit of horrors, that our pledges for the freedom of the natives should have so worked out.
  10.0 P.M.
  As little doubt remains of the facts of the case as of the nature of our treaty obligations. In point of fact, I believe I am right in saying that officially, at any rate, we have never pleaded doubt as to the facts. No attempt has been made on the part of our Foreign Office to reduce the gravity of the charges against the Congo administration. We put in no plea of ignorance. We were not deceived by King Leopold's methods or the complexion the negotiations between the Foreign Office of this country and Belgium's Foreign Office have assumed throughout the whole case, which some of us are presenting again to this House tonight. As to what that case is, let me again put it as briefly and shortly as I can, and then ask the House in a few words whether the present policy since the annexation shows any reasonable grounds of belief that the situation has changed for the better.
  Our case is that under the famous or infamous decrees of 1891–2 a gigantic system of slavery was established over an area of 900,000 square miles of Central Africa, and all the while British credit was pledged to the hilt to guarantee the freedom of the natives. By these decrees what was called the Congo Free State perpetuated a trade of colossal theft. Without any pretence of bargaining, and by a mere stroke of a pen, they have destroyed all the rights of the natives in the soil, have extinguished all the tribal and communal properties, have appropriated to a European country and to European companies all the products and mineral wealth of the land. They have reduced the natives to beggary and dependence. All this was preparatory, as we know, to forcing them to harvest the products of their own alienated soil, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the Europeans who have founded the Congo Free State in order,

  1751
  as they said, to furnish the world with an example of Christian civilisation. That is our case. We base the whole of our arguments on what happened under the decrees of 1891–2. I do not for a moment dwell upon the fact that the fiercest and most savage tribesmen were enrolled in order that this system of tyranny might be worked. I only refer to it for the moment because I propose to put a question in regard to this native army later on. But the result was a tragedy of which the grim horror has never really been realised, and which I venture to say can never truly be told. That tragedy was the result of a system. It is impossible to have that system without a tragedy of that kind. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs described it in the most candid way. He said it was "slavery pure and simple," and "indistinguishable from slavery." Yet the hard and unwelcome fact remains that it has existed and borne its bitter fruit over all these years in the vast territory where we had pledged British credit and honour to the hilt to secure just and humane treatment to the natives. Let me ask the House, how has the situation changed? I think we may say that the situation has changed, but that the system so far has not changed. It is quite true that since the death of King Leopold much has happened, and that at the present time the Belgium Government have got embarrassments on their hands which are due to the legacy bequeathed to them by that very subtle and unsavoury person. There is a new king on whom great hopes are centred. The Belgian Government has annexed the Congo, and for the last eighteen months must have the responsibility for all that has occurred. The Colonial Minister has paid a visit to the Congo; there have been flags and parades and banquets and all the rest of it, and there has been a good deal of talk about reforms—reforms which I think it is only fair to say there is good reason to believe the Belgian people themselves desire, and which a very strong and growing party in their House of Representatives has been fighting for magnificently for many years. There is no disposition, so far as I know, either in this House or out of it, to be impatient with the Belgian people. There is no disposition, so far as I know, to minimise the difficulty of the situation; but this we say, that eighteen months ought to be time enough to give proof of good faith in this matter, and to give effect to the proposals
  1752
  they have made. I venture to think that to their policy we could apply three tests as to its sincerity. The first would be as to their relation to the decrees of 1891 and 1892; the second would be as to their attitude to the native army which was organised that it might be the instrument for King Leopold's tyranny; and the third is what has been referred to as to their willingness to come into line and approve the policy of every other great nation in regard to the financing of this tropical dependency. If we apply these tests to the present proposals of reform, what do we find? We find that Belgium does not go back upon the fundamental injustice of those decrees declaring the land to be vacant and appropriated for every Belgian purpose, though I venture to call it a monstrous alienation of the native rights. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Gravesend told us, we are assured now that the natives are to have permission to benefit by the fruits of the soil. They are to have, at any rate, the right to sell their own labour, and to a certain extent the right to trade, in the provinces, but we want to point out that there is no security of tenure, that if their lands are alienated there is no security that they cannot be evicted at any time. There is no security under the present arrangement that would not allow a repetition and perpetuation of the existing miseries of the present time. We take also the strongest possible exception to the postponement of the day of redress. Over half the Congo it is to be postponed until next July twelve month. Over a large portion it is to be postponed until two years from next July, and let us remember that for eighteen months this system has been perpetuated under the Belgian Government, and we venture to think that the time ought to come at once when this servitude shall be ended.
  Then I would also like to refer to the question of the native right to trade, and I would point out that the natives' right to trade depends upon the bonâ fide right of the white man to trade with the natives. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that even with a contemplated reduction of the various dues and customs, Belgium is still not making it practically impossible for white people to trade in the Congo. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is a reasonable possibility of anything like profitable trade and the opening up in the country of the free commerce

  1753
  that was guaranteed. I should also like to put a second question in regard to the native array. It was organised, as I say, to be the instrument of the tyranny of King Leopold. It was consequently organised on a scale which is absolutely ridiculous, if you compare it with the native army employed by any other nation for the purpose of keeping order among the natives they control. Has there been given any sort of guarantee that that native army will be reduced. Then in regard to the financing of the Congo I think it has been pointed out already that they are proposing to take out of the Congo by that Budget something like £800,000, and one could give a humorous catalogue of the various methods by which this money is to be spent in the Belgian capital. The fact is that by the sweat of forced labour in the Congo they are prepared to make up some of the luxuries of the Belgian people. I only add one more word. There is undoubtedly throughout the country a growing sense of disappointment at the ineffectiveness of our representations. Every year, as it appears to us, the Belgian Government takes a bolder and a bolder tone. This challenge to our rights to intervene, to our right, even, to be heard upon this question, is a new tone coming from the Government in this matter. We could give quotations from the leading statesmen of our country who have insisted again that we have never sacrificed and never surrendered our right to intervene in this matter. I venture to think it is a very serious matter for the British credit and for the British reputation in Europe, and we cannot surrender our right of intervention now. The Foreign Secretary may tell us that simple and reiterated language in dispatch after dispatch as to the reforms that are required in the Congo is a very futile and perhaps a pusillanimous policy. Upon that I pronounce no opinion, but I say that the nation outside this House is waiting with a great deal of eagerness and earnestness to know what the Foreign Secretary is going to say and what the Foreign Secretary is going to do. I do not suppose that I am a very great authority upon the value of the mailed fist in politics. Whenever I discuss the question of the Army and the Navy with my friends they always tell me the great advantage a large Army and Navy give is that they increase our weight in the councils of Europe. We are shortly to be asked in this House to vote a very great increase in the British Navy. I should like to know personally how many extra "Dreadnoughts" we shall have to
  1754
  build in order to secure the recognition of our treaty rights and to see that our word is respected in the councils of Europe. Personally I do not believe it is additional material weight we need; I believe it is additional moral weight we need. I believe that the great loss is the loss of the old English spirit—something of that fidelity and loyalty to the cause of the poor and the weak and the oppressed which once made the British nation not only respected, but feared throughout the world. And we want to say, if we may, to the Members of his Majesty's Government and to the Foreign Secretary that we regard this matter as a matter which is going to test the reality of the English character and English spirit, and we beseech them to understand our sense of how deeply British credit and British honour are involved in this matter of the Congo.
  Mr. J. C. LYTTELTON: In my maiden speech I desire to make a few remarks on this subject, for the simple reason that, although I have not actually been in the Congo, I have been close to it, and I happen to know something of the feeling of the natives and the white man as to what goes on in that country. Let me say at the outset how heartily I agree with all that has fallen from the previous speakers on this subject. In order not to waste time, I will take it for granted that the atrocities described in this country and placed before this House are true, and that our responsibility is a real responsibility. What remains to be done? To go to the Belgian Government and ask them to give guarantees that these atrocities shall not be continued, to ask them to see that the rights of the natives shall be recognised? We want something more than that. You may go to the present Government and get those guarantees, you may get the promise that the rights of the natives shall be recognised, and when you have got all that you will not get any very great benefit, so far as the natives are concerned.
  Let me make one definite suggestion that we should place before the Belgian Government, and ask if they can see their way to grant it. In our own administration of natives we have never tried to get labour through the chiefs of the native tribes. When I was in the Transvaal, and we required labour for the mines on the Rand, between 60 and 70 per cent. of the native labour employed there came direct from Portuguese territory. We did not send our recruiters into Portuguese

  1755
  territory to the chiefs purposely, but we sent them straight to the natives them-selves, and recruited them from the various kraals and districts in Portuguese territory. The fault of the system of the Belgian administration in the Congo is that they endeavour to get their forced labour through the chiefs of the tribes, who ought to look after the interests of their own people. It has been proved over and over again that the Belgian officials go to these chiefs and say that they want the labour to get a certain amount of rubber, and the chiefs are paid to get it, and they administer punishments for not producing the sufficiency of rubber that the Belgians require. That is obvious from the very nature of the atrocities about which we are talking, and the punishments that are inflicted. They are not European punishments but essentially native punishments. When Lobengula was King of the Matebele he used to administer justice according to his lights. If a thief was brought before him and convicted, the sentence was that one hand should be cut of; if he was convicted a second time the other hand would be cut off in order that he should not be able to thieve in the future. That is the native system of punishment, and if Europeans go and endeavour to administer the country through the chiefs of the tribes, you will find the chiefs of those tribes administer the usual atrocities in the way of punishments in order to get their orders obeyed. I do not intend to take up the time of the House, but I would submit that something definite, at any rate in this direction must be done. The real protector of the native is his chief. In the more uncivilised country he does not trust the white man at all. A great deal of evidence undoubtedly comes from natives. I should myself from contact with them, be disinclined to agree with evidence that is submitted by the, natives themselves. For instance, when I was on the border of the Congo, it was absolutely in the minds of the natives, and they believed in their very hearts that white men for their breakfast, lunch, and dinner had a regular meal on black babies. That is perfectly true, and nothing could be done to get it out of their minds. They do not look to the white European at all for protection; they look only to their own chiefs to look after their interests. Well, then, I submit that those chiefs are already bought, suborned by the Europeans who are endeavouring to
  1756
  administer the country. If in many cases, as has happened, the chiefs do not obey the commands of the white people and they are removed and other chiefs who will administer the country more to the idea of the European are put in charge of the tribes, then I submit that the chief of these tribes should be absolutely divorced from any administration of the white people. They should be put in a position to be able to appeal in the name of their tribe and in the name of the natives who go to them for protection to the highest Government, to the Government of the State, and, if necessary, to the Government in Europe, against any infliction of injustice that might take place within their knowledge on their territory. They are the natural protectors of their own people, and until you get the chiefs divorced from the administration of the white man, until you get them in a position quite apart from getting this labour and put them in such a way that they can appeal from the administration of the Government as they see it done, you are not going to get any benefit to their country purely from guarantees or a recognition of the rights of the natives from the Belgian Government.
  Sir W. CROSSLEY: I should very much like to say something about the Congo, because I am one of those who have been interested in the subject for a long time, but I think at this hour I cannot stand between the House and the right hon. Gentleman. I should just like, however, to ask one or two questions. Does the Belgian Government recognise that the natives have any rights whatever in this land? I believe the Belgian Government against all evidence asserts that the natives have no notions whatever of property and no rights whatever in their land, although I understand that some of the more advanced tribes of the Congo have a very advanced land system and very considerable ideas as to their own rights in the land. Then I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Belgian Government have or have not made any effort to suppress this terrible system of forced labour, which the right hon. Gentleman himself has described as indistinguishable from slavery. Does the Belgian Budget, which is passed this year, propose to wring from these people the enormous sum mentioned by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Sir G. White)? I think he said £890,000 was to be wrung from their labour towards the expense of carrying on the Government.

  1757
  I think most of us were pleased at the idea of annexation; I believe the right hon. Gentleman himself thought it would be a good thing, because it would involve the sweeping away of slavery, and if Belgium were true to her responsibilities she would finance the country until it became self-supporting. Instead of that having resulted we know that the old terrible system regarding the natives still obtains. While large revenues are being drawn from the country, while various companies rejoice in declaring highly satisfactory dividends, while their shares stand at enormous premiums, the natives have to supply food gratuitously for the soldiers and the staff, and are continually fleeced, the one idea of the Belgian Government being to make money out of the country. Is it not the fact that the population is rapidly decreasing, and in some districts almost disappearing? The Belgian Government has declared that the cost of the enterprise must be paid entirely by the Congo. But I want to know if there is any evidence in this once prosperous community of that civilising influence which under the name of Almighty God was to be applied to the country. Has anything been done for the benefit of the people? Are they not still downtrodden at every point? It was supposed that annexation would mean freedom for the slaves, but that has certainly not been the result. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has done his best, but the Belgian Government apparently resents foreign intervention, and refuses to listen to our suggestions. Still, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that something has been done, and that he intends to take stringent action so that our name and our honour may no longer be made a laughing stock.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The first two speakers in this Debate expressed the feeling of regret which they felt at the fact that Lord Percy was no longer with us. I should like to associate myself in the closest way with that expression of regret. No man ever took a more high-minded disinterested part in our proceedings, and as long as I am a Member of this House I shall always remember with admiration the part which he took in our proceedings, and I shall not cease to regret his absence from among us. He was a great loss, and in some ways an irreparable loss, not only to this House, but to the public life of this country. The
  1758
  subject of the Congo has been often debated in this House, and I am not surprised that in the Debate this evening the abuses of the past have again been dwelt upon, and dwelt upon in severe terms. I am quite aware that constant reiteration in our Debates by speakers in this House of their condemnation of the rule in the Congo under the old régime creates a certain amount of irritation in some quarters abroad, but even at the risk of that, so grave and so bad was the state of things that nobody has any right to expect that it should not continue to be condemned in this House till, at any rate, the effects of it have entirely passed away, and no one has any right to expect that even people in a position of responsibility, and therefore of limited freedom, which I hold, should in any way attempt to palliate the condemnation which has been justly passed upon it. I have no criticism whatever to make upon the condemnation of the past, but in condemning the past I have always kept in view that what the House desire and what the Government desire is to see it put right, and that we have had no object in passing these strictures upon the past of a political nature of our own, nothing but a desire which anyone who knew the facts and who had any feeling of humanity must have experienced, and a feeling of impatience that the thing should be put an end to.
  Then, with regard to our treaty responsibilities, I do not want to whittle those down or to make out that they do not exist. Nor do I want for a moment to suggest that we ought to take a light or otherwise than a severe view of them; but it is fair to bear in mind that those treaty responsibilities are not greater upon us than they are upon some other nations, and the fact that they are treated as responsibilities which are shared with other nations must be borne in mind as necessarily limitations upon our actions, as far as those particular responsibilities which we share with other nations are concerned. Let anyone read the Berlin Act, read it carefully through, with its limiting clauses, and they will see that, although the Berlin Act conveys responsibilities, there is something more than treaty responsibility. There are also the limiting rights which the treaty confers, and if you stand upon the Berlin Act alone, you will find that serious questions are raised by certain parts of that Act as to how far it is in the power of any one Power alone who is a party to it to take the execution of the Act into its own hands, without

  1759
  applying for the mediation of the others or for arbitration. Therefore there are limitations on our action in these very treaties which confer this obligation. I do not ignore the fact that we have a separate treaty with regard to the Congo State, and therefore I do not say that the provisions of the Berlin Act put any limitation upon our own action, but if the Berlin Act was the only one upon which our responsibility is put, I would point out that that is not the strongest ground upon which we have to go.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman's reference to isolated action in certain contingencies referred to our several responsibilities in connection with our individual agreement?
  Sir E. GREY: I will come to the question of isolated action afterwards. When isolated action was being pressed by some speakers they referred to nothing else but the Berlin Act, and I wanted to point out that as far as isolated action is concerned anyone who studies the Berlin Act will see that, although it conveys responsibilities, it also has in it limitations which are a considerable bar to isolated action if it was based on the ground of that Act. How did we approach this question when we first came into office? I never attempted to palliate the state of things which we found existing at the time. The question we had to ask ourselves was, the state of things being so bad, who is going to put it right. Not ourselves. It is not as if the Congo had been a British possession which had been lent or given to anyone else. It has never been a British possession. We have no intention of making it a British possession. If it had been a question of taking over the Congo ourselves, of course the matter would have been a very simple one if that had been within the bounds of practical politics, or within the view of British policy. But every British Government has declared that it was not intended to assume political responsibilities in the Congo itself, or to extend its own responsibilities, or to acquire any territory. Therefore it was not ourselves who were to step into the Congo and put things right. Who was going to do it? The one country which had the prior right to take it in hand and which showed some disposition to take it it in hand was Belgium, and we undoubtedly encouraged that solution of the question, amongst other reasons, not only because it was the most favourable, but because
  1760
  it was the only apparent solution which was possible. It would have been comparatively easy to upset the existing state of things in the Congo, but that is not the same thing as putting it right. It was not enough to displace the old régime in the Congo. We wanted to have someone else there who would take things over and put things right. So long as Belgium showed a disposition to do that no one was prepared to question her prior right, and I look forward with hope and expectation to the possibility of that solution of the question, and undoubtedly the Government did encourage the solution of the annexation by Belgium.
  Before I proceed further, let me speak with appreciation of the maiden speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Silvester Home), which showed that he will make valuable contributions to our Debates, and which was clearly most welcome to the House, and let me especially express appreciation of the tone in which he spoke of the present Sovereign of the Belgians and the disposition of the Belgian people. Perhaps I might also congratulate the hon. Member (Mr. J. C. Lyttelton). He comes to us with freshness and knowledge of the subject. I was especially glad that the hon. Member (Mr. Home) approached the Belgian part of the question with the sympathetic reference which he did make to the feeling of the Belgian people. It is in itself a most favourable change that the government of the Congo should have passed into the hands of a free people and a Government which is responsible to a free Parliament. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker), and, I think, the hon. Member for Norfolk (Sir George White), said that we ought not to have allowed that to take place until we had guarantees that everything was to be put right. I have always said that we would not recognise the annexation of the Congo unless it was taken over on terms which left those who took it over in a position to give us guarantees and assurances that it would be put right. When I said that I was thinking of the possibility of the Congo being taken over by the Belgian Government from its previous ruler on terms which would not put the Belgian Government in a position to deal freely with the future of the Congo and to change its system. There were no restrictions of that kind. The Belgian Government took it over completely, and the Belgian Government is in a position if it wishes to give these assurances and to change the system.

  1761
  It is in the position, and it has the power. There is no limitation upon it to prevent it doing so. So far as that particular condition is concerned, the Congo being taken over by the Belgians on conditions which would enable the Belgian Government to do what was right if they so desired, that has been accomplished. But the hon. Member for Norfolk says that we ought not to have allowed that to take place, and the hon. Member for Gravesend says that we ought to have prevented it. How were we not to have allowed it, or how were we to have prevented it? The hon. Member for Gravesend seems to think that we have given our position away by not preventing it taking place. You cannot outside your own dominions say that you will prevent something happening or not allow something to happen unless you are prepared to resort to forcible measures. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Gravesend that our position has been at all weakened by what has happened. He seems to think that because somehow or other the Belgians have taken over the Congo we are therefore in a weaker position than we were. I do not think we are in a weaker position at all. We could only have prevented the Congo from being taken over by some sort of belligerent action, and whatever action of that kind would have been open to us to prevent it being taken over is open to us still if our treaty rights are violated. If we had recognised the annexation before we were satisfied that things were going to be put right we should have been in that position. I admit that we should have weakened our position, but that is precisely what we have not done. Either for us or any future British Government, as long as the annexation is not recognised, the position remains open, and it will be possible either for this Government or any future British Government, if our treaty rights are not satisfied, not only to continue not to recognise the annexation, but to regard that question as an open one. We have in no way weakened our own position or that of any other. It is open either to this or any future British Government to take any steps which they may think the honour of this country requires.
  What, then, is the position at the present time? I said some time ago that we could not recognise the annexation so long as the greater part of the native population were obliged to labour compulsorily
  1762
  for the greater part of the year under the guise of taxation, and as long as the greater part of the country was still closed to trade. Now, is the prospect better?
  The Belgian Government have, as far as their programme is concerned, made a very great advance on anything that we have had before. They have introduced their programme for a few years ahead and their Budget for the ensuing year. They propose to throw open entirely to trade about one-half of the Congo next July. A further large portion is to be thrown open in July, 1911, and the rest is to be thrown open in July, 1912. I am going to state what the Belgian Government's proposals are first, without commenting on them. My comments will come later. I want the House first to understand what is proposed. In all these places, as soon as they are thrown open after next July, the natives will have the right to labour and to gather the products of the soil and sell them to merchants in the same way as if those products belonged to them in full ownership. In the next place the Belgian Government intend to facilitate commerce by a reduction of the fiscal charges on commercial establishments, and by making the sale of land easy to those who want to trade with the Congo. Every possible facility, they have stated, will be given to encourage trade, and large numbers of applications have been already received for land, and greater publicity is to be given to the conditions in order to encourage further applications. They are going to open new lines of navigation on the principal waterways. They are going to take further steps to introduce money into the country. The equivalent of a million more francs, at any rate, is to be provided for in the present Budget, and there are other smaller reforms, such as giving subsistence allowances instead of payments in kind to officials, so that they will purchase what they require for their subsistence instead of having to levy them by taxation. With regard to taxes on the natives, the taxes in labour and produce are to come to an end in the whole of the Congo by July, 1912, and they come to an end as regards half of it next July, and the taxes per head are to be reduced. Of course the taxes in kind have been one of the great causes of much of the evil in the Congo. With their disappearance must disappear one of the greatest evils existing in the Congo, that is the forced collection of produce for the revenue of the State. Then with regard

  1763
  to forced labour itself, forced labour on public works, that is to be brought to an end in a limited time by the process that as the terms of service of those now engaged in that way expire no new persons will be engaged in that way, but their places can be taken by labour engaged voluntarily. That system has been established already as regards the first section of the Great Lakes Railway, which is one of the most important works which the Belgian Government have on hand.
  That is the programme. Now let me comment upon it. It is not a completely satisfactory programme. First of all, though part of the Congo is to be opened to trade next July, there is to be two years' delay before the whole is opened, and I do not see why there should be that long delay with regard to the whole. But suppose you were to take up that point of delay in opening the Congo to trade, taking it from the commercial point of view, and to say that you desired them to arbitrate on that particular point, it is doubtful whether your arbitration would have come to an end by the time your two years had expired; and if within the two years the change that is promised is entirely carried out it will amount to a complete change of system in the Congo, which ought to go a very long way towards a satisfaction of the treaty rights. I have another comment to make on the present programme. A great deal must depend upon the actual personnel of the officials of the Congo who have the carrying out of these reforms. On paper the programme really does go a very long way, but a great deal depends on the good will of officials of the Congo, and as long as the Government is carried on entirely or mainly by officials who have been habituated to the old régime, then the Belgian Government must not expect us to feel that confidence which we should desire, and to feel that confidence which I believe they wish us to feel, that speedy results will follow from the change of system which they have announced. I believe it to be their intention to introduce into the Congo officials, who will not be under the influence of habits acquired under the old régime, and who will be sent there in good faith, to carry out the reforms which have been named in the spirit in which I believe they are intended. And I have a third comment to make on the programme, which is this: The programme does not apply to areas
  1764
  under the concessionaire. The hon. Member for Norfolk used the word "atrocities," and asked if these violations and atrocities had diminished in the Colonies. I believe from what I can gather so far, in the part which is directly under the Government itself, already the state of things is considerably improved, but I am not prepared to say what may be happening in the area under the concessionary companies. The concessionary companies have no right to forced labour, and if they have no right to forced labour it ought not to be very difficult to make terms with them, provided the law is strictly enforced. The Belgian Government themselves say that they are examining what arrangements can be made with the concessionary companies in order to bring their areas more into line with the general system which they intend to introduce into the rest of the Congo. The hon. Member for Norfolk pointed out quite rightly that, according to our view, if there is a real change of system in its results there must be a falling off in the revenue. I think that is quite true. In dwelling upon that point he is perfectly right. It is a most important point. There is bound to be at first, at any rate, a falling-off in the re- venue. I would point out that the Congo Budget shows that the Belgian Government are alive to this point. They estimate that owing to the introduction of these reforms—and these reforms do not begin until July of this year—that the revenue will be reduced by 1,600,000 francs. That is for the half-year, and that is equivalent to an estimated reduced revenue of 3,200,000 francs on the whole year. I think that shows that the Belgian Government are as fully alive to that particular point as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk. At any rate, they have already realised that it is a point of substance, and they have begun to make arrangements for it in their Congo Budget. I cannot agree that the situation is at all in the hopeless state which it was some time ago. The Belgian Parliament has shown itself very much alive to this question of the Congo. There are Belgian reformers just as honourable, just as sincere, and just as indignant as any in this country. Their view was referred to to-night. Is it their view we ought to depart from the position we have in this country of hope; and that we ought to say that the situation is hopeless, and that we must resort to violent action. I believe that is not their view at all. I believe the view of the Belgian reformers at this moment is

  1765
  that if their hands are to be strengthened the attitude of this country ought to be one of suspense, I think they would admit it should still be one of suspense, one of benevolent expectancy. I do not believe for a moment that the Belgian reformers—I do not for a moment doubt their earnestness—I do not believe they would think it otherwise than disastrous at this time, after this programme of reforms has been announced, that we should say to the Belgian people that the Belgian Parliament, the Belgian people, the Belgian sense of its responsibility, is hopeless, and that we must take the matter into our own hands, and resort to violent action. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker) spoke of isolated action. We have kept up our diplomatic pressure. Our honour does not suffer as far as Europe is concerned. Our responsibilities have not been greater than other nations of Europe, and our diplomatic action has been in excess of theirs. There is not a single nation in Europe, or in the world that has any right to cast a stone at us as regards our attitude and our responsibility. It has been in excess of anything which any other nation has done. If we are to go beyond diplomatic action we must take the step, which is still open to us, of saying not only that we have not recognised the annexation, but, that as we must refuse to recognise it, we cannot recognise any authority over British subjects in the Congo other than our own. That is a step which, of course, we must back up by force.
  I do not believe for a moment that the Belgian Government intends to deny our treaty rights, or will deny them. I do not believe we shall be driven to a course like that. My attitude, frankly, is one of expectancy, suspense if you like, but still I believe that things are moving in the right direction. After what the Parliament did I must say, frankly, I think the Belgian Parliament ought not to resent that we cannot ask the House to sanction the step of recognising the Belgian annexation until we have definite guarantees that the system is actually changed and those guarantees which I shall look for from results. I am not prepared to depart from our attitude of expectancy at the present moment. But equally I can assure the House that we will not recognise the annexation and that we will not ask the House to do so until we are in a position to lay before Parliament reports from our own Consuls—some independent reports are coming in
  1766
  which show valuable changes in the Congo—showing that in effect a change of system has taken place, and that both the condition of the natives and our own treaty rights with regard to trade are on a satisfactory footing. When we can come forward and do that, I should be only too delighted to present a case to the House, but I will not bring a case to the House, or prejudge the question of annexation, until we are in a position on our own independent information to assure the House not only that changes are promised but that they have actually taken place.
  Sir GEORGE WHITE: I do not propose to divide the House in the hope that we may get a further Debate so that certain statements may be put before the House.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next (14th March).

ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gulland.]
Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes after Eleven of the clock.

  Raw Cotton Imported from Nigeria.
  Raw Cotton Imported from Nigeria.
  Hong Kong (British and Foreign Trade).
  Hong Kong (British and Foreign Trade).
  Railway Conciliation Boards.
  Railway Conciliation Boards.
  Textile Machinery (Exported).
  Textile Machinery (Exported).
  Tariff on Twist Drills.
  Tariff on Twist Drills.
  Cigarette Exports to India.
  Cigarette Exports to India.
  Reciprocal Preferences (Indian Tariff).
  Reciprocal Preferences (Indian Tariff).
  Duties on Hemp and Cotton Yarns.
  Duties on Hemp and Cotton Yarns.
  Exports of Produce and Manufactures.
  Exports of Produce and Manufactures.
  Chinese or Wiltshire Bacon.
  Chinese or Wiltshire Bacon.
  Chinese Seamen on British Ships.
  Chinese Seamen on British Ships.
  Ship "Clan McPherson" (Missing).
  Ship "Clan McPherson" (Missing).
  Coupling of Goods Trains.
  Coupling of Goods Trains.
  Labour Exchanges.
  Labour Exchanges.
  Govan and Partick Labour Exchanges.
  Govan and Partick Labour Exchanges.
  Census of Wages (Railway Employés).
  Census of Wages (Railway Employés).
  Registration of Pigs.
  Registration of Pigs.
  Agricultural Land in Wales (Total Rents).
  Agricultural Land in Wales (Total Rents).
  Ordnance Survey.
  Ordnance Survey.
  Commercial Motor Cars (Licence Duty).
  Commercial Motor Cars (Licence Duty).
  Isle of Man (Tea and Tobacco Taxes).
  Isle of Man (Tea and Tobacco Taxes).
  Old Age Pensions (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Board of Customs and Excise (Officials Retiring).
  Board of Customs and Excise (Officials Retiring).
  Sale of Agricultural Holding (Ireland).
  Sale of Agricultural Holding (Ireland).
  Civil Servants Salaries (Income Tax).
  Civil Servants Salaries (Income Tax).
  Estate Duty (Valuations).
  Estate Duty (Valuations).
  Income Tax.
  Income Tax.
  Opium Poppy Cultivation (British India).
  Opium Poppy Cultivation (British India).
  Boys' Training Ships (Home Fleet).
  Boys' Training Ships (Home Fleet).
  H.M.S. "Victorious," "Cæsar," "Antrim," and "Hogue."
  H.M.S. "Victorious," "Cæsar," "Antrim," and "Hogue."
  "Dreadnoughts" (Cost).
  "Dreadnoughts" (Cost).
  Home Fleet (First Cruiser Squadron).
  Home Fleet (First Cruiser Squadron).
  Chatham Dockyard.
  Chatham Dockyard.
  Irish Granite Quarries.
  Irish Granite Quarries.
  Drunkenness in Scotland (Statistics).
  Drunkenness in Scotland (Statistics).
  Fishery Board Expenses.
  Fishery Board Expenses.
  Price of Tenanted Land (Ireland).
  Price of Tenanted Land (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Applications (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Applications (Ireland).
  Loans to Irish Labourers.
  Loans to Irish Labourers.
  Westmeath County Council.
  Westmeath County Council.
  Irish Evening School Teachers.
  Irish Evening School Teachers.
  Cottages for Irish Labourers.
  Cottages for Irish Labourers.
  Farm at Aughavas (Police Protection).
  Farm at Aughavas (Police Protection).
  Ashbourne Act (Decadal Reductions).
  Ashbourne Act (Decadal Reductions).
  Frances Mulcahy Estate, Scart, County Limerick.
  Frances Mulcahy Estate, Scart, County Limerick.
  Yeomanry Officers.
  Yeomanry Officers.
  Army Reservists (Emigration).
  Army Reservists (Emigration).
  Territorial Infantry (Aiming-Rests).
  Territorial Infantry (Aiming-Rests).
  Army (Annual) Bill.
  Army (Annual) Bill.
  War Office Contracts (Granite).
  War Office Contracts (Granite).
  Research Chemists (Royal Arsenal).
  Research Chemists (Royal Arsenal).
  Board of Agriculture Offices.
  Board of Agriculture Offices.
  Sunday Mails, County Meath.
  Sunday Mails, County Meath.
  Boy Telegraph Messengers (Discharged).
  Boy Telegraph Messengers (Discharged).
  Newcastle Quarrymen's Wages.
  Newcastle Quarrymen's Wages.
  Telegraphist's Cramp.
  Telegraphist's Cramp.
  Chinese Pork.
  Chinese Pork.
  Agricultural Rates Act.
  Agricultural Rates Act.
  Census Bill and Unemployment.
  Census Bill and Unemployment.
  London County Council Finances.
  London County Council Finances.
  Cost of Public School Buildings.
  Cost of Public School Buildings.
  Police Medals (Distribution).
  Police Medals (Distribution).
  Regulations for Costermongers.
  Regulations for Costermongers.
  Voluntary Schools Transferred.
  Voluntary Schools Transferred.
  Employment of Children.
  Employment of Children.
Preamble
Several Lords Several Lords—Took the Oath.
LORD FISHER OF KILVERSTONE.
Admiral of the Fleet, Sir John Arbuthnot Fisher, G.C.B., O.M., G.C.V.O., Principal Naval A.D.C. to His Majesty the King, having been created Baron Fisher of Kilverstone, in the county of Norfolk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
GAS COMPANIES (STANDARD BURNER) (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
MANSFIELD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Standing Order No. 92 considered (according to order), and dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of the Urban District Council of Kirby-in-Ashfield: Leave given to present the said Petition.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it would be convenient to many members of your Lordships' House if we could receive some intimation from the noble Earl who leads the House as to the course of business next week. It is suggested, I understand, that we should sit all night and every night for the discussion of the Motion and Resolutions which have been placed upon the Paper by Lord Rosebery.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, in reply to the noble Marquess, I understand that in relation to the important Motion of my noble friend on the Cross Benches it would be to the general convenience if we were to sit on Monday both before and after dinner,

133
with an adjournment—not, I hope, all night, as the noble Marquess suggested might be possible, but until our usual hour. I am given to understand that it would be to the convenience of some noble Lords who are interested in the debate that the House should not sit after dinner on Tuesday. Therefore I suggest that on Tuesday we should have only an afternoon sitting. Then on Wednesday and any following day, according to the course of the debate, we could adjourn for dinner and continue the debate on my noble friend's Motion until it is concluded. I hope that will meet the convenience of noble Lords opposite.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to appoint the Committees which are usually appointed at the beginning of the session. First of all, I move the appointment of a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of Private Bills.
Moved, That the Lords following, viz.:

E. Crewe (L. Privy Seal).

D. Bedford.

D. Northumberland.

M. Lansdowne.

E. Lauderdale.

E. Waldegrave.

E. Cawdor.

E. Camperdown.

V. Churchill.

L. Balfour.

L. Ribblesdale.

L. Granard. (E. Granard.)

L. Denman.

L. Belper.

L. Brougham and Vaux.

L. Hindlip.

L. Newton.

L. Colebrooke.

with the Chairman of Committees, be appointed a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the Five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I next have to move the appointment of a Standing Committee. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, has a Motion on the Paper dealing with the Standing Committee, but I do not think that is any reason why your Lordships should not appoint the Standing Committee. If you agree later on to the noble Earl's Motion, it will be perfectly possible for that Committee to sit and consider the question to be referred to it even though the Standing Committee had been appointed. I therefore move.
Moved, That a Standing Committee be appointed for the consideration of such Public Bills as may be committed to it by the House.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEE.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I now move that the Lords whose names appear on the Paper be the Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee.
Moved, That the Lords following, viz.:

E. Jersey.

E. Waldegrave.

V. Churchill.

L. Balfour.

L. Granard. (E. Granard.)

L. Denman.

L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

L. Lawrence.

with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:—

E. Crewe. (L. Privy Seal.)

D. Bedford.

D. Marlborough.

D. Northumberland.

M. Lansdowne.

M. Salisbury.

135

M. Bath.

E. Derby.

E. Denbigh.

E. Chesterfield.

E. Jersey.

E. Lauderdale.

E. Waldegrave.

E. Cadogan.

E. Howe.

E. Amherst.

E. Camperdown.

E. Dartrey.

E. Lytton.

E. Carrington.

E. Cromer.

V. Sidmouth.

V. Knutsford.

V. Churchill.

L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

L. Barnard.

L. Balfour.

L. Ribblesdale.

L. Colchester.

L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

L. Belper.

L. Brougham and Vaux.

L. Kinnaird.

L. Hylton.

L. Fermanagh (E. Erne.)

L. Reay.

L. Newton.

L. Welby.

L. Ludlow.

L. Pentland.

All petitions relating to the Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present session referred to the Committee unless otherwise ordered.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I next move the appointment of a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices. There are two other noble Lords in addition to those whose names appear on the Paper whom I should like to add to the Committee, but inasmuch as it is usual to give notice thereof I will put their names down at a future date and ask your Lordships to agree to add them.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed, and that the Lords following, viz:

D. Northumberland.

M. Bath.

M. Cholmondeley.

E. Beauchamp. (L. Steward.)

136

E. Clarendon.

E. Chesterfield.

E. Essex.

E. Waldegrave.

E. Mount Edgcumbe.

E. Cawdor.

E. Camperdown.

E. Ancaster.

E. Carrington.

E. Halsbury.

E. Plymouth.

V. Gordon. (E. Aberdeen.)

V. Cross.

V. Peel.

V. Knutsford.

V. Churchill.

L. Balfour.

L. Ribblesdale.

L. Colchester.

L. Rosebery. (E. Rosebery.)

L. Poltimore.

L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

L. Belper.

L. Monk Bretton.

L. Macnaghten.

L. Welby.

L. Burghclere.

L. Sanderson.

L. Colebrooke.

with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEES.—APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Your Lordships were good enough last session to accede to my Motion to appoint a Select Committee to consider and report upon the Standing Orders relating to Standing Committees, and the noble Lords named of the Committee in the Motion now standing in my name on the Paper were appointed as members of that Committee. Early in the session some of the members of the Committee found it inconvenient to attend, and other circumstances occurred so that the Committee never met. But I now ask your Lordships to reappoint the Committee, and I propose, if my Motion is agreed to, to call the Committee together as soon as convenient. The names which appear on your Lordships' Paper are, as I have said, the same names as appeared last year. I propose, however, to add the name of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, but in

137
order to do that I must make a separate Motion on Monday. I beg to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the Standing Orders relating to Standing Committees.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: Then the Lords following were named of the Committee:

L. Chancellor.

L. Privy Seal. (E. Crewe.)

M. Lansdowne.

L. Steward. (E. Beauchamp.)

E. Waldegrave.

E. Onslow.

E. Camperdown.

E. Halsbury.

V. Cross.

V. Knutsford.

L. Barnard.

L. Balfour.

L. Denman.

The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.

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.:—

M. Linlithgow;

L. Clanwilliam (E. Clanwilliam);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

MOVABLE DWELLINGS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for the registration and regulation of Movable Dwellings—Was presented by the Lord Clifford of Chudleigh; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 12.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.