Sitting of 23 May 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Charles Shiel's Charity Bill [Lords],
Metropolitan Railway Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Woking Urban District Council (Basingstoke Canal) Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Midland Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Lloyd's Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Local Government Provisional Order (Gas) (No. 2) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders No. 4) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, in the matter of a proposed drainage district in the parishes of West Butterwick, Owston, and Belton, in the county of Lincoln," presented by Sir EDWARD STRACHEY; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  "To confirm two Provisional Orders under the Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Acts, 1863 to 1892, relating to the Curraghtown Drainage District, in the county of Meath, and the Akeragh Lough Drainage District, in the county of Kerry," presented by Mr. HOBHOUSE; supported by Mr. Birrell; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to:—
  Hebburn Urban District Council Bill,
  Upper Medway Conservancy Bill, with Amendments.

BOARD OF TRADE (EXHIBITIONS BRANCH).
Copy presented, of Report on the First International Shooting and Field Sports Exhibition, Vienna, 1910 [by Command]; to he upon the Table.
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
Copy presented, of Summary of Accidents and Casualties reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ending 31st December, 1910, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to he upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 11, 1911).
Copy presented, of International Agreement for the Suppression of Obscene Publications. Signed at Paris, 4th May, 1910. British Ratification deposited at Paris, 15th March, 1911 [by Command]; to he upon the Table.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented, of Annual Report of Proceedings of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Tithe, Copyhold, Inclosure, Commons, Land Drainage, and other Acts for the year 1910 [by Command]; to he upon the Table.
ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS.
Copy presented, of Report of the Inspector of Ancient Monuments for the year ending 31st March, 1911 [by Command]; to he upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Archangel Fishery Bill.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is in a position to say if any representations regarding the proposed alteration of the three-mile limit in the Archangel Fishery Bill have been addressed to the Russian Government by any maritime Powers other than Great Britain?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I am not in a position to say whether such representations have been made.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to make any inquiry on the point with a view to joint action?
  Sir E. GREY: Other Powers will state their own views, and when the hon. Member asks me to make inquiries and a statement about their action, I may make inquiries, but I cannot make a statement.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of extending our own limit?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

  Japanese Treaty (Perpetual Leases).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that it is laid down in the Note appended to the Japanese Treaty that non-reference therein to the question of perpetual leases shall not be held to affect the contentions of either Government regarding these, he could state what was the contention of the Japanese Government regarding this question?
  Sir E. GREY: Negotiations are at present in progress with the Japanese Government on the question of the perpetual leases, and I am therefore unable for the moment to make any statement.

  Corea (British Interests).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether any, and, if any, what reciprocal concessions have been made by Japan in return for the surrender of Great Britain of her treaty rights and privileges of extraterritoriality in Corea?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative, but Japan has undertaken to continue the existing tariff in Corea for ten years, and has given assurances as to the existing rights of British subjects.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether any assurances have been received from the Japanese Government regarding the question of land tenure and ownership and working of minerals by British subjects in Corea; and, if so, what is the nature of such assurances?
  Sir E. GREY: In reply to representations by His Majesty's Government, the Japanese Government have declared that they will abide by the Declaration made at the time of the annexation of Corea, the text of which was published in the Press at the time, whereby the protection of the legally acquired rights of foreigners in Corea is assured. They have fully recognised that British owners of land or mines in Corea have the right to hold and dispose of such property without being subjected to the conditions and restrictions of the Japanese Law of 12th April, 1910, with regard to the ownership of land by foreigners or of the Mining Law at present in force in Japan proper. These answers have been accepted as satisfactory.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is there any objection to laying those papers before the House?
  Sir E. GREY: I will inquire, but I will not commit myself.

  Pennsylvania Divorce Law.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to an Act recently passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature, United States of America, by which the ordinary procedure for divorce has been annulled, and the right hitherto exercised of trial by jury practically abolished; and if he will ask the British Ambassador at Washington to make inquiries, if it is possible, to protect the interests of an English lady and her children against the alterations of the law against her?
  Sir E. GREY: The lady who is referred to in the hon. Member's question as an English lady is, I understand, married to an American citizen, and has consequently ceased to be a British subject. The matter is one, therefore, in which His Majesty's Ambassador cannot intervene.

  Morocco (Expedition to Fez).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government have pressed the French Government to accelerate the advance of the French troops on Fez, and have stated to the French Government that they would have felt bound to appeal to the French Government to send an expedition to Fez, if they had not already done so; and whether he would lay upon the Table all communications which have passed between the British and French Governments, oral or written, in reference to the present expedition to Fez?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have not pressed the French Government to take any active steps; but I have in conversation, whenever and by whomever approached on the subject, expressed the opinion that, but for the steps which the French Government were taking, I should have had no answer to questions such as that put on 25th April by the hon. Member for Central Finsbury, respecting the safety of British subjects, and that the French Government had no choice but to relieve Fez with the least possible delay. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. DILLON: May I ask whether this House is not entitled to know to what extent this country is committed to this ill-omened and cruel expedition?
  Sir E. GREY: We are not committed at all.

  Egyptian Deportations.
  Mr. ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any and, if so, how many persons have been actually deported in Egypt under Article 21 of the Deportation Law which gives power to a court of assize to deport an accused person against whom it has not found evidence for conviction; and whether he will recommend that the Law should at this point he amended by relegating to the special local commission of investigation all cases in which courts of assize recommend deportation after failing to convict?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information to show whether any of the 275 persons, who are stated on page 34 of Sir Eldon Gorst's last Report to have proceeded to the Kharga Oasis, were dealt with under Article 21 of the Police Supervision Law, but I will make enquiries. I will consult H.M. Acting Agent and Consul-General in
  126
  Egypt with regard to the suggestion in the second paragraph of the question.

  Great Britain and United States (Arbitration Treaty).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the treaty of arbitration between the United States and this Country would be so drafted as to admit the adhesion of other Powers; whether negotiations are now proceeding with France or any other Power for inclusion as a party to the treaty; and whether he could make any statement as to the progress or probable conclusion of the negotiations?
  Sir E. GREY: The full text of a draft Treaty is still on its way to me, and I have not yet seen it; but I do not gather that a tri-partite Treaty is contemplated.
  Mr. KING: Has the draft treaty been communicated to the Powers as is stated by "The Times" in very categorical fashion this morning?
  Sir E. GREY: The hon. Member must really wait till the full text of the draft treaty, with any communications from the United States Government accompanying it, has reached me. I cannot answer questions as to what they may have done with other Powers.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has received the draft of the arbitration treaty with America; and whether this contains proposals for unrestricted arbitration on all questions, including matters of honour or territory?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not yet received the full text of the draft Treaty. When it arrives, it will receive full consideration before any statements are made about it, and it is then usual in ordinary courtesy to make them to the authors of the proposals before making them public. I may add, however, that from what I gather of the nature of the proposals, there is every prospect of a very considerable advance in securing the practical settlement of disputes without resort to war.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the signed statement by Mr. Roosevelt that the American people would never consent to arbitration on all questions; and whether, therefore, he can now tell the House that the Government

  127
  has found that the proposed agreement with the United States to arbitrate on all questions, including matters of honour or territory, is impossible?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the latter part in the negative.

  Army Ordnance Department, Colchester.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the inquiry into the rate of wages paid at the Army Ordnance Department at Colchester promised by the Secretary of State for War on 21st June, 1910, has now been completed; and when the statement on the subject generally which was promised on 21st February, 1911, may be expected?
  The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The settlement of the question has been awaiting a conference with the Admiralty on several question of technical difficulty. This has now been held, and the new rates of wages will be announced very shortly.

  "Army Review" (Editor).
  Captain CLIVEasked whether Colonel a Court Repington is to be the editor of the new official publication called the "Army Review"; if so, what salary he will receive; whether he will have access to documents not available to the Press generally; and whether he mill continue to hold his appointment on the staff of "The Times"?
  Colonel SEELY: Colonel à Court Repington has been appointed Editor of the "Army Review"—salary £500 a year. His duties will be confined to editing the "Review" under the direction and control of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. He will, of course, not have access to any confidential documents. He will be at liberty to engage in any other literary work for which he has time.
  Lord BALCARRES: Will this officer have access to documents to which other journalists will not have access?
  Colonel SEELY: He will only have access to such papers as are necessary to conduct the journal, in the same way as the editors of similar French and German publications have access to those papers; but he will not have access to any confidential documents. I do not see how it
  128
  could be possible to have an editor under terms different from those which I have explained to the House.
  Lord BALCARRES: Will this officer have access to documents to which other newspaper editors will not have access?
  Colonel SEELY: It is rather difficult to explain what the duties of the editor of a new publication will be, before we have experience as to how the thing will work. I do not think that there can be either inconvenience or injustice to other journals, since the scope of the journal will be similar to that of the "Revue Militaire" and the German quarterly publication of the General Staff.
  Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether criticisms adverse to War Office policy will be allowed?
  Colonel SEELY: I hope the fullest liberty to expressions of opinion will be allowed consistent with good order and discipline. Of course, the editor himself will, as I have said, have the duty of editing the review under the direction of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, who will be under the control of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: May I ask if other journalists will be allowed to see all these documents?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think it is a question of seeing documents. This distinguished officer will be the editor of "The Review," and he will receive articles from officers in the Army and will collate other information which he will obtain with regard to foreign armies on the higher region, and generally on the higher aspects of the art of war, if I may use the word higher. I do not think it is a question of documents.
  Mr. G. LLOYD: Am I to understand that he will not see any War Office documents at all?
  Colonel SEELY: He will see no confidential documents of any kind; but supposing for any purpose he wanted to see any War Office paper of a non-confidential character, of course, if it would be convenient, he would be allowed to do so. He will be the editor of "The Review" like editors of the French and German journals.
  Captain CLIVE: Will it be permanently established?
  Colonel SEELY: The appointment is terminable on short notice on either side. It has not been made at all permanent yet. We will see how it goes on. I hope the publication will be of great use to the officers of the Army.

  Aberdeen Barracks (Bread Supply).
  Mr. ADAMSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the firm of Mitchell and Muil, Aberdeen, which holds the contract for the supply of bread to the Aberdeen barracks, does not recognise the working conditions agreed to between the Master Bakers' Association and the Operatives' Union as regards hours and the number of apprentices; whether he is aware that the parish council has repeatedly refused to accept tenders from the firm because of its being an unfair firm; and whether he will have inquiry made, with a view to securing compliance with the Fair-Wage Clause?
  Colonel SEELY: A representation on this subject has just been received from the local trades union, and inquiry will be made into the circumstances. The result of the investigation shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

  Aeroplane Work (Mechanics).
  Mr. SANDYSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he was aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst officers engaged in aeroplane work on account of the inefficiency of the Royal Engineer mechanics who are engaged in the adjustment and repairing of aeroplanes; and whether he will consider the advisability of having a staff of trained mechanics specially engaged for this work?
  Colonel SEELY: A staff of six skilled mechanics is to be provided for this service; of these five have already been obtained, but great care has to be exercised in selecting only suitable men.

  7th Hussars (Foreign Service).
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) how many Cavalry regiments there are which have during the last thirty years had less foreign service than the 7th Hussars; (2) whether the 20th Hussars went to India in 1895 and returned in 1904, having thus served nine years abroad, whereas the 7th served sixteen; (3)
  130
  whether, if the old roster had not been altered, the 7th Hussars would have remained on home service until, at least, 1915; (4) if he will state from what date the 7th Hussars were linked to the 3rd Hussars, and on what principle they were so linked; and (5) whether he will consider the desirability of devising a system of linking by which Cavalry regiments would receive a greater equality of treatment with regard to foreign service?
  Colonel SEELY: I will answer the first of these questions and the following four questions together.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREW: May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker? I put these questions down separately, in order to have them answered one by one.
  Colonel SEELY: I think I shall be able, if not to satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman, to give him replies to all the questions and save the time of the House. The present arrangement of the roster was settled in 1903 by a Committee with the object of carrying out the system of linking regiments in pairs, keeping carefully in view, as far as possible, the claims of the different regiments. Any readjustment of the roster would not only upset the whole scheme, but would involve injustice to other regiments, and I am afraid I cannot undertake to make any change in the arrangements which were arrived at in 1903 after very full consideration of all the attendant circumstances.

  Territorial Force (Payment at National Celebrations).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he was aware that a letter has been sent to units in the Principality from the headquarters Welsh Division, Territorial Force, Shrewsbury, informing officers commanding that rank and file who wish to attend the investiture of the Prince of Wales at Carnarvon will have to be away three days, that no pay can be given, and that the question of allowances has not yet been settled; whether he was also aware that the proposed allowance is only 1s. 6d. a day each for food; and what steps he proposes to take to enable the rank and file of the Welsh Territorials to take part in a national celebration without serious financial loss?
  Colonel SEELY: I am not aware of the issue of this letter, and no such decisions as those which the hon. Member suggests

  131
  were arrived at by the War Office. It has been decided that on this special occasion, and in view of the unique character of the ceremony of the investure pay and allowances will be issued on the same lines as for the Coronation.
  Mr. ASHLEY: If I hand the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the circular will he make investigations, as it is a great discouragement to the men?
  Colonel SEELY: Certainly, I shall be much obliged if he will send me a copy or hand it to me.
  ARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will travelling expenses be paid?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will they also be paid in connection with the King's visit to Scotland?
  Colonel SEELY: Perhaps the Noble Lord will put down that question on the Paper.

  Army Reservists.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many Army Reservists will remain available for other purposes after the Expeditionary Force has been sent abroad?
  Colonel SEELY: From the figures given in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Canterbury on 28th February it will be seen that a total of 101,551 men of the Army Reserve are not included in the Expeditionary Force.

  Colonel Morgan's Appointment.
  Captain CLIVEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the names of the companies of which Colonel Morgan, C.B., D.S.O., is to remain a director after taking up his appointment at the War Office; on what date that appointment commenced; and if he can yet say whether the retention of these directorships is consistent with the placing of his whole time at the disposal of the War Office?
  Colonel SEELY: The War Office is in correspondence with this officer with regard to the directorships which he may retain without detriment to the efficient performance of his duties at the War Office. As I stated last Tuesday, he will not be permitted to retain any directorship which may interfere with his duties
  Captain CLIVE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question—"On what date the appointment commenced"?
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot say on what date the appointment will commence until the correspondence to which I referred in the first part of the answer is closed.
  Captain CLIVE: The appointment has not commenced yet?
  Colonel SEELY: No.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the House an opportunity of considering appointment before it is finally firmed?
  Colonel SEELY: I think the House has considered it a good deal at question time already.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the duties of Colonel Morgan will include the recommending the use and purchase of particular food-stuffs and the introduction of new food-stuffs to a large market; and whether some other officer could have been found who would do this as well as Colonel Morgan and receive more general confidence in any recommendations he may make?
  Colonel SEELY: The reply to both parts of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary for War what manner Colonel Morgan, who has just been appointed to an important post by the Secretary of State, has completely cleared his character in a court of law; whether he is aware that the Report of the War Stores Commission, which contained grave reflections on Colonel Morgan's conduct, was published after the conclusion of the libel actions referred to; and whether, since the publication of that Report, any steps have been taken in a court of law or otherwise to clear Colonel Morgan's character?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think I can add anything to the information I gave to the House on the 16th instant explaining the attitude of the Army Council towards this case.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he informed the House last week that this officer had completely cleared his character before a court of law he was in fact, though no doubt unintentionally, misleading the

  133
  House; that this officer brought his libel actions before the publication of the report, and since the publication of the report, although the officer several times threatened libel actions against newspapers on account of the statements they made against his character, he has never dared to issue a writ?
  Colonel SEELY: No; although I am much obliged to the hon. Member for saying, of course, that I did not do so intentionally, I do not think I did mislead the House. Immediately after the statements against this officer's character had been made, so far as I am aware, he took the first possible step to meet them by bringing libel actions, and these libel actions he won.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, after the report had been issued, Colonel Morgan actually threatened, through a letter from his solicitor, a libel action against a well-known newspaper, and the newspaper published the letter of the solicitor with a two-column heading the next morning, and the writ was never issued and no further action was ever taken?
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir; that is the first I have heard of these circumstances. I cannot keep pace with all that happened; it is so very long ago. I do know that. Lord Robson, who was concerned as counsel in one of the actions, and as counsel antagonistic to Colonel Morgan, holds the strongest view, and is anxious it should be publicly stated that he considers this officer has completely cleared his character, and in fact has suffered a real injustice.
  Lord BALCARRES: May we have the text of Lord Robson's minute on the subject?
  Colonel SEELY: There has been no minute, but I have had a communication from Lord Robson, who is most anxious it should be communicated to the House. I will ask him to write me a letter, and I may find a convenient occasion to read it to the House, perhaps in reply to a question.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask whether, apart from Colonel Morgan's private character, his business connections would not make it extremely difficult to carry out the duties of his new office?
  Colonel SEELY: I am glad the hon. Member has asked that question. It would be obviously most improper that Colonel Morgan should retain directorships involving business connections of a character that would conflict with his duties in any way. As regards that and the kind of duties he is to perform, the Secretary of State has laid down that he must resign all directorships that would be in any way concerned with the duties to be laid down for him and to be carried out by him. These duties will be, of course, to help the Secretary of State to make better arrangements for feeding the soldiers. That is the sole object of the Secretary of State, and, if it is possible, he very much wants to do it. If Colonel Morgan holds any directorships having any remote connection with his duties, ho will resign them. I am assured of that.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Will Colonel Morgan make inquiries with regard to the present conditions of feeding soldiers with foreign meat at the Curragh Camp?
  Colonel SEELY: I have no doubt he will make inquiries and communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

  Colonels (Brigadier Rank).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider whether colonels who have held the rank of brigadier may be allowed to retain this honorary rank on retirement?
  Colonel SEELY: This question is now under consideration.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    ADULT BLIND.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the proposals he is making to assist the sick, the disabled, and the able-bodied unemployed, whether he is aware that there are more than 25,000 adult blind persons in the United Kingdom chiefly dependent upon charity and Poor Law relief, though most of them if trained and helped could be made self-supporting workers; and whether he can include in the Insurance Bill provisions for State or municipal employment to meet their case?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER(Mr. Lloyd George): I fear the hon. Member's suggestion could not be suitably carried out as part of a measure of contributory insurance.

    FEMALE CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. YOUNGERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state if any actuarial calculation has been made showing the approximate amount of the annual payments by female contributors under the National Insurance Bill, which would pass into the common fund on the marriage of those contributors?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the position of a female contributor on marriage. The premiums have been so calculated that the sum standing to her credit on marriage must be retained and accumulated to meet the contingent liability arising in case she re-enters insurance as a widow.

    MARRIAGE RISKS.
    Mr. YOUNGER: What about the marriage risk?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is one of the insurable risks.
    Mr. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the scheme before the House proposed by the Government in connection with the superannuation of female teachers the whole of the contribution is to be paid on marriage, and the only sum that accrues to the fund is the accumulated interest? Why cannot this principle be applied here?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am bound in a matter of this sort to take the advice of the actuaries, and their advice was certainly that we could not afford it. I can assure the hon. Member it was one of the questions I put to them. I thought it was very desirable if it could be done and at the same time retain sufficient in the fund for what might come upon it later on, say in widowhood. I found the actuaries very much opposed to it. They said it could not possibly be done without imposing a burden on the rest of the fund.
    Mr. YOUNGER: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the House the actuarial report on this matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not quite sure it is in the documents circulated already. If not, I can easily supplement it. It was made after careful inquiries.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that the unemployed, uninsured, invalid widow of an insured man is to be entitled to the invalid benefit under the National Insurance Bill, if he
    136
    will include in his scheme the invalid, uninsured, destitute widow of the uninsured husband?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing that the unemployed, uninsured, invalid widow of an insured man is entitled to disablement benefit, and, consequently, the question does not arise.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the National Insurance Bill will give the maternity benefit to the unemployed, uninsured, unmarried, mother of an insured man's child, as is the case with the unemployed, uninsured wife of an insured husband?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The reply is in the negative.
    Mr. ASTORasked whether maternity benefit under the National Insurance Bill includes and covers medical attendance?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The reply is in the affirmative.

    SURGICAL TREATMENT.
    Mr. ASTORasked whether it is proposed to include surgical treatment in the medical benefits to be given to persons insured under the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The present practice of the friendly societies is only to provide such surgical treatment of a minor nature as may be covered by their agreements with the doctors.
    Mr. ASTORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will say what is the annual cost of expenses of management in connection with the Caisse de Retraites in Belgium; what is the estimated cost of expenses of management in connection with the deposit contributors under the National Insurance Bill; and what percentage of the income does this cost of management represent in both cases?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Belgian Caisse de Retraites is a system of State-assisted old age pensions established in connection with the State Savings Bank, and does not include any provision for health insurance. It is, therefore, not comparable to Part I. of the National Insurance Bill. I cannot give any information as to the actual cost of administration of the Belgian system. The estimated cost of administration under the Bill is 4s. per annum for each person insured. It should be observed, however, that this is

    137
    merely the amount taken for the purpose of calculating the premiums, and that any saving thereon will be available for the benefit of the insured persons whether members of approved societies or deposit contributors.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether the research to be endowed with public money under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the National Insurance Bill will include vivisectional experiments in cutting, maiming, mutilating, electrically stimuating, baking, and inoculating living animals, or whether he will accept an Amendment confining such public endowment to methods of research which do not involve vivisection?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Insurance Commissioners, in whose discretion this matter would lie, will be responsible through the Treasury to Parliament for the administration of the Government Grant.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether it is intended that the Insurance Commissioners should be justified in accepting from an approved society, in lieu of the actual deposit of securities referred to in Section 20, Sub-section (3), of the National Insurance Bill, a bond given to the Commissioners by a fidelity guarantee corporation for the required amount?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The suggestion would under the Clause as drawn be one for consideration by the Insurance Commissioners. In some cases the method suggested would probably be a very suitable one, and it is by no means intended to rule it out.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether, in the case of stocks and funds inscribed in the names of the trustees of an approved society under the National Insurance Bill, it will be necessary to transfer them into the names of the Insurance Commissioners, or how otherwise it is proposed that they be deposited within the meaning of Section 20, Sub-section (3)?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The normal method of depositing inscribed or registered stock would be by transfer into the names of the Insurance Commissioners in the manner suggested in the question; but, if the hon. Member will refer to the Clause, he will see that considerable latitude is allowed for alternative arrangements, subject to the approval of the Commissioners.

    COLLECTION OF CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the machinery of the National Insurance Bill for the collection of contributions is modelled on the German scheme; if he is aware that the German organisation is founded on universal conscription and complete police supervision; and whether he will propose other means to collect arrears under this Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The contributions are collected by means of stamped cards, and arrears are recoverable from the employer in Germany as under the Bill. The process for recovery of arrears, however, is not the same under the Bill as under the German scheme, and the German system of contributions involving payments to three distinct funds is far more complicated than that adopted in the Bill. The system of administration through approved societies will make any Government organisation for identifying individuals quite unnecessary.
    Mr. BOOTH: May I ask for the second part of my question to be dealt with a little more specifically? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the German organisation and methods are founded on conscription and police supervision and police domiciliary visits?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I think my hon. Friend is incorrectly informed in regard to that. It really depends upon the action of the employers—upon the records and books that they keep. It is really a system of rechecking through the media of the employers and the cards presented by the employés.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a complete dossier in the possession of the German police, and that the German police officials regularly pay visits both to the employers and to private houses in order to see that the payments do not fall into arrear?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I do not.
    Captain CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in keeping so much to the German example in this matter, he will also follow the German example in having some tariffs?
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to follow German precedents in this matter, will he also follow them in the matter of Home Rule?
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to introduce modifications into the National Insurance Bill whereby the proposed benefits may be secured by a direct State guarantee, or if he proposes that employers should be forced to subscribe moneys to a fund outside their control, and without any certainty that their workmen will actually receive benefits to which in the course of time they become entitled?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am confident that, the provisions of the Bill, requiring frequent valuations and creating machinery for an early and effective dealing with any deficiency which may be revealed, will be sufficient to ensure the continuing soundness of the approved societies. A State guarantee, which would impair the sense of responsibility of the societies, would certainly not conduce to the effective working of the scheme. It might tend to encourage rather than check malingering.

    Unearned Incomes.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the number of Income Tax payers with incomes of £700 a year and under; and what is the amount collected from them under the heading of unearned income?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that I am unable to furnish the hon. Member with the information he desires.

    Friendly Societies (Ireland).
    Mr. HORNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could give the names and the approximate number of members in each of the societies, clubs, and unions in Ireland at present registered under the Friendly Societies Acts or under any other Act of Parliament having each over 5,000 members?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that precise particulars are not available.

    Finance Act, 1910.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that he now realises the effect on hotel proprietors of being called on to pay heavy licence duties in respect of stables, outbuildings, and stores, quite separate premises, he would give instructions to the Customs officers not to press for payment of licence duties in respect of such premises?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think there is any case for treating hotel-keepers more favourably in this respect than any other class of licensee.
    Mr. ROYDSasked whether on a transfer on sale being an occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes chargeable under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, a new valuation of the land will be made by the Commissioners; and, if so, under what authority?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have nothing to add to my reply of the 17th instant which explained the nature of and authority for the valuations which are to be made on the occasion of a sale.
    Mr. ROYDS: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has not yet given the authority for making the new valuation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman has any further question I had rather that he put it down. It refers to a matter of legal interpretation, and I do not like to give an answer without consideration.
    Mr. ROYDS: I have asked the question three times.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the assessable site value of land where the fences are live fences will, in consequence of the statutory deduction, necessarily be fixed lower than in the case of precisely similar land where the fences are stone walls or dykes, for which no deduction will be made; and if he will explain why the site values of land of precisely the same actual value are to be valued for the purposes of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, at different values?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. Even if dykes and stone walls do not receive the same treatment as live fences, I do not propose an Amendment, which would be prejudicial to the taxpayer, as explained by me on the 17th instant.
    Mr. ROYDS: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer fairly the latter part of my question as to why the value should be different?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is exactly what I answered on the 17th instant. If

    141
    there is any alteration made it is an alteration which will not be to the detriment of the Treasury, but quite the reverse. If the hon. Gentleman really wants an alteration which will injuriously and prejudicially affect the taxpayer, if he puts down an Amendment to the Finance Bill it will be open to consideration. It is not for me to object to receive more taxes.

    Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Agricultural Holdings).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the hon. Member for the Doncaster Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if he will state what was the total amount of agricultural land belonging to the Commission; and what portion of it was let in holdings of 50 acres or less in the years 1904, 1907, and 1910, respectively, with the percentage in each case?
    Mr. CHARLES NICHOLSON: The area of the Commissioners' agricultural land in possession in the years 1904, 1907, and 1910, respectively, was 252,000 acres, 254,500 acres, and 253,700 acres. The area let in holdings of 50 acres and under in the same years (including lettings to councils and associations for small holdings and allotments) was 24,950 acres, 25,450 acres, and 27,650 acres respectively, the corresponding percentages being 9.9 per cent. in 1904, 10 per cent. in 1907, and 10.9 per cent. in the year 1910. Since 1907, about 900 acres also have been sold by the Commissioners to county councils for small holdings.

    British Vessels (Chinese Crews).
    Mr. BRACEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of British vessels which have signed on Chinese crews at Barry Docks since 1911; the respective positions filled by Chinese upon these vessels; whether they passed the language test, and the number rejected because they failed to do so at this port since the above date; what food scale they were placed upon, British or Chinese; and what action is he taking to discourage the employment of Chinese upon British vessels?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): The number of British vessels which signed on Chinese crews at Barry in the period 1st April to 18th May, 1911, inclusive was 22, and the total number of Chinese engaged was 345. Of these 46 belonged to the stewards' department, 82
    142
    to the sailors', and 217 to the engine-room department. All the Chinese who signed agreements in the presence of a superintendent passed the language test, and 79 Chinese in all were rejected as having an insufficient knowledge of the English language. There are no legal restrictions on the employment of foreign seamen in British ships beyond that imposed by Section 12 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, which requires that a foreign seaman engaged at a port in the United Kingdom or on the Continent within home trade limits shall possess a sufficient knowledge of the English language to understand the necessary orders which may be given to him in the course of the performance of his duties. I have given instructions that this requirement is to be strictly enforced.

    Workmen's Compensation Act (Glamorganshire Cases).
    Mr. BRACEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of cases tried by His Honour Judge Bryn Roberts, county court judge for Glamorganshire, under the Workmen's Compensation Act; the number of cases in which judgment was given in favour of the workmen; the number in which judgment was given in favour of the employers; and what number of decisions were appealed against, and the result of such appeals?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): The number of cases disposed of in the three years 1908 to 1910 was 935; number of judgments for the workmen, 750; for the employer, 185; number of appeals, 19, of which four were abandoned, eight resulted in the judgment being affirmed, and seven resulted in the judgment being reversed.

    Coronation.
    Viscount WOLMERasked whether on the occasion of the funeral of King Edward VII. many of the police on duty suffered seriously from want of food, and even from lack of any water for many hours; and whether he has taken steps to secure that more attention shall be paid to this subject at the forthcoming Coronation, so that unnecessary suffering may be obviated by improved arrangements?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Attention is being given to the question of adequate food being available for all police on duty at

    143
    the Coronation festivities. If on the occasion of King Edward's funeral any police officer suffered seriously from want of food it could only have been through his own disregard of the advice given him to take food with him.

    Scottish Deputies-Lieutenant.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked if the number of deputies-lieutenant in any one county in Scotland is limited; whether a deputy-lieutenant has to have certain qualifications before appointment; whether, after appointment, though he may cease to hold these qualifications or may be living permanently abroad, he may still retain the office and prevent a successor being appointed; and whether he will make representations to the proper quarter in order that this arrangement, which may be prejudicial to good local administration, may cease?
    Colonel SEELY: The number of deputy-lieutenants in each county is limited. A deputy-lieutenant must, on appointment, be resident in the county, must be qualified by military service as a commissioned officer or by service in a county association, and under Section 33, Militia Act, 1882, must have certain property qualifications. Residence abroad subsequent to appointment does not create statutory disqualification. The loss of the qualifications under Section 33 would render a deputy-lieutenant liable to the penalties under Section 35, and to subsequent removal under Section 30 (4). The Crown always has power under Section 30 (4) to order the displacement of a deputy-lieutenant for any sufficient reason.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Would it be a sufficient reason if the deputy-lieutenant was living abroad?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not know whether that would be regarded as a sufficient reason. Perhaps the Noble Lord would put down a direct question upon the point. It would be necessary to consult legal authorities before replying.

    Houndsditch Affray (Cost to the Public).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he would state what was the estimated cost to the public, including the actual fees paid to the counsel who appeared on behalf of the Treasury, in connection with the various inquests on the persons who were killed during the recent shooting affray in
    144
    Houndsditch, and the magisterial inquiry and trial of the persons alleged to have been implicated in the attempted burglary at the shop of Mr. Harris?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The total fees payable to counsel who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions at the various inquests and at the magisterial inquiry and trial amount to £738 10s. 6d., and miscellaneous expenses amounting to £69 19s. 7d. have also been incurred. It is impossible to estimate even approximately the total cost that will ultimately fall on public funds, including, as it will, allowances made to witnesses attending at the various coroners' inquests, the magisterial inquiry, and the trial at the Central Criminal Court, and also, probably, the costs of an appeal.

    Castle of York Records.
    Viscount HELMSLEYasked whether, in the month of February last two van-loads of records were removed from the Castle of York to London; by whose authority and for what purpose were they removed; of what do the records in question consist; and whether they are of a, national or local character, or both?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Two van-loads of records were removed in March last from York Castle to the Public Record Office under the authority of the Public Record Act (1 and 2 Viet., c. 94, Section 3) by warrant of the Master of the Rolls countersigned by the Lord Chancellor. They consisted of the records of the old undivided Northern Circuit and the modern North-Eastern Circuit of an earlier date than 1890. The question as to their local or national character is one of opinion.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the records be examined with and such portions of them as are valuable published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I shall make inquiries and communicate with the hon. and learned Member.

    Telegraphic Communication (Great Britain and Norway).
    Mr. POINTERasked the Postmaster-General whether an agreement exists between His Majesty's Government and the Great Northern Telegraph Company regarding the leasing of the rights of the inter-state monopoly of telegraphic com-

    145
    munication between Great Britain and Norway; and, if so, whether he will lay the terms of the agreement upon the Table of the House?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The arrangement under which the Great Northern Telegraph Company works the Anglo-Norwegian Telegraph Service in the United Kingdom on behalf of the Post Office has not yet been embodied in a formal agreement.

    Swine Fever.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether it is proposed, as recommended by the Departmental Committee on Swine Fever, to accelerate the extirpation of this disease by compelling the slaughter, with compensation, of all swine who have been exposed to contagion; and whether it is proposed to extend the validity of licences for movement beyond the period for which they are now available?
    Mr. C. BATHURSTalso asked whether, in view of the interference with the pig-breeding industry which has resulted from the past policy of the Board in reference to the size of infected swine-fever areas and the opinion definitely expressed in paragraph 57 of the recently-issued Report of the Departmental Committee that the size of the areas should be kept as small as possible, the Board propose to alter their administrative policy in this respect?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): Full consideration will be given to the Report and recommendations made by the Committee.

    House of Commons (Lift Attendant).
    Mr. PARKERasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether it is intended to give the post of lift attendant in the House of Commons now vacant to a person from outside; or whether the post is to be given to one of the present staff, who by custom are entitled to such promotion?
    The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): This post is still unfilled. I am informed that there is not a constant practice as to such appointments being made from the staff. The matter is yet under consideration.

    Immingham New Docks.
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the new docks at Immingham will take in ships of the "Dreadnought" type when completed; if the Admiralty was approached on the subject of the enlargement of these docks; and, if so, what was the result?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, negotiations were opened on this matter, but they fell through.
    Mr. FELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the reasons why these negotiations fell through?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid the short reason is that the terms proposed to the Admiralty were such as the Admiralty would not be justified in accepting.

    "Hercules" at Hebburn-on-Tyne Dock.
    Mr. FELLasked if the "Hercules" had to be lightened to any, and what, extent before she could enter the dock at Hebburn-on-Tyne; and if ships of her draught can only enter this dock at spring tides?
    Mr. McKENNA: As the "Hercules" at the time was at a lighter draught than corresponds to the Navy List displacement, she was not specially lightened before entering the clock at Hebburn-on Tyne. Vessels of the draught of the "Hercules" can only enter this dock at spring tides.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the reason for withdrawing an old age pension from Mathew Kearney, of Doniel, Moyvore, Mullingar, county Westmeath, seeing that he is seventy-seven years of age, and that he was in receipt of a pension from January, 1909, till February, 1911?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Board allowed a question raised by the Pension Officer on the ground that Mathew Kearney's means exceeded the statutory limit.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. HAYDENasked the date upon which agreements between the landlord and tenants on the Biron estate, situated

    147
    at Brideswell, near Athlone, in county Roscommon, were lodged with the Estates Commissioners; and if he can explain the cause of the delay in having the holdings vested in the occupiers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: There were no agreements between landlords and tenants lodged in this case. This estate was the subject of proceedings in the Land Judge's Court, and was purchased by the Estates Commissioners from the Land Judge in 1906. It was a congested estate, and the holdings were intermixed, and the Commissioners proposed to prepare a scheme for rearranging the holdings before vesting them in the tenants, who, however, would not consent to this being done, and the Commissioners postponed the vesting of the holdings until the tenants would agree to the restriping of the lands.
    Mr. DORISasked whether any offer has yet been made by the Congested Districts Board for the Hunter estate, situate at Cloontubrid, Turlough, county Mayo; whether the agent and solicitors of the estate intimated to the Board in February last the owners' willingness to sell; whether the average valuation of the tenants' holdings is £3 2s. 6d.; whether the tenants are now processed for rent; and whether, having regard to the congested condition of the estate and the impoverished state of the tenants, the Board will endeavour to acquire the property forthwith?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No offer has yet been made by the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of this estate. A memorial was received from the tenants in 1910 in which the valuation of the holdings as stated was given. The Board communicated with the agent and asked whether the owner was willing to negotiate for the sale of the estate, but no reply has been received. I have no information as to the tenants being processed for rent. The Board will again communicate with the agent.
    Mr. DORISasked whether he is aware that Mr. D. G. Fitzgerald, Turlough Park, county Mayo, has offered his estates to the Congested Districts Board for sale; that the tenants sent two memorials to the Board requesting them to purchase the estates, one in 1905 and the other in March, 1910; and, as negotiations for the sale of these estates have been carried on between landlord and tenants for the last six years, will the Board now proceed to
    148
    have the property valued, with a view to purchase as soon as possible?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Mr. Fitzgerald has offered his estate to the Congested Districts Board, and an inspection of it will be made and a decision arrived at regarding its purchase as soon as practicable. Memorials from the tenants requesting the Board to purchase the estate were received in December, 1909; January and February, 1910.

    West's Gifts (Christ's Hospital).
    Mr. MOUNTasked the President of the Board of Education if, before final steps are taken to make operative the scheme dealing with West's Gifts at Christ's Hospital, he will arrange that the local education authority of Newbury shall have reasonable opportunities of considering the proposals with a view to submitting to the Department such amendments as they may think desirable?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The amending scheme for West's Gifts has been under discussion for some years, and the Newbury Local Education Authority, in common with all other parties concerned, have been given the fullest opportunities for making representations and suggestions as to the terms of the scheme. The scheme has been revised from time to time after consideration of the various suggestions received. It cannot become law until it has received the approval of His Majesty in Council, but I think that the time has now come when the matter should be brought to a conclusion so far as the Board are concerned and that no useful purpose would be served by further delay.
    Mr. MOUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman know the local authority has not yet seen the final scheme?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have had some representations from Newbury, but all the points raised had previously been considered and disposed of from time to time. If they have not seen the final scheme perhaps the hon. Gentleman would let me know.
    Mr. MOUNT: If they have not seen the final scheme will he give further consideration to their views?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall not promise any further consideration upon the point. It has been dragging on for years, and all

    149
    the parties concerned made the fullest consideration. We must bring it to a final conclusion.

    Foxe's "Book of Martyrs."
    Sir GEORGE WHITEasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the proposed sale by the committee of the Bedford Literary Institute of Foxe's "Book of Martyrs," which was formerly in the possession of John Bunyan during his imprisonment; and whether, the book having been purchased, by public subscription, in 1841 and deposited in the Bedford Library as a sacred trust, any steps will be taken to prevent such action?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I am informed that the Bedford Literary and Scientific Institute is a purely private association, and that the book in question was purchased by some of the members thereof from the general funds of the library, and is the absolute property of the members of the library. In these circumstances and in the absence of any other information, it does not appear to be open to me to take any action on behalf of the public in the matter. If, however, the hon. Member has any further information I shall be pleased to consider it if submitted to me.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: As this book is a unique memorial of one of the greatest of Englishmen, and therefore much more of a national treasure than Holbein's "Duchess" or Velasquez's "Venus," towards the purchase of which the Government contributed, will the Government take similar action in this case to prevent the book going abroad?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am afraid that question does not arise in my Department.

    Sheriff Court Bill.
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the Lord Advocate whether, in the new Sheriff Court Bill, he is prepared to introduce a clause to prevent employers, during a strike or a lock-out at a colliery, ejecting their employés from dwelling-houses let by the employers to the employés?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the negative. As he is probably aware, the question whether the Sheriff Courts Act of 1907 has altered the position in which tenants were placed by the Act of
    150
    1838 is at present under consideration in an action in the Court of Session. And until judgment has been given I am not in a position to say whether any legislation in the matter referred to in the question is necessary.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether an Amendment to this effect was moved to the House Letting Bill and rejected?
    Mr. URE: No, Sir. It was upon a different question.

    Justices of the Peace (Scotland).
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will recommend that justices of the peace in Scotland should be held for a term of years only, but subject to reappointment, and that residence outside of the district for more than one year should cause the appointment to lapse?
    Mr. URE: I am informed that the Lord Chancellor will consider, when the system of Committees has got to work, whether it is desirable to appoint justices of the peace for a term of years only. The removal of justices from the Commission when they have ceased to reside within the county is recommended by the Royal Commission, and this will be specially brought to the attention of the Advisory Committees when their snore pressing duties are over.

DORMANT BANK BALANCES AND UNCLAIMED SECURITIES.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask for leave to introduce a Bill "to provide for the periodical Return of all Dormant Balances and Unclaimed Securities in the hands of Bankers, and for the handing over of the same to the Public Trustee."
The apology which I offer to the House for asking leave to introduce this Bill is the same as that which I offered on a previous occasion—namely, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking out for money, and I submit that this Bill provides a new source of revenue. The case for this Bill is unanswerable. The magnitude of these Funds has not been fully realised. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking for hen-roosts, and I ask him to come down with me into the vaults and cellars of the various banks and rummage amongst the ledgers and other things

151
concealed there, and I pledge myself to discover for him a series of roosts full not only of golden eggs but eggs of precious stones. My Bill is based upon this theory: The United Kingdom having been the home of banking for many years, it follows that in the long series of years since banking was instituted there has accumulated an enormous hoard of balances of dormant accounts and an enormous quantity of unclaimed securities, in reference to which there is a vast amount of money in their hands in respect of bank notes which have never been presented, and in all human probability will not be presented. People die intestate, men go out to war and lose their lives, testators do not give particulars where their money is left, depositors become forgetful and neglect particulars of their accounts, and it is quite impossible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the amount of these funds. A member of the Bankers' Institute has estimated them at something between £11,000,000 and £12,000,000, but I have estimated them at a great deal more. I know it is very difficult to get at the actual amount. When the Glasgow Bank failed the sum of £40,000 was unexpectedly discovered as unclaimed dormant balances, and there have been other discoveries of this kind since.
One may read in the newspapers every day that committees organising Coronation funds and other festivities find there are still considerable dormant balances in the hands of various bankers in connection with the Coronation of King Edward VII. Local authorities are constantly discovering dormant balances in regard to old accounts. I could mention cases of private banks, on being taken over by joint stock banks where they have expressly excluded from the transfer vast sums admittedly in their hands, amounting to some millions, in respect of dormant balances and unclaimed securities, and those securities remain in their hands to-day. There are a great many of these cases. Within recent years we have experienced the loss of two submarines. The officers have stated on oath that, to their knowledge, their sons who lost their lives had sums of money in the bank to their credit, and no banker will enlighten them as to whether they possess those sums to their credit. I know of one case where there is a sum of £28,000 in a well-known joint-stock bank, the name of which I am prepared to give. A man used to come every year, draw out the whole £28,000, count it,
152
examine it, and, being assured of its safety, pay it back again, and leave the bank. The person to whom it belongs has not been heard of for a great many years. There was an old lady with £9,000 in her possession, who was ultimately taken to the asylum, and she said that she had many thousands in various banks, the names of which she could not remember.
I have obtained a return of the sums in the hands of some of the Colonial Governments who have anticipated the Mother country in this matter by requiring such dormant balances to be returned. It is said that there is not much in this question. May I remind the House that the last volume issued by the Dominion Government of Canada of unclaimed balances contains 800 pages, and although I cannot give the exact amount, there are thousands and thousands of cases in which people have balances standing to their credit. If we compare Canada with a country like England it is not difficult to imagine that an immense sum is involved. New Zealand has £16,000 in hand, South Australia £14,000, and the Cape of Good Hope has a few thousand pounds; and even the Transvaal, the Orange River Colony, the East African Protectorate, and Nyassaland have various sums which have accumulated in this way. I ask the House just for one moment to reflect with me how it is that our banking institutions can be constantly erecting these palatial buildings and maintaining such enormous and expensive staffs if it is not done out of the profits obtained otherwise than by legitimate banking. It is notorious that there are secret reserves in the accounts of all our bankers, and they hide from public view these immense sums to which they have no legal claim.
One hon. Member of this House has told me that after being defeated at an election he went to the constituency which he originally represented ten years ago. He went to open an election account, and he found that over £100 was still standing to his credit in reference to the previous election. Another right hon. Gentleman came to me a day or two ago and said, "My dear Bottomley, I shall vote for your Bill because you have enabled me to discover a considerable sum which stood to my credit. "It is not only dormant balances which my Bill contemplates, but also unclaimed securities. There are in the possession of hankers enormous quantities of securities of various kinds to which they have no legal title. There are boxes containing wonderful collections of valuable

153
jewels and other things. Ask Messrs. Coutts and Co. what happened when they were removing some of these boxes recently to their new premises. It is not only unclaimed securities I want to deal with, but also unpaid bank-notes. Every year the Bank of England appropriates to its own use some £11,000 in respect of bank-notes forty years old and upwards. It is a monstrous thing that they should be allowed to take such sums as £11,000 a year in that way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may turn up his nose at £11,000, but that sum will feed a good many poor people. Why do we not take these securities and balances. Why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer so easily misled in this matter? He said that he had consulted the bankers, and he had found that there was not much in it. I am thinking of designing another stained-glass window representing the Soul of Candour divulging the truth to the Spirit of Simplicity. The idea is a policeman leading a burglar in the middle of the night, with a bag on his shoulder, and taking his word as to what it contains. I do not know why the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not take this up. He seems to think he must keep friendly with the bankers or the whole credit of the country will be gone, whereas there is not a loan which this country could not take up without the bankers. There is one thing to which this Bill does not apply. It does not apply to dormant overdrafts. I mention that because a Noble Lord told me the other day that an Amendment might be introduced to that effect, and that was his only interest in the measure. This Bill has been brought before the House on a good many occasions, and whenever there have been divisions Members of all parties have voted for it, Members on both Front Benches, and I am glad to say they included the present President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Buxton). I hope ho will use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get some inquiry into this matter. Last April the Prime Minister promised me—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has almost overdrawn his balance on the time of the House.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I thought I had a little in hand, but you, Sir, have a better view of the clock than I have. Last Session the Prime Minister promised that if he was satisfied it was the general desire of Members of this House he would consider the appointment of a Committee. I
154
obtained just over 300 signatures before the General Election, and in the hope that the Prime Minister still entertains that idea, I beg to move.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bottomley, Sir Henry Dalziel, Mr. Fen-wick, Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart, Mr. Llewelyn Williams, Mr. Burgoyne, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Jowett, Mr. John Ward, and Mr. Condon. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, 2nd June, and to be printed.

SUPPLY.— [9th Allotted Day.]
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.— [9th Allotted Day.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1911–12.— [CLASS IV.]

    PUBLIC EDUCATION, IRELAND.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,053,324, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in. course of payment, during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1912, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, including a Grant in Aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland."—[Note.—£600,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. DILLON: I beg to move to reduce Sub-head A (Salaries and Wages) by £100.
    The difficulties with which an Irish Member approaches the question of Irish education on a Vote of Supply are very great. I have always held, and I think it is the accepted principle in all civilised countries, that education ought to be treated as a whole. In this country and when we are dealing with Scotch education that is the fact, but in Ireland education is carried out in watertight compartments under boards or departments, which are not only independent of each other and of public opinion in Ireland, but which, except to a very limited degree, are entirely independent of this House also. That is not all, because not only are these boards and departments independent of each other and of public opinion in Ireland, but not infrequently they work with a great deal of friction, and, at all events, are by no means always in harmony with each other.

    155
    Ireland is peculiarly and unfortunately situated in this matter of education. I have observed the systems of education prevailing in many countries, and, if you consider this matter and try to classify the different systems of education in civilized countries, you will find they will fall under three heads. You have the system of education with purely local control, such as prevails in the United States of America; you have the system, such as prevails in France, of a purely centralised control; and you have the mixed system of a local control modified by a central control, such as you have in this country, but in Ireland we have a system which has no analogy in any civilised country. I think I may say it enjoys all the disadvantages of all the three systems to which I have alluded, and hardly any of the advantages of any of them. When the Minister responsible for education in England or Scotland rises to address this House, as he generally does to open the Debate on this question, he can take a broad survey of the whole subject and generally take a very hopeful and optimistic view of the progress of education. In this connection, I really must ask the House to let me read a very remarkable paragraph from the last report of the National Education Commissioners of Ireland on this subject:—
    "The English Minister, speaking in Parliament on behalf of the English Board of Education and reviewing the educational progress of the year, is able to point to a large increase of grants consequent on the ever-widening range of the activities of his Department, to discourse at length on the ruralising of elementary education in the country districts of England and the spread of agricultural instruction through evening schools and school gardens connected with primary schools, and to discuss the beneficial effects of State instituted medical inspection of school children and increased facilities for physical exercises and training in domestic economy.
    "In Ireland we are, we trust, fully alive to the importance and advantages of such modern developments of educational effort; but our demands for the necessary financial assistance for proposals of a simpler and more obvious kind have hitherto been met with curt refusal. For seven years we have urged on the Treasury the necessity of making grants for the instituting of higher grade national schools. In England and Scotland, such schools form a most important feature of primary education; in France and Germany, similiar institutions have been in existence for many years. The necessity for these schools is not less, but greater, in Ireland, and the foundation of the national university and the opportunities of higher education thus presented to classes of the people hitherto without these advantages will tend irresistibly to increase the need. Similarly we have sought permission to encourage the clever pupils of our schools by throwing open to their competition a number of county scholarships. Both these appeals have been refused."
    And so they go on to say they have asked for means to carry on gardening instruction and other matters. I think that is un-
    156
    impeachable authority, and is a statement which really ought to affect the Irish Government and this House with great force, and ought to impress upon them that the time has at last come when some reparation ought to be made to Ireland for the shocking discrimination under which her people have suffered in this matter of education. We, in contrast with the English Minister of Education and Members of this House who take an interest in that subject, are confined by rules of Order to discuss this matter in watertight compartments. The branch of the subject to which I particularly wish to draw attention is that of primary education. We can only deal with any other branch of education in Ireland so far as it arises by direct connection with the subject of this day's Debate. I may say, before I depart from the general statement of our difficulties, that Ireland is peculiarly and unfortunately situated in this respect. We have no less than three independent hoards, as well as the Department, all dealing with primary and secondary education. They overlap, they cross each other, they lead to a waste of money and to friction. We have now, for years, up to the present year, been prohibited from ever having a full and free discussion on the important questions of secondary education in Ireland, by the rules of this House. The system of secondary education which has been in operation in Ireland for thirty years has done enormous mischief as well as some good. It is fundamentally a bad system; we have never been able to discuss its difficulties in the House of Commons; had that been possible I believe that long ago we should have applied some remedy.
    First of all, coming to the particular question to which we are confined tonight, I wish to say a few words by way of general survey of a question which I may describe as the financial grievance under which primary education is conducted in Ireland, as contrasted with the provision made for it in Great Britain. I do not propose to go into the details of this question, as that would take too long a time. I will only state the case we are prepared to maintain before any Committee of Inquiry. I have a very wide field to cover. It is a case, however, which has been frequently brought before the House. In the financial year 1909–10 Ireland received from Imperial funds, for primary education, £1,621,000. Scotland received—and I am making the comparison with Scotland because it is in somewhat the

    157
    same position as Ireland, £2,147,000. Had Ireland received a grant on the Scottish scale in proportion to population the Irish Vote would have been more than £300,000 in excess of the amount actually received. This question of the basis on which the grant for education should be given to the various component parts of the United Kingdom has been long a subject of Debate; it constitutes a most curious history, so far as it has proceeded, since the system was first set up by Mr. Goschen. After a great deal of time it was settled by the Conservative Government that the Grant should be distributed on the basis of population. I confess I think that is a wise plan. The equivalent grant of 1903, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) was in proportion to population, and that principle has never been departed from in theory since. But in practice, if the Irish Grant had been based on the proportion of population of the two countries, as compared with Scotland we should have received £300,000 more than we did.
    Let me say a word with regard to rates. This is a point which has been frequently raised in these Debates. The Treasury say, "We decline to consider your claim for any more money for education in Ireland, because you make no contribution to the rates." I have more than once explained how it comes about that Ireland makes no contribution to the rates. It must be accepted as an element of the financial position in Ireland—and here I am only emphasising what I said the other day—that no Irish Government and no Irish Secretary has ever undertaken, as a result of examining this question, to propose that Ireland should be made to contribute from the rates towards the cost of primary or secondary education. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury the other day, to my amazement repeated a statement which I have exploded over and over again—that we are asking for some equivalent from the Imperial Treasury to take the place of the rates, and to make up to Irish education the loss we suffer from not getting any contribution from the Irish rates. That is not true. We have never made any such demand; it would be an unfair and unreasonable demand. But the demand we have made, and I think every Member of the House will admit that it is a reasonable demand, it that we should not be penalised because Irish education gets no support from the rates, and that we should get our fair proportion of the Imperial Grant.
    158
    4.0 P.M.
    Let me give one or two figures to show the extent of the loss which Irish education suffers, even supposing we get the whole of our full proportion of what we are entitled to from the Imperial Grant. Let me compare figures which I think have never before been put before the House. With regard to both the Scottish Education Department and the Irish Education Department I think this House owes some reparation. There is no doubt that Irish education has been exterminated, or, rather, penalised generally by the English Government. They have been treated worse than the rest of the people of the United Kingdom, and through no fault of their own. At one time it was made penal to educate the children at all so long as they were Catholics, but when we had got a system of national education it was bound up with a system which was intended to denationalise Ireland, and to convert the children from the Catholic to the Protestant faith. It was anti-popular; the idea was to denationalise, to banish the language of the country, and to get rid of the national spirit from the schools. Bearing those facts in mind, let me compare the Scotch Educational Budget with the Irish Education Vote. I take the last Report of the Scotch Education Committee. The total income of the Scotch Education Department from all sources was £3,852,000 per annum. In this I have credited the loans amounting to £327,000, and I think for purposes of a comparison it conceivably might be argued that that item ought to go out. That would result in roughly £3,500,000 of income to the Scotch Board. In regard to the expenditure I shall only give one item, namely, the salaries of teachers, including retiring allowances, and that amounts to £2,167,000. Let me compare that with the Irish Budget. The total receipts from all sources there are £1,660,000 as against £3,500,000. I am not quite sure whether for the purpose of a fair comparison the total income of the Irish Primary Education Commissioners ought not to be supplemented by the total income of the Intermediate Board, because I think that in Scotland the intermediate and primary education are consolidated. The total income of the Intermediate Board is, £76,000, and adding that to the other figure we have a total of £1,736,000, and that is the sum on which we have to run our whole educational system, as against £3,500,000 for Scotland, and that refers to some time ago—the year before last. The

    159
    items representing payments to the teaching staff of the primary schools in Ireland amount to £1,432,000 as compared with the figure of Scotland of £2,167,000. I leave these figures to speak for themselves. They really do not need any comment, and I think every one will admit that Ireland is still greatly penalised and distinguished against with regard to education.
    Let me turn to the estimates of the present year, and certainly one would imagine that if there was any idea of justice in this matter the Irish Estimates would show a very large increase, especially as we have for the last three years put before the Government burning and urgent grievances which can be remedied by a very moderate payment. At any rate the proportion of Irish increase should be greater than that of England and Scotland. Taking the estimates for the year 1911–12, however, the estimates for England for education show a net increase of £310,840. For Scotland there is a net increase of £82,869, and for Ireland a net decrease of £3,533. That appears to me on the very face of it to make out an overwhelming case for consideration in regard to Irish Education in all Departments, even if there did not exist this really great burden of responsibility and duty upon the people of this country to make some reparation for the long and lasting injury which has in past years been inflicted upon Ireland—an injury which is not only historical, but the facts of which are easily manifest to anybody who travels around the country and studies the social conditions of Ireland which are the result of the long war which the Government of this country carried on against Irish education. I turn to the specific grievances which I desire to impress upon the notice of the Chief Secretary, and in respect to which I really think we are entitled to make a most urgent demand for an immediate reparation. Before, however, going to those grievances, as to which I confidently hope for an immediate remedy, there are two larger subjects in regard to which I should like to say a few words.
    The first of these is the general system of education administration in Ireland, the treatment of the Irish language and the history of Ireland and the general spirit in which the schools are run. I desire to renew the protest which has been made frequently from these benches, and to say that in my deliberate judgment
    160
    until there is a complete revolution in the control and management of the Irish national system of teaching it is impossible to secure the confidence of the people. Under the present system you have a nominated board, responsible to no one. The principle upon which nominations are made to that board are very well known to the Chief Secretary, and I am sure he will not defend them, although he is the unwilling instrument of this extraordinary system. You have a nominated board, three-quarters of the members of which have no knowledge of education and who have other occupations in life which make it impossible for them even to study these matters and pay sufficient attention to them. It is a board responsible to no one. It sets the Government and popular feeling alike at defiance, and, in point of fact, it is the most anomalous institution than I have ever seen or heard of. But I do not press that particular matter as urgent at the present moment, because it may, and I hope it will be, one of the first tasks of the Irish Government to reorganise the whole system, and I am sure I will not blame the Chief Secretary if he should desire to put that task upon such a body. It would be by no means an easy task for the English Government. The second large subject, which I do not press as a subject for immediate action, is the working of the new system of grading of National teachers which was introduced in the year 1900. It was a complete revolution of the whole teaching staff in the National schools. Up to 1900 the Irish teachers were of three classes, and that was the system which we knew in the days of our youth. Although it was open to criticism, I think it was a very good one, and under that system an ambitious teacher could get rapid promotion. Above all, it meant he was teaching in the small country school with forty or fifty students in average attendance—a class which includes four-fifths of the Irish school—and he could get to the top of his profession.
    It was of the utmost importance to Ireland that these country schools should have first-class masters and attract first-class men, and I was always opposed to the grading system. We have had ten years of it, and what has been the result? I will not go into it at length, because do not press the Chief Secretary to deal with it at once. The effect has been that under the grading system no small school can have a first-class master. In Ireland, which is mainly a country of rural schools, and where the rural school outnumbers the

    161
    urban school by four to one, and where the education of the people is necessarily carried on in classes with under fifty in average attendance, for all futurity under the grading system you must in those schools have inferior masters because no one can get on unless he teaches in a school with 120 scholars, and he is kept in one of the lower grades if he is kept in a small school. I maintain, however, that a man who conducts a small school without assistance requires to be a tip-top teacher, and the man who attends such schools should not be a second-rate teacher. Every good man tries to escape from them under the present system, and if he fails to escape he has no ambition and no career, and, in my opinion, this system is exercising a deadening and dulling effect upon the whole body of the teachers in Ireland, and ought to be swept away. It is a system utterly unsuited to the social conditions of Ireland under which the small rural schools are sacrificed to the great city schools, and the bulk of the population of Ireland are deprived of really efficient teachers. I do not pretend for a moment that that subject can be dealt with by the Chief Secretary at present. I think it must form the subject of inquiry and a real and complete reorganisation. But in connection with it there are two minor points which I would strongly urge upon the Chief Secretary he ought to take into account immediately.
    The first is the case of these ungraded teachers, which is a very sad one. They were the teachers who were in the service in 1900, when the new system came into force. There was a great deal of discussion on the matter at the time, and a promise was given to these men, and even put into print by the Minister of the day and the Board, that no teacher would be be damnified who was subjected to change under the system. The teachers understood that they would not be damnified in their prospects. They did not take it that they would not have their salaries there and then reduced, but they took it to mean that they would have as good a career and as good prospects under the new system as under the old. A great deal of difference of opinion has arisen as to the interpretation of this promise, with the result that a large body of men, numbering over 3,000, have come to be known in Ireland as ungraded teachers. They think that they have been degraded, and have lost entirely the anticipation of an increase of position and of salary in accordance with the importance of their
    162
    task. And not only have they lost the anticipation of an increase of salary, but men who are of the very first class and at the top of their profession have been placed in the second, and others of the second and first class have been placed in the third grade because they were unable to obtain schools with a large average attendance. I think that is an extremely cruel and unjust condition of things. Here are 3,600 National teachers who were affected in this manner in the year 1900. The rank in the previous years was determined, not by the number of scholars or money earned, but by merit. In that year the rank was no longer determined by merit or previous record, but by the money-producing capacity of the school, and hence third and second class teachers, who had been in charge of large schools, were put into first of first and second of first grade; while those of first of first and second of first class standing, who had unfortunately been in charge of small schools, were degraded and placed in the second and even in the third grade.
    I think it is monstrous, but I will content myself with giving one or two instances which show the effect of this system upon the teachers. In the first case the teacher was classed second of first class and he is now in the third grade; his consolidated salary in 1900 was £84, exclusive of capitation, and now it is £56 a year, including capitation and Birrell Grant, whereas if the old system had prevailed it would have been at least £120. In case two, the teacher was first in the first class in 1898 and for three years he had been at the head of his profession. His present grade is third, and his present salary £77, but had the old system continued he would have had at least £139 a year. Case three, second and first since 1900, second grade, salary now £85, would have been under the old system at least £105. These are only a few of the cases which have been sent to me, and I am informed that this grievance applies to about 3,000 teachers. In regard to this particular grievance, and also to the grievance of what are known as intermediate teachers, which is somewhat similar, there ought to be an independent inquiry. There is a dispute as to the reality and the extent of this grievance, which has been going on for some years between the teachers and the Board of Education, and. I think, in common justice, in view of the strength of the case made out by the teachers, an independent inquiry ought to be instituted as to the promises made and

    163
    as to the real grievance suffered by these teachers, and justice ought to be done. As regards these under-graded teachers and what are known as the transition teachers, a similar class, who have suffered the same grievance, I would ask for an independent inquiry to be instituted.
    There is one other matter which is of great importance and which involves no demand upon the Treasury, and one would suppose that that would facilitate a settlement. It is the question of the civil rights of the teachers in Ireland. This is a very singular question. A rule is enforced by this irresponsible Board in Ireland depriving Irish teachers of certain rights as citizens which are enjoyed to the full by the teachers of Scotland and England. As I understand, the Chief Secretary and the Irish Government are strongly of opinion that the teachers ought to obtain these rights. The Chief Secretary is with us in this matter and has stated so publicly; the Irish Government is with us and the clerical managers, a very important body in connection with Irish education, are of the same opinion all over the country. As a matter of fact, I am convinced that the teachers are continually attending meetings and making speeches, which under this rule involves dismissal, but so strong is public opinion in Ireland that the Board are rather afraid to enforce the rule. I do not think anything can be more objectionable than to have a rule which is so indefensible that you are afraid to enforce it for fear of arousing public opinion. I do not myself quite understand where the obstruction comes from that interferes with this matter of civil rights. The Chief Secretary, two years ago, declared himself in entire sympathy with the demand, and I therefore hope we shall be able to hear presently that this absurd discrimination against the Irish teachers will be removed. I do not myself think, I never have thought, it is a desirable thing for school teachers to take an active part in politics or to be acting on public Boards. But the proper remedy to apply to that is public opinion. I believe if you leave the teachers free the general sentiment of the country will operate and their own interests will prevent them taking an active part in politics because it will not suit them, and therefore I do not think there is any necessity for this rule at all. But, be that as it may, what we are entitled to insist upon is that the same rule should be applied in Great Britain and in Ireland, and that Ireland shall not be
    164
    treated as if it were a savage country in this respect.
    I could give a list of the grievances which I wish to press upon the Chief Secretary as ripe for immediate settlement—I mean in the current year. These matters have mostly been debated over and over again, and are painfully familiar to the mind of the Chief Secretary. I shall first give a list of them and then explain the ground on which we press for redress. First pensions, secondly the tenure of assistant teachers, thirdly the heating and lighting of the Irish schools, fourthly the provision of scholarships, otherwise called co-ordination of education, and fifthly, the monthly payment of teachers' salaries. The Chief Secretary has had abundant opportunity of familiarising himself with all the arguments on these matters. I take pensions first, as being on the whole the most important. This subject has been frequently before the House for the last fifteen years. The Irish teachers have undoubtedly suffered very great injustice in this connection. One circumstance which makes the grievance of the Irish teacher in connection with pensions peculiarly hard is that, when the pension system was started in 1879, a system was set up far more favourable to the teachers than that which now prevails, and after the Fund had gone for nearly ten years the actuaries, on whose original report this system had been set up, carried out an investigation into the solvency of the Fund and declared it to he entirely insolvent, whereupon the Treasury came down and enormously reduced their benefits and enormouly raised their contribution. Of course that created a very great state of iritation, and from that day to this this matter has been felt as a keen grievance by the Irish teachers. Here is the finance of the Fund in a few sentences. It was started by the interest on £1,300,000 of the Irish Church Fund, a purely Irish fund—£39,000 a year, interest on the invested balance of savings which now amount to over £1,000,000—£28,040, third the premiums paid by the teachers themselves, amounting to £24,500 a year; and fourth, the Vote-in-Aid of this House— all that the Imperial Parliament contributes££18,000 a year. The total income of the Teachers' Pension Fund is £109,500 a year, and the total expenditure at present is £75,700, leaving a surplus of income over expenditure of £34,000. The pension fund has been in operation for thirty-two years, and there is a surplus on the total income of £34,000 a year.

    165
    It is quite natural that, inasmuch as actuaries have already made an enormous mistake and admitted their mistake, the teachers in Ireland in addition to all the other grievances should be under the impression and the suspicion that the Fund is more than solvent now, when it has £34,000 annual surplus after thirty years' working, and that they are not getting fair play or even so much as the Fund will allow. That is a question for the actuaries, and I am informed that the legal provision requiring investigation of the solvency of the Fund every five years, has not been carried out, and that it is a very long period since any actuarial investigation was carried out. Be that as it may, that statement of finance proves that whereas in Great Britain about two-fifths of the teachers' pensions come from Imperial sources, in Ireland only one-sixth of the total revenue comes from Imperial sources. I need not give all the details of the disadvantages of the Irish pension system. I will only point out two peculiarities which I mention for the purpose of emphasising the extent of the grievance. A first-class teacher, with over forty years' service, would get £60 a year pension even under the present insufficient system. He must under the Irish system, if compelled by any cause, such as sickness, to retire after thirty years, be content with £24. It is a very curious system, because it is only within the last four or five years of your forty years' service that you get the full emoluments of your office, and if you are compelled to retire at an earlier period your pension is cut down beyond all proportion. It is not calculated on the same system as in the Civil Service. Here is a case of a lady who has had forty-four years in the service. She was appointed assistant teacher in 1867 and head in 1886, and her salary was £101 a year. She was at the head of her profession, and she had favourable reports throughout the whole of her career. She was forced to retire from the service on 31st December, 1910, and her pension was £25 a year. That is a monstrous thing. I am informed that she pressed to be allowed to hold on and go on teaching, which she was quite competent to do, for a year or two, hoping to come in under a better system. She was, however, compelled to retire with £25 pension.
    That is an example of the working of the salary system, but the disablement pension is simply disgraceful. In 1908 nine men, who had given an average service of twenty-five years, retired through ill-health, and got an average pension of less than £11
    166
    apiece. In the same year ten women, whose average service was over twenty years, retired through ill-health on pensions averaging less than £6 a year apiece. A constable in the Royal Irish Constabulary, with fifteen years' service, retires on a pension of £20 per annum, and if he serves twenty-five years he gets £42, or four times the amount a teacher would get. I have, a great deal more detail furnished by the teachers themselves on this subject, but I do not choose to consume the time of the Committee by going into it, because on this matter we have a distinct promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was renewed the other day, in which we place the most absolute faith, that he is now going to review the whole question of the pensions, not only of the Irish, but of the Scotch and English teachers, and that he will place the Irish teachers' pensions on exactly the same footing as those of the Scotch and English teachers. That is a promise on which we rest, and we are quite prepared to put our whole case before him. I will only mention one point by way of making sure that I have stated my case, and that is, that in dealing with this question of pensions the Government must always keep in mind that they are dealing with a body of men who are very unfairly discriminated against in point of salary. The Scotch teacher has at least 50 per cent. higher salary than the Irish teacher of the same standard, and where the Irish teacher has £100 a year the Scotch teachers will have £150 in precisely the same position, and therefore, if the Scotch teacher were to get 50 per cent. of his salary as a retiring pension, he would get £75 a year, whereas the Irish teacher would only get £50. We must, in settling this matter, endeavour to get some provision in order to carry into the region of pensions the same discrimination as now prevails in the region of salaries.
    I will now pass to a question which is exceedingly important as regards its effect on the schools of the country and on the fate of a very large body of teachers, though its financial effect on the Treasury is comparatively a small one—that is the question of the tenure of the assistant teachers in the National schools. One of the ironies of this situation is that, I believe, the salaries of these assistants are voted every year by Parliament and are surrendered at the end of the Session, and these teachers have not been dismissed by the National Board because one of the peculiarities of that Board is that they

    167
    always, although they have a wretchedly poor Grant, manage to have a balance at the end of the year, which they hand back to the Treasury, having saved, as far as I can make out, a great part, though not the whole of this balance by the operation of this horridly cruel rule, to which I will now allude. It is the rule of average attendance. The rule in Ireland is that where a school has not an average attendance of fifty it is disqualified from having an assistant teacher, and if the average attendance goes up to ninety, it is entitled to two assistant teachers. That is a concession we won after many years of hard fighting. Then the Board rounded upon us, and said that whereas an assistant teacher can be appointed as soon as the average attendance of a school reaches fifty, but if the average falls, even by a decimal, below fifty, the teacher will be dismissed, and inasmuch as the Irish schools are always hovering round that point of qualification the result of this rule is that about 700 assistant teachers in Ireland live in the position we read of in ancient story with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, not knowing when they will be dismissed. I say it is humanly impossible for a man to do his duty under these circumstances. What we ask is that, whereas an assistant teacher may be appointed on an average attendance of fifty, there must be a swing in the average, and we say that the average should fall below forty—that is a fall of ten in the average—before the assistant can be dismissed. I cannot conceive that the Treasury will refuse this moderate demand, the cost of which, I understand, will be inconsiderable. To show the cruel operation of this rule let me read to the House the reply given to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Kerry, who has taken up this subject:—
    "Mr. O'Donnell asked the Chief Secretary what is the number of assistant teachers in Ireland discontinued in the last two years owing to reduction in the average attendance; what is the cost of the training of those teachers to the State; whether these men nearly all emigrate or seek other employment, thus causing the State to lose the whole cost of their training; whether he will impress on the Treasury the wisdom as well as the justice of allowing a swing of, say, ten in the average attendance before assistants already in the service are discontinued?
    "Mr. Birrell: Salary was withdrawn from 134 assistant teachers, of whom seventy-two were trained, in the two years ended 31st December, 1910, owing to fall in the average attendance at their schools. Of this number fifty-five have been re-appointed. The cost of the training of the teachers not re-appointed was £2,825. The Commissioners of National Education have no official information as to what becomes of the teachers not re-appointed. The question of a modi-
    168
    fication of the rule as to the tenure of assistant teachers is the subject of a correspondence between the Irish Government and the Treasury."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1911, col. 2193.]
    I hope that this really offensive rule will be modified in the sense I suggest, and that the corresponding rule in respect of schools with two assistants will also be altered so that the average must fall to eighty before an assistant can be dismissed. I got a letter this morning from one of those unhappy men showing how this thing worked. As regards this rule, and the swing of the average in its relation to the tenure of an assistant teacher, there should be a certain period of retrospection in the rule, so as to undo some of the cruel hardships to which these unfortunate men are subjected. The assistant teacher writes:—
    "I had been assistant in the above school under the management of your friend—, but notice of withdrawal of salary from 31st March last has been issued to me, and, if I am not restored to the position, I fear I shall be a long time waiting for another, though I am a young, active, trained teacher. I have continued up to the present to give service, in the hope that the resolution of the Commissioners would be given effect to, and that those who lost their positions during the time the negotiations were pending would be restored to them."
    That man is practically without any salary, and he hopes that this House will come to the rescue. I think I need not say any more on that point, I cannot see that the Treasury will longer resist the modification we ask for. As regards heating and cleansing, that is a subject on which I do not intend to enlarge at all. I am sure some of my hon. Friends who take an interest in the subject will speak upon it. I look upon it as practically settled. The Chief Secretary has given his opinion on the subject, and the local managers have long ago indicated that they are willing to guarantee half of what the Treasury require. They have given a guarantee in the matter, and the Treasury, I am certain, cannot any longer refuse to make that grant.
    That brings me to the question of the provision of scholarships. This raises the question of co-ordination of education, and leads me to say a few words on the necessity of developing intermediate education, if full value is to be obtained for the money spent on the primary system of the country. Education, if it is to be worth the money spent upon it, must be art organic whole. Primary education without some subsequent development is hardly worth the money spent upon it. There is an urgent appeal from the Primary Commissioners themselves on this

    169
    very point. They have made a claim for many years as to the absolute necessity of the full development of the system of primary education in Ireland, and for higher primary schools. That is a system on which different opinions may exist, but it is not within the region of practical politics at the moment. It shows that they are convinced of the absolute necessity of some system of co-ordination, and I am going to make an urgent appeal to the Chief Secretary that we should have some system of scholarships instituted which would enable choice and picked youths in the primary school to be drafted into the secondary schools. I do not ask for an elaborate or costly system. All I ask for is a beginning. We have no such thing in Ireland. In this country hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent, with the result that there are to-day in Oxford and in all the universities numbers of men highly distinguished, and with great careers before them, who could never have reached the universities but for the elaborate ladder by which they reached the higher schools. That system has long been working in Scotland, and it has led to far-reaching and most desirable results. But it is far more wanted in Ireland, because of the ruin and break-up of education which has gone on there. I would urgently appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement to-day of what the Government propose to do in regard to intermediate education in Ireland in regard to scholarships. In this connection I may remind the Committee that when the Irish University Act was being passed the right hon. Gentleman introduced a provision which was warmly supported by all sections of the House, giving power to the county councils of Ireland to impose, I think, a penny rate for the purpose of scholarships to carry on these scholars to the universities. But when they came to levy it they were faced with an agitation against it, without provision being also made to enable the scholars to go to the other schools. If you do not make some provision for opening the doors of the primary schools to poor children who cannot go to the secondary schools all these scholarships will be seized upon by children whose parents can afford to send them to the secondary schools, and the purpose of the scholarships provided by the penny rate—a most beneficent purpose—would be lost. The county councils have struck a halfpenny rate only in some oases in spite of the agitation, while a great many of the councils have refused to strike
    170
    the rate. I would make an urgent appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this.
    I must say a sentence on the strength of our case for some assistance, and for the reconstruction of the money available for secondary schools. In this connection the Commissioners of National Education have over and over again appealed for years to the Government that they should obtain money for these scholarships. Therefore I make the appeal now in connection with the secondary system, and the linking of the intermediate system by scholarships with the primary schools. Why is this the state of affairs in regard to the secondary system? We have in Ireland no money for secondary education except £30,000, which is the interest of £1,000,000 of the Church surplus, which is a purely Irish fund, and the Whisky Money, which has now become greatly reduced. In England and Scotland large Grants have been made for secondary schools. Take the case of England. Something like £900,000 has been granted for secondary education, and that in a country where you have enormous endowments which have come down from pious founders in past ages, whereas in Ireland we are practically without endowments. With a few exceptions our endowments were confiscated in the civil wars. Therefore, in a poorer country, we have no equivalent of the Grant of £900,000 given for secondary education in England. That is a very unjust state of things, and we ask the Government to give us an equivalent Grant, calculated on some fair bases, and amounting to £60,000 or £70,000, as an equivalent for the Grant which the Exchequer gives for secondary education in this country. I think we have an unanswerable case in making that demand, and personally I make a strong appeal. In dealing with the permanent Grant, which has now taken the place of the Whisky Money—I think it was a hateful thing to make the Grant for education dependent on the consumption of whisky, and I am glad that we have now a permanent Grant—I would, say that really from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have said I am encouraged to think that they do not quite realise what the permanent Grant is. The Secretary to the Treasury said, "We have done the best we could, and stereotyped the amount of the Whisky Money." They do nothing of the kind. It amounted to £71,000 in 1900, but in the year which they take as the standard—1908–09—the Whisky Money had fallen to £48,000; therefore we

    171
    lost by that transaction £23,000 a year. In view of the fact that Ireland has been hit by taxes, and the fact that we have been frequently taunted for not defeating the Budget, I think we are entitled to some consideration in connection with this particular subject. I would really make a strong appeal to the Government to revise their decision in that matter in respect of the three countries. There is no civilised country that spends less on education. Let, them take the whisky at the top, and give a fair deal with education. Let them take as the standard year not 1908–09, but 1900, and fix the Whisky Money as at that date.
    If they will only do that they will provide them with funds in Ireland, which will produce two good results. First of all they will link up the system of primary education with the secondary schools by means of scholarships, so that the poor man's son when he is exceptionally gifted, as often happens, can get into the secondary school and be carried through the secondary school to the university. He should get three years of scholarships. That would bring him to the gates of the university. He would be then taken in hand by the county council scholarships, a certain proportion of which could be earmarked for children who had come from primary schools, and in this way such children could go to a university and be given a chance to have a career in life. In addition, the extra funds would provide money enough to institute a reform which is very badly wanted in secondary schools in Ireland. These schools are staffed by what I believe to be the most sweated members of any profession I know of. They have no security of tenure, and no professional recognition. They do not know from month to month whether they will not be turned into the street, with no prospects before them; and their salaries are simply deplorable. If I could make a contrast in this matter, the salaries of the women especially are really horrible. It is awful to think of highly educated women, as they have to be to get these positions, frequently having salaries of not more than £40 or £50 or £60 a year. Such a state of affairs is disgraceful. This money could be largely ear-marked for the purpose of enabling these schools to do what they cannot do at present. I have an opportunity of knowing intimately about the finance and the management of these schools. It is not from any spirit of meanness or injustice that these schools are not paying decent
    172
    salaries to their teachers, but it is because they cannot do it. The fees in these schools are fixed at a ridiculously low figure. On an average they are 30, or 40, or 50 per cent. under the fees of English schools, and they have no endowment, except a few grammar schools.
    The income from the Intermediate Education Board has fallen steadily, while the number of pupils has gradually increased. Since 1900 the pupils have increased by 30 per cent., while the income has fallen by £25,000 a year. Therefore it is their poverty and not any want of generosity that makes them treat their teachers so badly. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this opportunity of pressing his new claim upon the Treasury. It is a claim which I think the Treasury must admit is just. It is merely a claim for equal justice with England and equal opportunity of doing good work with the intermediate system in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has already done very noble work in rearing the new University system, and work which, as I said the other day was not only successful in so far as it put an end to great bitterness of feeling by creating the new University, which promises to be a great success, but work which has exercised a most wholesome influence on the old universities of Ireland in the way of reform and in stimulating a healthy competition, which has already done good to Trinity College, instead of ruining it as some people said it would, and which has done immeasurable good to the University of Belfast, though some of the Gentlemen from Belfast did their best to oppose it. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to do this work and reform this branch of Irish education which requires reform the most, that is the secondary branch, he will certainly leave behind him the reputation of having done more for the education of the Irish people than any English Minister that ever came to that country.
    Coming to the national teachers, the question of monthly payment of their salaries is one that is exercising their minds very much. Though personally I do not consider it to be as pressing as the question of pensions or the assistant teachers, still it is a matter on which the teachers have undoubtedly a strong case, and which the Chief Secretary himself has recognised. I know what his difficulties are that have been raised by the Treasury, but I trust that he may find himself able to overcome them. In conclusion, I have only got a word to say about a subject on which we have already got a very

    173
    satisfactory statement from the right hon. Gentleman. That is the question of building grants. These grants during a period from 1900 to 1905 were almost entirely stopped. That was due to the fact that the Treasury—I do not know for what purpose—carried on endless correspondence with a Committee which had sat upon the question of new plans for the Irish schools. That correspondence had the effect of giving an excuse for withholding grants until these new plans were settled. It took from three to four years to agree on the new plans, which was at length done with great pressure. But then the Treasury absolutely refused for a long time to make any provision such as the Commissioners require for the enormous arrears that has been piled up in the interval, with the result that the National Board have been obliged absolutely to stop altogether making any further grants, and week in and week out we get the most earnest requests for our attention to schools which are in a most deplorable condition of ruin and for which no building grants can be obtained. The answer of the Chief Secretary shows clearly that there has not been a retrogression, but rather an improvement, in this respect. In the present year, I understand, £60,000 has been already granted, and £40,000 has been granted towards the old grants between 1900 and 1905. But the National Commissioners declared after the new plans had been agreed upon it would take £100,000 a year for five years to clear off the arrears. Instead of obtaining the £100,000 a year they obtained £40,000, and a promise of £70,000 from the Development Grant.
    As I understand that £70,000 was not paid, and the Development Grant was swallowed up by the working of the Irish Land Act., so they only got £40,000 a year, and £60,000 is being given this year. I was very glad to hear from the Chief Secretary that he would be able to make a very encouraging statement in this connection as to what the Treasury were prepared to do in regard to building grants in the present year. I hope that the result of the present Debate will produce some real tangible benefit in the present year. Before sitting down I may thank the few Members of English and Scotch constituencies who have listened to this Irish Debate. I think that there are seven or eight Englishmen and Scotchmen who have taken sufficient interest in it to remain in the House. I do not quarrel with the absence of the others, but I hope that before long they will translate their in-
    174
    difference to Irish affairs into its logical sequel, and will allow us to deal with these matters ourselves. It is little short of a farce to have to deal here with such questions as Irish education, which do not interest and cannot be expected to interest Englishmen and Scotchmen, while we are obliged to come to this House year after year and address empty benches in the vain hope of being allowed to manage the education of our own people.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: It is so seldom that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) who has moved this reduction that I venture to offer a few observations to the House on the question with which he has dealt. I may say, on the whole, that, apart from the political aspect, to which he referred in conclusion, I agree entirely with the résumé which he has given to some of these outstanding grievances in regard to Irish education. I certainly should be very sorry that anyone should think, because we differ upon what is to be the ultimate settlement of the question of Irish Government and how these things ought to be managed in the future, that therefore we who represent Unionist constituencies in Ireland are not willing to join with Nationalist Members in trying to get these grievances redressed at the earliest possible moment. I am inclined to think as regards what the hon. Gentleman has said, about the impossibility of settling the whole of this question in the Parliament of the United Kingdom that the whole of this matter rests purely upon financial considerations, and that when the hon. Member says that he could very much more easily settle it, and, indeed, could only settle it in an Irish Parliament, I think he is raising hopes as regards the future financial position in Ireland under what he would call Home Rule, which are entirely fallacious. I am inclined to think myself, if this question was boldly taken in hand by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell) who is now Chief Secretary, having regard to the way in which the sectarian question has come to be regarded in Ireland in relation to primary education, that we should be all found joining together in putting the whole system on the most satisfactory basis, and for my part I think if you had an Irish Home Rule Government tomorrow you would find far more difficulty in settling this question when you had to put before the Irish people that the only way in which you could settle it was by an increase of their rates or an increase of their own particular taxes. This would

    175
    necessarily be the case if this was being settled in an Irish Parliament, and I do think that when the right hon. Gentleman was able to settle the outstanding question of Irish University education in an Imperial Parliament it is not too much to hope that, if he applied his mind to this matter, he would be able also to settle the question of primary education. I myself remember many speeches having been made from benches below the Gangway in which we were told that this House never could settle the question of Irish University education. I always took a different view myself.
    Mr. DILLON: I never said it.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir E. CARSON: I do not say that the hon. Member said it, but I do remember that many important men in Ireland said it. I always took a different view, and I can only say, as I am generally found in conflict with my right hon. Friend opposite, that looking back to the work which he has done, whether in the Education Office or here, or as Chief Secretary for Ireland, the one matter which stands out and of which he may be exceedingly proud and on which we should congratulate him, is the settlement of the Irish University question. In all the grievances that have been put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo I quite concur with him that something should be done. I think every one of them is a real grievance, and that many of them are matters which the right hon. Gentleman might very reasonably, and without any undue pressure upon him, endeavour to deal with. I myself have most of the documents to which the hon. Member for Mayo referred, and which have relation to these various grievances. Take one which the hon. Member went into at the outset of his speech—I mean the question of ungraded teachers. I do not suppose for a moment that anybody who has looked into this question will say that these teachers, who are the remnant of the band of teachers who were there when the class teacher was taken away and the graded teacher was substituted, have not got a real grievance. They are a limited section, and I think we may reasonably ask, why is not the grievance put an end to? All the hon. Member has asked for is an inquiry. For myself, I should have thought the facts were sufficiently known, and that we do not need an inquiry. But, if that is not so, I will join with the hon. Member for Mayo in pressing for an inquiry, but
    176
    subject to this—I do not want an inquiry to shelve the matter; I want an inquiry to solve the matter. If we are to have an inquiry let it be one with some limit. Let us be told that we can have an inquiry for a month or two months, but let us have some limit, and let us try to brush away this grievance. I have a letter from one of my constituents, and I should like to ask the Chief Secretary whether the facts which it states are really true. The letter gives what seems to be a concrete instance of a great injustice which is being done, at all events, to some of these men. This is what he says:—
    "I send you herewith particulars of a double grievance which I stiffer under, namely, undergrading and paper promotion. Prior to 1900 I was in the first grade of the first class, but because my income was not large enough, through being in a school with an average attendance of under fifty, I was depressed to second grade."
    Why on earth should the prospects of the teacher or the efficiency of the school depend upon the number in attendance? It seems to me that this is one of the most ridiculous and one of the most unbusinesslike rules that could be laid down in regard to the grading of the teacher or for the efficiency of the school. More especially, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Mayo, where there are these large and scattered districts from which the children have to be gathered to the school. In such circumstances it is extremely difficult to keep up the average attendance. I am told that the administration of the law as regards compelling these children to go to school is extremely lax.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): It does not apply.
    Sir E. CARSON: I mean there is an attempt made—I may be wrong—to get the children together. In some districts the attempt made is more successful than in other districts. But look at the way in which you are mulcting the teacher. He has no control whatever in regard to bringing the children to school, yet he is punished for the very laxity which he has no means of preventing. I think this is a most monstrous grievance. Then the writer of the letter goes on to say:—
    "I have striven to regain the rank taken from me, and, as my school reports were 'very good' for the last eight years, and the attendance over fifty for the year 1909, I was promoted from 1st April, 1910, to the second grade of the first class, a status one degree still below that taken away. Owing to Treasury parsimony, I have not yet been paid one penny of increment, and the resulting loss to me last year was £13. How long I may have to wait for increment I cannot tell, and arrears are never paid. In any other service they would be legally recoverable, but not with teachers."

    177
    Is not that a monstrous state of affairs. I see there was a question asked on the subject some days ago by an hon. Member below the Gangway of the Chief Secretary, as to details of persons who have not received their increments on being promoted to a higher grade, and the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave was this:—
    "The following table shows the number of teachers promoted to first and second section, respectively, of the first grade during the years ended 31st March, 1909, 1910 and 1911:—

    Year ended 31st March, 1909.

    Year ended 31st March, 1910.

    Year ended 31st March, 1911.

    1(1)Grade.

    1(2)Grade.

    1(1)Grade.

    1(2)Grade.

    1(1)Grade.

    1(2)Grade.

    26

    44

    51

    99

    22

    51

    All the teachers promoted in the year ended 31st March, 1909, received increments of salary. Of the teachers promoted in the year ended 31st March, 1910, five male teachers in 1(1) grade have not yet received increments, and of the teachers promoted in the year ended 31st March, 1911, twelve male teachers in 1(1) grade, and thirty-one male teachers in 1(2) grade have not received increments. The payment of increments of salary to the teachers in question from the dates of their promotion would have involved additional charges on the Vote for the year ended 31st March, 1910, of £271, and for the year ended 31st March, 1911, of £492. The unexpended balances of the Votes for public education (Ireland) during the years ended list March, 1909 and 1910, were £15,307 18s. 11d., and £2,854 3s. 10d., respectively. It is not possible at present to state the amount of the balance from the Vote for the year ended 31st March, 1911, but it will probably be about £25,000."
    What becomes of that money? That money goes back into the English Treasury, although the English Treasury is not really fulfilling its obligations to these men who have been promoted into these various grades, and who instead of getting the money which should be paid to them on promotion, were left without it for some time, with consequent hardship to them. In a great many cases, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Mayo, if the school attendance falls below a certain line, although it would be right, to keep the teachers, they are sent about their business, and the Government have no official knowledge of what becomes of them in the future, though it may be that they become part of the great body of unemployed. I think the whole of that is very deplorable, and that these are matters which might be settled and settled easily without waiting for Home Rule. If we get Home Rule, which I hope with all my heart will never come, there will be plenty of other things to do, and these are immediate grievances which those who suffer from them cannot afford to wait to have remedied. They are immediate and pressing matters. Here in
    178
    this House we are going to vote ourselves £400 a year each, while we leave these small matters, small compared with the large sums that we vote in other directions, unattended to, and it seems to me a little short of a positive scandal. Another question in regard to which have had many letters is that of the monthly payment of salary. Of course I know that to pay salaries monthly would involve some addition to the work of the clerical staff; but these people, it should be remembered, live in country districts, and it will be a great convenience to them to receive their payment monthly. The right hon. Gentleman with a stroke of his pen could insist upon their being paid. The cost to the Treasury would be very small, and if it would be any encouragement to the right hon. Gentleman, I would make him a present of my £400 a year to assist him in remedying this grievance. These people have often families to keep, and to receive their payment monthly to them is a matter of the very greatest importance. There are two other questions upon which I merely wish to say a word, and one is the question of pensions. I remember making a speech when sitting on the other side of the House, my party being then in power, in which I pointed out that I believed that the teachers had been entirely deceived with regard to the matter of pensions. They were led to believe that, under the Act of Parliament, if they made certain contributions, they would have certain pensions. They did not succeed in that intention, and the Government said they must have a revaluation. On a revaluation it was found that the fund was insolvent. Therefore the Government went back on their original bargain, or, at all events, what they thought was a bargain, and said, "You must give up some more of your annual emoluments, so as to make the pension fund solvent."
    Mr. DILLON: And they cut down the pensions.
    Sir E. CARSON: Yes; and what happened then? Now there is a considerable sum each year over and above what is sufficient. Have the teachers in this position not the right to say, "you should look into the whole matter, when we think you have got a larger amount annually from us than is necessary, and we claim to have a revaluation so as to see whether or not we should have either higher pensions out of such a surplus as may be found, or else a reduction in the

    179
    amount of payments." Having regard to the treatment they experienced when the fund was said to be insolvent, they now have an absolute claim on the Government to have this matter reinvestigated. As regards the question of the linking up of primary education and secondary education, that is a matter also of an extremely pressing nature. There is an entirely new phase of the question opened since the right hon. Gentleman set up his new University system in Ireland. If you are going to have your whole system of education co-ordinated, you must begin with primary education, so as to make effective for the best students the new University education which you have set up. It is only by co-ordinating primary, secondary, and University education that you can get the best results from the money that you are giving. Of course, all this means money, and I daresay that the night hon. Gentleman could very truthfully reply to me and to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that he has never yet heard of any great agitation in Ireland for putting any of this money upon the rates, nor have I.
    But then, on the other hand, there was the point made by the hon. Member for Mayo—namely, are we being treated fairly, even taking the system that the Government themselves have set up? Take the question of the whisky money. Why, as the hon. Member has said, should not, the best year for us be taken. Surely where it is a matter of education, which goes to the whole foundation of your system in Ireland, it is far better to err in that direction than it is in taking a bad year. Where it would have been an advantage to Scotland and Ireland and to England to have this money supplied for the purpose of secondary education, I cannot see why the Government should not take the best year to get the best amount for bringing about this matter of coordination. For my own part, I can only say this, that I look upon this question of primary education as by far the greatest outstanding grievance, apart altogether from politics, which I put aside for the moment, now remaining in Ireland. As I said before, I do not believe, from the way in which we have come now to regard education in Ireland, however we may view the origin of the National Board and the national system, that it presents any difficulty. Education has settled down, at all events in the matter of what I may call the elementary essentials, and as
    180
    regards sectarian questions, which have become acquiesced in by both parties and by all religions in Ireland, so that I think you have got rid of the main difficulties, and I am sure if the right hon. Gentleman would only add to his achievement in the settlement of University education something satisfactory with regard to primary education, not only would those who follow him have gratitude to him for that, but we ourselves would add our gratitude.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I think it would be perfectly clear from the discussion, so far as it has gone, that the question of Irish primary education needs only to be stated to make it apparent to the Committee that the claim made here today on behalf of Irish schools and on behalf of Irish school-teachers is a just claim. The arguments that have been advanced in favour of the claims that have been made are unanswerable. I think that is perfectly clear to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, since he went to Ireland, must have investigated many of the Departments over which he presides, and have investigated also the educational affairs of Ireland, although he does not preside over them. I think that, I am right in stating that in no Department under the jurisdiction of the right hon. Gentleman will he have found a greater degree of neglect than in the one that now forms the subject of discussion. I make that statement with regard to all the Departments of Irish Government, but in respect of the Education Department it is not one branch of it alone that is being neglected, but every branch of it. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has already informed the Committee as to what the state of the Estimates for this year discloses. I shall not repeat the figures which he has already quoted, but I must make this observation with regard to them—namely, that it is not alone in respect of this year's Estimates that these great discrepancies are disclosed, but in like manner for any period that you wish to take, the same story will be told. Let me take, for example, the period of time extending from the year of the Estimates for the year 1900–01 to the Estimates of this year. Since 1900–01 the increase for primary education in England has been 50 per cent., in Scotland 76 per cent., and in Ireland 27 per cent. What justification can there be for that?

    181
    I can only account for this wonderful discrepancy in. the Estimates on the ground that the Treasury is full of malice against Irish spending Departments. This is plunder, there is no other name worthy of the occasion, and it is plunder of the very worst kind because it is cheating the poor country in order to pamper the rich country. I have mentioned the word "Treasury." I do wish that a representative of that impalpable and impersonal body were present, because it is the Treasury we complain of here to-day. They not only deal out these funds for Irish purposes with a niggardly hand, but they misrepresent their action in this House in order to deceive the Committee and the House and the people, whenever they are asked questions about their unjustifiable conduct. Last year a question was put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan (Mr. Kennedy) with regard to the sums respectively granted to the several countries for primary education. The question was, will the Chief Secretary state what was the Grant per head of population to England, Scotland, and Ireland for primary education, and what were the inspection Grants in 1909–10. He was told in answer to that that the Grant for that year for primary education in England was £11,250,000, or 6s. 4d. per head; for Scotland, £1,412,431, or 5s. 9½d. per head. In Ireland £1,544,714, or 7s. 1½d. per head, thus showing that Ireland had almost 2s. per head more than the Scottish Department. That was not only a misleading statement but it was a false statement, and made here for the purpose of deceiving the House and deceiving the public, because from those figures were omitted in the case of England £204,693 for administration, £244,180 for inspection, £555,000 for training teachers, which is altogether £1,003,873 omitted from the statement made on behalf of the Treasury. In respect of Scotland there were similar omissions of £21,400 for administration, of £41,482 for inspection, and of £142,392 for the training of teachers, and for the examination of accounts £919, making in all an omission of £206,193. Every one of those items was included in the amount put down for Irish primary education.
    I took the trouble of going into the Estimates and of finding this out for myself. When I saw those figures I was amazed to find that for the purpose of primary education Ireland was receiving more money per head of population than
    182
    any of the other three divisions of the United Kingdom. When I discovered what was the case from the Estimates, I followed up my hon. Friend's question with several others in order to elucidate the point. The Treasury evaded me; they referred me to the Education Departments of England and Scotland, and they refused to answer several questions that I put on the Paper. They said that they had nothing to add to the answer that they had given to my hon. Friend. I say that this is shameful conduct on the part of the Treasury, not only to deprive the Irish people of their just rights, but to seek to deceive the public with regard to the grants that have been made in respect of education in Ireland. The various heads as to the complaints that we make to-day have been touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo, and I shall not elaborate them. I am also aware that hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway from Ireland are anxious to say a few words on this subject, and it is the desire of all of us that there shall be on this matter a united voice coming from Ireland. I know that there are many of my colleagues who are better qualified to speak on the subject than I am, and who desire to make some observations on their own part, and I shall endeavour not to go into elaborate details.
    The first point, and, I think, the point of greatest importance, is the subject of the schools themselves. It has been already stated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo(Mr. Dillon) that the failure has been to supply a sufficient amount of money to build new schools and repair old ones. It has been stated that there is a lapse in the grant for building purposes, but there have been several lapses, and what has been the effect of these lapses? The fact is that while £240,000 has been allotted for a period of six years, and £70,000 from the Irish Development Grant that did not come to hand, and yet the Board of Education has sanctioned buildings to the extent of £235,000, and they have approved of an additional £135,000, making in all over £370,000 of engagements which they are not able to fulfil. The £40,000 was for three years, and I had the honour of making a Motion in this House which resulted in the grant of that £40,000. That has to be continued for the next three years, but it is not enough. The £70,000 from the Irish Development Grant has never come to hand, and I think it never will come to hand. It was used for other purposes, and yet the Commissioners have

    183
    sanctioned and approved buildings for £307,000, and they will not be able to fulfil their obligations. In addition to that there are many other cases where the buildings are unsuitable, probably to the extent of 2,000 or 3,000 buildings. This is a most urgent matter. In the year 1907, when it fell to my lot to make a case on behalf of the schools, I read out the names and particulars ad nauseam from the inspectors whose duty it was to report upon these schools. I do not know whether it is necessary or not to repeat these, but for the present let it suffice to say that many of these schools were described as mere hovels. The fuel with which they sometimes tried to heat them was generally supplied by the teachers and pupils jointly. The cess-pits were neglected because the cost of cleaning them fell upon the teachers, and the schoolhouses therefore were the centres of disease. In one case it was reported that fourteen monitors retired owing to ill-health, and all of them died. Will the Committee picture to itself the children of the poor of Ireland in these remote parts of the country, travelling many miles to school, sometimes very poorly clad, very often without boots, going into these unhealthy, unclean, cold schools. I ask whether it is a condition under which the children can be expected to imbibe education or the school teachers impart education to them. I submit it is an insanitary and uncomfortable state of affairs, which is not at all conducive to the best, or, indeed, to any, system of education.
    Enough has been said about heating, and I am sure the hon. and gallant Member above the Gangway (Captain Craig) will not forget that point, because he has already shown great interest in it. I shall proceed to the question of the salaries of the teachers. A great discrepancy has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo between the salaries of the teachers in England and Scotland and the teachers in Ireland. I would submit this proposition to the Committeee, that when a teacher is called into existence and trained for this employment he is entitled to fair treatment and security of tenure. In the case of the Irish teacher he has neither fair treatment nor security of tenure. How can it be said that a teacher has fair treatment when he finds that there is a great discrepancy between his salary and the salaries of like persons in England and Scotland. Let me
    184
    state that discrepancy as shortly as I can. In England the average salary for men, is £160 and some odd money, and for women £109 and some odd money. In Scotland you have men paid £179 and some odd money, and women £90 and some odd money. In Ireland the average salary is £102 19s. 6d. for men and £82 11s. 9d. for women. These are the salaries of the principal teachers in the respective countries. Coming to assistant teachers in England the average is £114 17s. 10d.; in Scotland £122 3s. 2d., and in Ireland £73 2s. 4d. In fact you have in England and Scotland the assistant teachers paid absolutely more than the principal teachers in Ireland. Is not that an enormous discrepancy and a grave injustice to the teachers of Ireland? How can this House or anyone else expect any enthusiasm on the part of the Irish school teacher when he finds to this extent that his labour is not regarded as of the same value with similar labour in England and in Scotland? It would be expecting more from human nature than I have ever been able to attribute to it, if he could possibly display any great enthusiasm for this work or zeal in the performance of his duties. I will give you a case in point; I know the teacher myself. He was for five years a monitor and had the highest marks as such. He was two years in a training college and he took first place in all his examinations. He was for two years assistant teacher and is now for nine years principal teacher, and his reports were never below "good." The Inspectors praised him for his discipline and the teaching of his school. He teaches science, Irish, singing, and physical drill. His pupils win scholarships in technical schools and colleges. The attendance has been increased during his term of office by 30 per cent. over that of his predecessor. This predecessor had £130 a year. He (the present man) had £76 for three years, —77 for three and a half years, and has now £87 after six and a half years. This man, who has such a record, if he were in England, say, under the County Council of London, would have a salary not far short of £200 or £300 or more, but because he is an Irish school teacher, who never had a bad mark against him, who has had a brilliant career in college, and brilliant results in his teaching, can only get the miserable pay of £87 a year, for which he has to wait three months before he obtains it. I submit that case to this Committee, which is composed largely of business men, and I ask if a young man with a

    185
    career such as I have described had devoted himself to commercial pursuits, will they not agree that, it would not be £87 a year he would be in receipt of, but he would have a salary of from £130 up to £200, and a man of his talents and ability would richly deserve such a reward.
    It is true that these figures have been augmented by what is known in Ireland as "the Birrell Grant." I do not want to be ungracious. We are all very grateful for the Grant of £114,000 which was added to the salaries of the teachers through the wisdom and forethought of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chief Secretary. But how much did this £114,000 actually add to the average salary of the teachers. It comes to 5½d. per day. I do not want to look a gift-horse in the mouth, but, after all, that is a very small increase when you look at it in that way. In the same year that this £114,000 was granted there was an increase without any noise made about it of £96,000 to Scotland, and in Ireland £18,000 was returned to the Treasury from unexpended balances. There was £57,000 of the Irish Development Grant undistributed, to which they were entitled, and £65.000 was added to the Irish charge for junior assistant mistresses. I do not want to take away from the generosity of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think it is clear that, while the grant was given to the teachers with one hand it was taken back with another, and there was an actual loss in this respect because, owing to the system which was adopted, these assistant teachers were dismissed, and had their places taken by a new order of teachers, who were called junior assistant mistresses. These were uncertificated and untrained. This point has been mentioned by the hon. Member for East Mayo, and it is enough to say that the men who were trained lost their places which were taken by these uncertificated young girls, who do not know anything about teaching at all. What do the managers say about it? The managers made a report last year from a meeting representing the managers of all Ireland, and included priests and parsons. They said, "Where there should be upwards of 200 trained assistant teachers, a corresponding number of untrained junior assistant mistresses are now employed in the national schools of Ireland to the detriment of the teaching profession of Ireland and of its training colleges and national education generally." So that this new institution, which was agreed to by the right hon. Member for the Strand Division (Mr.
    186
    Walter Long), who was then Chief Secretary, and was conceived by him and his advisers to be a great stroke of business, is not working to the satisfaction of the managers. I submit to the Committee that when you introduce an institution of this kind and substitute uncertificated untrained young girls to take the place of well-trained men, it must be a self-condemned institution, and that will he found out the moment it is put into practice. A good deal has been said about the question of pensions, and I do not think it is necessary to add anything to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, and my Friend the Member for East Mayo. What was said by the latter was backed up by the very weighty speech from the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson).
    I would, however, like to add that I really could not have believed that a school teacher, man or woman, could possibly be in the service of the Board of Commissioners in Ireland for twenty-five years or so, and, breaking down in health, or for some reason having to leave the service, would be obliged to go out with a small pension of something like £5, £6, or £11 a year. But the other day I went to the Act of Parliament of 1879. There is a schedule to that Act which is a piece of the most legislative wickedness. I never saw such a schedule. Just imagine ! You will find in that schedule that teachers of twenty-five to thirty years' service can be put off with a pension of £5 or £6 a year. This system has been stigmatised by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a disgrace and a scandal to the British Empire. We are all interested, I am sure every Member of the Committee will be interested, to know whether this disgrace and scandal is going to be put an end to to-day once and for all. Is it not a monstrous state of things?
    I have been dealing with two points—salary and pensions. Here you have a class of men employed in the most delicate operation of conveying information to the youth of the country; training up the manhood of the country. During their period of active service they are paid worse than a navy, and on their retirement they get a pension less than that given by the Old Age Pensions Act. It is little wonder that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have called that system a disgrace and a scandal to the British Empire. I hope, not only in

    187
    regard to pensions, but also with regard to salaries, that that disgrace and scandal will be put an end to. We have heard a good deal about non-contribution from the local rates. But it has always to be borne in mind that the local rates in Ireland are already ear-marked for the operation of Land Purchase in Ireland. The local rates in Ireland are not free for this purpose. They have already been seized upon, and have been made to contribute for the purpose of Land Purchase. They cannot possibly, therefore, bear any greater burden. The tenure of assistant-teachers is one of the most serious grievances that Irish teachers have to complain of at the present time. A good deal has been said about it. I need not say much more, except to point out to the Committee that the conditions under which education is carried out in Ireland are entirely different from the conditions that exist here.
    You have in Ireland great poverty. You have schools very much scattered and widely apart. You have very often late harvests. You have cold, insanitary schools. It is very difficult indeed to keep up the attendance at these schools. A wet day or a continuous number of wet days may keep the children away for a whole week. It may seem very strange that the existence of an assistant teacher in a school depends upon the attendance of four children for one week at school. Four children mean twenty attendances, and this affects the average attendance for a whole quarter, and is sufficient to deprive the assistant of his position. That is to say, if in two successive quarters the attendance goes down one-tenth of a unit the assistant is discharged. It may be—and this is one of the effects of the system—that you have the assistant discharged because the attendance is below a certain average, which is affected by one-tenth of a unit. The attendance may go up for the other half of the year, and the assistant is reinstated. Is not that an extraordinary state of things to exist? As a result of it you have classes dislocated. You have the whole organisation of the school disturbed. You have the interest of the children destroyed, and the interest of the teacher is certainly lacking, because you cannot expect a teacher will have zeal if this sword of Damocles, which has already been referred to, is hanging over his head. It has a bad effect therefore upon the children, and it has a bad effect upon the teacher.
    188
    There were—will the Committee believe it?–872 schools affected by this average in 1910; 700 teachers were affected. I ask the Committee to consider what must be the condition of the mind of these 700 teachers. Here are 700 men, some married, men who have devoted their lives to the profession, men who have taken every opportunity of training their minds to exercise their profession, in a state of trepidation fearing lest the non-attendance of a few pupils for two successive quarters will cost them their position. I submit to this Committee that this is a condition of mind that ought to be put a stop to as soon as possible. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University has asked, and very well asked: Why should the children be badly taught because they happen to he not quite up to the average number? We add to that: Why should the teachers lose their position? Why should the teachers be badly paid because there is not a full average attendance? That is one of the questions that I think the Committee ought to help us to solve.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mayo has already alluded to the question, and the hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Kerry has followed in the matter as to what the cost of training those teachers is, and I shall, therefore, not deal with it. The subject of monthly salaries has already been fully dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo, and his remarks have been reinforced very ably by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. I shall, therefore, not weary the Committee further by referring to these matters, but I trust that the discussion, so far as it has gone, and whether or not it goes further, will result in a settlement of these outstanding matters. We have from year to year been obliged to worry this subject, or, at least, every two or three years, to bring it up in this form, and to worry it constantly by questions given from above and below the Gangway. It is hoped by everybody who is a sincere well-wisher of the Irish people, so far as their education is concerned, that the grievances will be remedied once and for all, and that it will not be necessary to trouble the Committee with these subjects so extensively in the future as we had been obliged to do in the past, and as we are doing to-day, I hope for the last time.
    Captain CRAIG: I have listened, Mr. Whitley, very attentively and with great

    189
    pleasure to the speeches which have been made to this Committee this afternoon. I associate myself entirely with the view of the hon. Gentlemen the Members of Mayo and for Clare, as I have clone on previous occasions outside this House. I have always taken the view that national education in Ireland is a question which requires to be treated entirely from a nonpolitical point of view. I do not think that justice can be done to this subject if one allows oneself to be diverted in the slightest degree from the ultimate welfare and education of the children. There have been many claims put forward this afternoon on behalf of the National school teachers, and on behalf of education generally, and I would be the last to prejudice what the Chief Secretary for Ireland may be able to do in ameliorating some of these grievances, by placing undue emphasis on any one of the particular cases that have been brought under our notice. But as has been referred to, and as the Committee are aware, I have taken for the last four years particular interest in the subject of placing our National Schools in Ireland in a thoroughly sanitary condition before asking children to go there. Hon. Members below the Gangway—some, at least—will bear me out that in connection with their Bill for making more stringent the compulsory attendance of children in the National Schools of Ireland I always held—and still hold—that until due provision is made for the children in the schools, it is unfair to deal harshly with parents who do not send them there. In many instances the smaller schools in certain areas are totally unfitted for giving young people proper instruction; the heating is miserable.
    In dealing with the subject it has always to be borne in mind that although it directly affects the youth of the country, it indirectly affects the question of the teachers in these smaller schools. If there is no Grant whatever and difficulty is experienced in raising funds locally for heating and cleansing these National schools, there is not a teacher in Ireland who would not put his hands into his pockets and carry out what is necessary at his own cost. Many teachers have suffered year after year in having to supply fuel and lighting. How can they see little children coming across the mountain-side, walking into a cold, damp school-room, and sitting down there without taking pity on them, and even at their own expense putting the fires on, and at their own cost finding the necessaries for making the children com-
    190
    fortable? Therefore, it would, in my opinion, be, in the first instance, a very great benefit and enable these children to receive more benefit from the education, to relieve the teachers of this expense. I was informed on one occasion, I think it was by the present Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland, on behalf of the Government, when he sat in this House, that he thought that this was a question that ought to be met entirely by the parents of the children, or that answer might have been given to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary.
    6.0 P.M.
    I take a different point of view. Where you have local effort alone in this matter you have no consistent system throughout the whole of the National schools, and what perhaps may be considered satisfactory in one particular area might be regarded as most unsatisfactory in another. And it is only by a Grant from the Treasury, coupled with the great system such as is in existence in the Board Schools in England that you can create a system which I hope will gradually grow and extend to all schools, so that all the schools may be treated in a proper sanitary manner, having the floors washed and desks and walls treated and all the necessary details which can only be carried out by a complete system instead of a haphazard effort by the children within school hours.
    This year the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a Grant of £1,500,000 towards sanatoria throughout the country. Why is it necessary that that enormous sum of money should be granted in order to stamp out the ravages of tuberculosis, which has been the subject of much anxiety for years past? Would it not be far better, at all events so far as Ireland is concerned, to begin at the source and to deal with the children in the schools and take every precaution that the disease may not spread amongst the children when they are young. It would be far better, in my opinion, to spend a few thousands a year and increase the local efforts of people to improving the schools making them clean, sanitary, and bright and cheerful, in the effort to check further the growth of tuberculosis in Ireland. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland could by a Bill or by administrative action do something in that direction, this day's Debate would not be in vain, and in impressing that view upon the right hon. Gentleman I do not wish to prejudice in the slightest degree any other reform suggested, by which

    191
    the Chief Secretary might get some funds from the Treasury in order to meet the many grievances under which National school teachers in Ireland labour.
    Passing from that, I would like to go a little further into subjects touched upon by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) and the hon. Member (Mr. John O'Connor), and especially the subject of the monthly payment of teachers. I do not know that that subject has been thoroughly thrashed out either in this House or in the country. In the first place, I think I am right in stating—and the Chief Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that a staff has already been appointed for dealing with this subject in Dublin, and for the purpose of drawing up a scheme. In an answer given in the House and in a memorandum in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Armagh (Mr. Lonsdale), I noticed that the Chief Secretary for Ireland deals with the whole of the salaries, and adds to them the question of the Augmentation Grant.
    I have not had an opportunity of consulting at the last moment with the National teachers upon the subject, but I suggest that perhaps the Augmentation Grant might be left out of the question and paid annually, but that he should make an effort to meet the just demands of the teachers that they should be paid monthly as far as their salaries are concerned. In his memorandum he puts down the Augmentation Grant secured by the teachers in 1908 as £118,000, and he says eleven-twelfths of the year's grant should be provided in the first year, which would bring the amount up to £285,275 in all. Of course, looking at it from a comprehensive point of view and including the Augmentation Grant, that seems a large sum; but, on the other hand, if we dealt, as I suggest, simply and solely with the question of their salaries, it seems to me to be a ridiculous contention that it would cost the large sum of money which the right hon. Gentleman says is to be provided in the first year. In the first instance, I think it would be quite possible to fix the rate of every teacher for the month, and at the end of the year, when the Augmentation Grant was being paid in the ordinary way, let the balance of a particular teacher's salary be made up and computed, and the balance one way or the other settled. As against that, it might be said that the total numbers attending schools were this, that, or the other, and the Treasury
    192
    might find itself in particular cases having paid the teacher at the end of the year more than that to which he was entitled. But against that I say, first of all, you have the opportunity of not paying quite the full amount. If a teacher receives £62 a year it would be far better to pay £1 a month less and have a solid balance in hand at the end of the year, and I think a promise of that kind would be more satisfactory to the teachers as a whole than to allow the system which is at present in vogue to continue. There is a very strong feeling throughout all parts of Ireland that this matter should be dealt with this year, and that you should start fresh upon a system which has been worked out very carefully, and which would prove satisfactory because it would be only a mere matter of the Treasury getting over the difficulties for the first year. There could be no loss to the Treasury. They have their staff already in Dublin, and by merely arranging for two months extra in the current year they would be able to start a plan that would give universal satisfaction in all parts of Ireland.
    There is another subject which has not been so much touched upon, and that is that the Chief Secretary when clearing up as it were these various outstanding matters should strive to make more cordial the relationship between the managers and the teachers, and should try to institute some system whereby the teachers would have a just and fair appeal from any harshness on the part of the managers. I have spoken to many managers upon the subject, and in nearly all instances they have agreed that it would be quite possible, by arrangement, if you like to have some system other than that which exists at present, and to have some fair tribunal before which the case of the teacher would be heard on appeal, and where both parties would be willing to abide by the decision. Surely it is not past the wit of man to contrive some better method of dealing with this very delicate subject than exists at present. Those of us who have taken an interest in this matter for years past have heard of cases where managers have dismissed teachers, and where no remedy lies. Once a man is dismissed, no matter how unjustly, he has no remedy except by writing to the Press, or perhaps getting a friend to intervene. A slur is cast upon the teacher, and it is almost impossible for him to outlive it, and in many instances

    193
    he has to leave the neighbourhood without being afforded any opportunity for clearing himself. I think that is a matter which should most carefully engage the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and those responsible for education in Ireland.
    I desire to emphasize the complete unanimity of all classes of school teachers in Ireland for the removal of this grievance. It is undoubtedly the case that it is only on rare occasions we are able to have an open discussion of these important matters in the House. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) said there were very few English Members present, and I am confident that any English Member who has sat here and listened to this Debate will feel astonishment at the difference between the payment of English and Scotch teachers and Irish teachers. I am sure the hon. Member will excuse many Members from not turning up and listening to this Debate to-day, because perhaps very often when there is a question like the Scotch crofters question on, the hon. Member himself might take the opportunity of remaining away from the Chamber.
    Mr. DILLON: Oh, no.
    Captain CRAIG: But apart from that point, the deep-seated interest of Ireland upon this matter must be patent to the Chief Secretary himself, and after all, it is to him and the Treasury we are appealing to assist us. Hon. Members below the Gangway in my opinion put too much blame upon the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland. In my opinion the blame is to a large extent to be attributed to the Treasury officials. There is no elasticity about their methods, and the grants made by the Treasury are made under restrictions made by the Treasury itself, and under these restrictions a great deal of injustice is done so far as education is concerned. They say in order to qualify for such and such a grant the regulations are so and so, and must be complied with. I am quite sure that if the money as a whole was in the hands of a sympathetic body in Ireland controlling national education, they could smooth over those rough portions which are constantly having attention drawn to them, and they could administer the grant by much more beneficial methods than those which are adopted at the present time. I think we have been able to prove that the cause of the teachers is one that deserves
    194
    immediate attention, and the whole of the teachers in Ireland are most anxiously awaiting the result of to-day's Debate. Every word which the Chief Secretary states to-day will be read with intense interest in every village and hamlet throughout Ireland. The teachers have waited a long time. As everyone knows they have held meetings in all parts of Ireland without as far as I can see any question arising of a political nature. From the South and West of Ireland I have had many communications wishing well to the Bill dealing with the heating and cleansing of National schools. I have had as many communications from the South and West of Ireland as I have had from my own particular part of Ulster on this question. That shows that this movement is one which has gone on increasing to such an extent that the words of the right hon. Gentleman on this matter of National education will be read with more interest than any statement he has made in this House since he became Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELL: The Debate has shown that on all sides, above and below the Gangway, we are deeply interested in Irish education, and there seems to be a willing desire to do something to improve the position of education generally in Ireland. This is all the more satisfactory because during the ten years I have been in this House this is the first time we have been able to consider education as a whole. Last year we had university education established and till then we could only consider primary education. Hitherto in Ireland we have carried our schoolboys and girls a certain distance in education, and there they stopped. They may have the ability, or they may not, but in any case it was useless because there was no university. The Debate is also interesting because for the first time an attempt has been made to link up and coordinate primary, secondary and university education and to throw open the education thus afforded to the boys and the girls in our primary schools who possessed the necessary ability. We do not want every child to become a university undergraduate, and that is not our object or our desire. Our great object is that in the case of boys and girls at primary schools, if they have the necessary ability and industry, poverty shall not be a bar to their progress.
    This is the first opportunity we have had of dealing with this question as a whole.

    195
    Prior to this occasion primary education was the only branch we could deal with. In every other country, and more especially in Ireland, primary education must continue to be the most important branch of education. Let me deal shortly with what I consider the necessary reforms in our primary system. First and foremost we want more money. Do not let, the Treasury reply, "That is always what you want." That may be so, but I think we have proved conclusively and satisfactorily that in the matter of education Ireland is treated far worse than either England or Scotland by the Exchequer. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has shown by his figures that Ireland gets £300,000 less than she should get on the basis of population. That is a most unjust treatment of Ireland. Is it because we do not levy rates for education that we are to be penalised by the Imperial Exchequer? We are not asking for money to make up for the loss in the rates, but we claim, and we are entitled to demand, at least as much from the Exchequer as England or Scotland get for education. That is the only demand we make. It is very difficult for an hon. Member who has not access to the Treasury accounts to separate the Grants for primary and secondary education. In England and Scotland the money is voted to a central board, and they distribute it between the various county and other authorities, who afterwards distribute it between primary and secondary education. It is difficult to institute a comparison between the cost of primary education in England, Scotland and Ireland, but it is very easy to institute a comparison as to the amount of money which is granted by the Treasury for education as a whole in the three countries.
    I propose in a very short space of time to show how Ireland is treated in this respect. Take this year's Estimates. The Votes for education from the Treasury are:—England, £14,375,442; Scotland, £2,336,592; Ireland, £1,653,324. These are grants direct from the Treasury. Scotland, it will be seen, gets nearly one and a half times as much as Ireland. On any basis, whether of population or school attendance, there should not be this disparity. On the basis of population, which has long been accepted, we are entitled, as compared with Scotland, to at least £300,000 per annum more than we are getting. The figures I have already given are the figures for education generally.
    196
    Let me now take the Exchequer Grants for secondary education. They are:—England and Wales, £993,000 per annum; Scotland, £250,000 per annum; Ireland, nil. This is an injustice calling for immediate settlement. The growth of the Exchequer Grants during the past ten years shows how alert is the Scotchman when there is question of finding money for his country. In the ten years ended March, 1911, the increases in Treasury Grants for the three countries are:—England, £4,162,632, or 44 per cent.; Scotland, £931,236, or 66 per cent.; Ireland, £320,000, or 21 per cent. Let me now compare the gross total education budget of the three countries. These include rates, fees, endowments, etc. Unfortunately in Ireland there are no rates and very few endowments:—England, £26,000,000; Scotland, £4,336,000; Ireland, £1,700,000. When one considers that in Ireland we have very nearly as many pupils attending our primary schools as you have in Scotland, and that in our secondary schools we have very nearly as many pupils as there are attending similar schools in Scotland, is it not perfectly evident that it is absolutely impossible for us in Ireland to produce anything like satisfactory results either in primary or secondary education? When we only spend £1,700,000, and Scotland spends £4,250,000, how can we provide for education, pay our teachers, and find bursaries to enable our boys and girls to go from primary to a higher grade at a secondary school and on to the university with such small funds? The thing is impossible, and it can only be remedied by providing the money which is required and must be given. No wonder that Scotchmen succeed even in Ireland, where they become prosperous through their superior education. We do not object to fair competition. I think the people of Scotland are to be congratulated upon the excellent system of education which they have carried on for so many years, and also upon the success with which they persuade the British Treasury to vote them money far larger than the amount which we can compel the British Treasury to vote to Ireland. In addition to raising more money themselves, Scotland has succeeded in getting the Treasury to give a great deal more attention to Scotland than to Ireland. That is the case which I wish to bring to the attention of the Chief Secretary. As I said before, it is a question of money. We cannot pay teachers and keep our schools efficient without we

    197
    have a decent supply of money. Nowhere is money better spent than upon education, because it benefits the country by improving the brains and the character of our sons and daughters. I am satisfied that in the Chief Secretary we have a man who realises the advantages that education generally is to a country, and who has shown his interest in Ireland by the work he has already done in establishing a national university for which Ireland is very grateful. In educational matters Ireland has been condemned for her system of control, and for various other reasons, and I have no doubt a great deal of that condemnation is deserved. Nobody can say that either the National Board or the Intermediate Board of Education would be tolerated in any other country. Nobody would say that they are constituted in a way beneficial to education. The marvel to me is that those Boards have done so much poorly financed and strangely constituted as they are. Doctor Starkie, the President of both Boards in Ireland, is an educationalist of a very high order, and he has devoted his great energies and ability to improving the character of education both primary and secondary in Ireland. He has striven during the last seven or eight years as hard as he could to impress upon the Treasury the necessity of improving both those systems, and he pointed this out in his last report. The Member for East Mayo quoted an extract or two from the last report of the National Board, and that certainly was very interesting and instructive. In that report Dr. Starkie pleads most eloquently, but in vain, for the establishment of higher grade schools in Ireland. He shows that in Scotland, in England, and practically in every country in Europe those schools are an important element in the educational system. The hon. Member for East Mayo does not think that at the present time this is a subject out of the sphere of practical politics. That may be. I shall regret it if that is so.
    I personally feel very keenly in the matter of the establishment of higher grade schools. I have given a considerable amount of attention to the subject. In Scotland the higher grade school is more important than the secondary school. It is the school to which the boy of brains or of industry can go from the primary school, and, having spent his three years there, he can afterwards go, without cost to himself or his
    198
    parents, to the secondary school and right on to the university. It is the essential link binding the primary school to the university. These schools should he opened and established free all over the country. A system of scholarships may be suggested as sufficient, but I believe the higher grade school has a far more useful work to do than merely to lead a boy from the primary school to the university. There are thousands of boys who, if they get the opportunity, will pass through the higher grade school and the secondary school, but who will never go to the university, and will never want to go to the university. Their minds, however, will be enlarged, and their views will be bettered, and in after-life they will be better citizens and better workers in the various walks of national life. We cannot all go to the universities. Many of us, however can go to the secondary and higher grade school, and our position will be better. We shall make better members of local boards and better members of an Irish Parliament when it comes. I therefore plead as hard as I can for the necessity of establishing as soon as possible the higher grade school as an adjunct of the primary school.
    The other point mentioned in this report is the question of agriculture. Anyone who knows Ireland is aware that we are an agricultural nation. It is our main industry; from it the wealth of our nation is derived, and practically nine-tenths of our people live from the land. Is it conceivable that in a proper scheme of education in a country so situated there should be not one word of agriculture taught either in the primary school or the secondary school or the university? The thing is really inconceivable. It is farcical and absurd, and it is outrageous that our boys and girls should be taught to go away from the land by which they should live in after life, and to become clerks and goodness knows what. It is educationally unsound and absurd, and everything should be done to change that system. My hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon), in speaking about the distinction between the rural school and the city school, referred to the unfairness with which the teacher in the rural school is treated in the matter of classification. The rural school ought to have a different scheme of education from the town school. The boys and girls who frequent the rural schools come from the farms and from the labourers' cottages. Many of them will go back to the farms, but a great many more would go back to the farms and

    199
    make more out of them were it not for the scheme of education which is really helping emigration from our country, and which, I am sorry to say, is unfitting them to live by the land, which is the great source of the wealth of our country. In this report the National Board plead eloquently, and plead in vain, for the establishment of a scheme of agricultural plots to enable boys to learn the elements of the science of agriculture. In any country in the world but Ireland that would have been done long ago. It is being done in England. The present Minister of Education (Mr. Runciman) is proud, and rightly proud, that he has established such a system in this country. In the Memorandum only just issued there is a paragraph which is certainly instructive, and which would be useful if followed by us in Ireland:—
    "It is beyond doubt that the much needed revivifying of agriculture and other rural industries in this country must be brought about by a natural and not by an artificial stimulus. And the experience of urban industries during recent years has abundantly shown that the most effective stimulus of all—because it is the only one which goes to the root of the matter—is the constant application of expert knowledge, after investigation on ever fresh lines of experiment and observation, to the solution one by one of each of the many and diverse problems which beset the daily operations of industrial practice. Agriculture has at least as much to gain from the expert as shipbuilding or dyeing or weaving; yet these are occupations the whole conditions of which have been transformed by the development of scientific methods and by that systematic training of the practical intelligence which such methods involve. In promoting, therefore, the growth of rural education on industrial lines, county councils and all who are interested in the future of agriculture have a truly national work to accomplish."
    That is in England. It refers to a country where conditions are the very opposite of what they are in Ireland. Seventy per cent. of our population lives on the land, but only 30 per cent. of the population of England lives on the land. In spite of that disparity, agriculture is attended to in England, while in Ireland it is neglected. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary would be able to say anything on the subject to-day, but I trust in the many spare moments which an Irish Chief Secretary has he will be able to devote his attention to it. The question of the teachers is certainly a very important one, and I would refer to it for a few moments. The salaries are scandalously small. It cannot be expected that a man of some considerable education will devote his life to that great work if he is not fairly remunerated for it. Unfortunately, we cannot expect to have the same salaries paid to our teachers as are paid in England and Scotland. The rates are
    200
    available there, but at present they are not available in Ireland. We are, however, at, least entitled to insist that the salaries shall be increased and that that increase shall come from the Treasury. Certainly when the salaries are so small the Treasury ought to be only too willing to give us at any rate our own share. The treatment of assistant teachers in Ireland is cruel. Young men recently trained and expecting to spend their lives at what ought to be an honourable profession after a few years, owing to the decrease of population or bad seasons, constantly find their positions gone and their salaries withdrawn, and they are thrown on the world with practically nothing possibly after having just married. It is a cruel and brutal system, and ought not to be tolerated. We are thankful to the Chief Secretary because we believe he is going to end this system and give us, as he promised, a swing of ten, which will, I hope, apply to all assistants. I trust the Chief Secretary, in arranging this matter, will bear in mind the assistant who is always on the border-line, and arrange it so that the teacher will be protected whether he belongs to a schools with three or with two or with one assistant.
    The question of heating is certainly very important. Anybody who knows the condition of many of the Irish schools is aware that they are not places in which boys can be expected to learn on a winter's day practically without a fire. You must give a boy some element of comfort before he can apply himself to the work of education. Both teacher and pupil find it hard and irksome work to do anything under such conditions. I wish to impress upon the Chief Secretary the great importance of doing something for higher education in Ireland. In Scotland the higher grade school and the secondary school both work together. Why do we not have the same system in Ireland? In England no money is paid to any school by the secondary education board if it does not give at least 25 per cent. of their places to the children of the primary schools. If it gives 25 per cent. free places, then the Board pays an average of £5 per pupil. That in Ireland would be about £100,000, and, if that £100,000 a year were spent with those conditions, I am satisfied that in a very short time a great many schools would open their doors and give facilities to boys who are fit to avail themselves of them and many more boys would be trained in secondary education who are now denied its advantages.

    201
    It is not my desire, nor the desire of anybody who has studied the question of education in Ireland, to turn the attention of the whole of our boys to the university. It would be a calamity if the poor of Ireland got a notion they were all going to the university. On the contrary, my ambition would be to turn their attention to the technical and commercial schools and to branches of knowledge by which afterwards they would make their living, and not to cast them upon the world with literary degrees which would be useless to them. I feel very interested in this matter, beginning as we are now with a university which has aroused a great deal of attention and interest in Ireland, and which for the first time in our history has given us an opportunity of dealing with this question of education on broad, national, and useful lines. I feel there are many varied and conflicting views on the question of education as to what would and would not be useful, and many wrong views which would have been righted by the publication of expert knowledge. Something should be done in order to put our education on proper lines for the time that is to come. I have asked the Chief Secretary on a few occasions whether he would not consider the advisability of appointing a small committee of experts who would go into this question, take the opinion of men in the country, find out what is being done in other countries, and direct their attention to choosing a scheme of education which instead of being literary, would be commercial, industrial, and agricultural, and which would go far to relieve the present drain on our population. I trust, having said so much, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have listened with attention to the speeches, necessarily long on account of the many subjects which have had to be dealt with, and I think the time has now come for me to say something on the various points raised. When I was Minister of Education of England I had an advantage which I do not at present enjoy. When I went to the Treasury in those days the officials knew that I came seeking for money for education, and for education only. But now when I go to the Treasury and ask for money they are not certain under what head I am demanding it. I would urge hon. Members opposite to remember that I have a great many other demands to
    202
    make on the Treasury on behalf of Ireland, and, although to-day is devoted to the education question and hon. Members on both sides are prepared to concentrate themselves on seeking more money for this undoubtedly good purpose, there are other days when they have other purposes in view, and when the Chief Secretary has to be the medium for making demands for those purposes on the Treasury. I am not simply associated with one sort of expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is, we know, very sympathetic, but then he has to consider, not merely the gravity and justice of one case, he has to bear in mind the justice and gravity of a great many cases, and he has to ask himself how he can make the money go round.
    I think the best way to avoid repetition will be for me to follow in their order, as far as I can, the various demands that have been made by different speakers. First comes the subject of the pensions of the teachers. In my view, grave as are most of the demands made to-day, this is one of the gravest, and I am not sure that, in a sense, it does not cut deeper into the teaching profession in Ireland than almost anything else. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not only generally sympathetic to the cause of education in Ireland, but in the case of the teachers he has a soft heart. He promised on the occasion when he received a deputation from them to deal with their many grievances at the earliest possible moment, and to that promise he scrupulously adheres. The great grievance about the matter is that the scale is so drawn as to give rise to cases of extraordinary hardship. A man, say, fifty-four years of age who has all that time paid his contribution, finds he cannot go on. Indeed, it would not be just and fair to the children under him that he should go on, and that he should remain the year longer which would entitle him to a pension five or six times the amount to which he is entitled if he is obliged to go at the age of fifty-four. It is a shocking state of things, but it is only human nature that the poor man should strive to his very utmost to remain to get a pension which in itself is a miserably small sum, and that he should continue to serve in the school. It is only by hanging on for a time that the teacher can hope to get an adequate return for the contribution he has made to the pension fund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is fully aware of

    203
    this state of things, and he adheres to the statement that he will deal with it as soon as possible; he hopes to do so in the coming year. I now come to the question of the ten years—to what has been called "the swing." Of course, it is a most heartrending grievance for a teacher, particularly in a country like Ireland, and in small schools in. mountainous and difficult districts to feel that the whole tenure of his office is dependent on the average attendance being maintained up to a level of fifty. You cannot have an assistant teacher unless the attendance of scholars is sufficient to justify his retention, and there must always be a certain amount of agitation connected with the office of assistant teacher in a school where of necessity the average attendance varies. I think humanity demands that there should be sufficient latitude in this matter in the interests of the teacher himself, and that he should not be faced with the fact that the falling off in the number of children in attendance may bring him face to face with poverty, if not starvation. The question is, what is a sufficient latitude in the interests of the Treasury. I understand that the Treasury is of opinion that ten is a reasonable margin, so that the attendance might dwindle from fifty to forty without the assistant teacher having to resign his or her post.
    It is important to bear in mind that in Ireland the number of schools with an average attendance under fifty is the largest number of schools. There are 430 National schools with an average attendance under twenty; there are 1,977 schools where the average attendance is between twenty and thirty-four; there are 1,940 schools where the average attendance is between thirty-five and forty-nine; and 1,678 with an average attendance of from fifty to sixty-nine. The number of schools with an attendance over and above seventy is very small indeed. Therefore, when you are thinking of a school in Ireland you must think of one with an average attendance of fifty, and then you will realise the facts I am putting before you.
    I had a letter only this morning from a lady—no friend of mine politically—Mrs. Blake. She is an educationalist, and writes about the Eagle's Nest National School. She says:—
    I have received from the Board of Education notice that the average not being up to the required amount (by a child and the tenth of a child) the salary of Mrs. Rose O'Sullivan would he discontinued after end of quarter, if not up then. Can this be true? That young
    204
    ladies are educated and prepared by the State for a profession which leaves them unfit for any other work and to which they have given the best years of their life, to he turned adrift on the world because the school in which they have been teaching happens to be a child and the tenth of a child short in the average at end of quarter. Mrs. O'Sullivan is a very careful, good teacher, highly respected by all who know her. She lives a good many miles from the school as she married the schoolmaster of Lettergish school. If, therefore, she is dismissed from Eagle's Nest school, she must either leave her husband and go and look for work— impossible to get—or bear the loss of her whole income, although she has been teaching in that school for over ten or fifteen years. She will lose her pension to which she has been contributing all these years. This is a severe punishment for no fault of hers—and no fault of ours. The school is in the heart of the mountains, and over from the other side of the mountains little children cannot come on a very severe day—indeed, I fear they often come when they should not You have seen the Renvyle Mountain. Looking from Renvyle House you can see it high up above the Eagle's Nest, and at the other side down to the sea, where all the houses of Letter and Lettermore, etc., are. Fancy the little children on a cold wet day coming over that hill to school ! No wonder there would be in any quarter a child or the tenth of a child short. The children are in it right enough; but the old can leave at fourteen, and they will leave; before this was known they might stay a year at least longer, then the young may want a few weeks or months of being old enough. The children are in it; one family alone numbers sixteen—two of these in America. Mr. Coyne could not possibly teach the children that are there on a good day without help, and it is not a school where working mistress would be any good. I tried this in Mr. Burns' time before; nor are there children who can give their time to teaching. Instead of dismissing, why not reduce the salary of both master and mistress by a child and the tenth of a child; it would be more honest and better for the country."
    7.0 P.M.
    You have to remember that in these schools you are dealing with schools in mountainous and difficult districts, where it is impossible to maintain that precise and accurate average attendance which you can get in your board schools and your provided schools in great towns like London, Liverpool, and Manchester. I think the Treasury are perfectly right in yielding to the pressure put upon them to allow these National schools a margin of ten. If the attendance falls below the margin of ten the teacher would be dismissed. There would still be a little bit of anxiety on the subject. It was thought by the Treasury it might be possible to get over the difficulty by increasing the number required for the appointment of an assistant teacher at the beginning. But, such a course would be retrogression. If I carried away from my experience in the Education Office in England one deep-rooted educational conviction—and I had a good many shattered—it was that you cannot hope to get the best return for the money you are spending educationally either in England or Ireland unless you have your schools properly manned by teachers, and it is a hopeless task to expect one teacher, however competent, to deal successfully with too many

    205
    children. I shall have no difficulty in satisfying the Treasury on this point, and the Committee may take it from me that this latitude will be allowed to assistant teachers in the future. I cannot say how far back the concession will extend, but it will go back, I am sure, some little time. The next point is the heating and cleansing, and I should be very churlish in this matter if I did not recognise the eagerness of the hon. and gallant Member opposite on this subject and the laborious efforts he has made to secure improvement in that respect. He did everything a man can do. He brought forward his own Bill and he blocked every other Bill on the subject, and he performed all the duties of a private Member with regard to this question. I have taken it up with immense interest, and now that I have succeeded in getting what I wanted from the Treasury in the matter I can only say I hope that the benefits will prove in proportion to the efforts that I made to secure them. I do not want to exaggerate the badness of the small national schools in Ireland, because a great many of them which I have seen, all things considered, are quite comfortable, and are going on very well. In most of these cases the good results were obtained by casting upon the teachers themselves out of the most exiguous salaries which they receive the duty of whitewashing and otherwise cleansing the theatre of their action, namely, the place where children come to be instructed. The duty which was cast upon them was indeed not merely a duty but an obligation. The children themselves were encouraged to bring peat in their arms or in their pinafores across the hills in order to contribute to the lighting of the school fires.
    No doubt hon. Members will ask how this state of things arose. It arose as many things do arise quite decently. I think the idea was when the national schools were established—they were not an Irish idea, and they were imposed upon them at the very outset—but I think the idea was that as there was no local contribution made it should be left to local committees to tax themselves for the purpose of heating and cleansing the schools. As far as I can make out from all the correspondence I have seen that was the idea at the bottom of the minds of the founders of this system of education which now prevails in Ireland. It was felt, however, that there was no obligation to do it and it has not been done except by the teachers and by the parents by means of
    206
    their contributions of peat. The question was how are we to get rid of the present system. The National Board of Education, who, to do them justice, have always pushed forward these claims for very many years now press upon the Government that they have calculated them as amounting to £40,000 a year, and they have asked, in a sort of omnibus demand, for many years past, from the Treasury, that something should be done. Nothing, however, has been done until the hon. and gallant Gentleman and others who were working with him, irrespective, I need scarcely say, of any religious or party feeling, have brought the matter forward very carefully and we have now made a calculation and come to an arrangement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a great advocate of what he calls a £1 for a £1 system. If you go to him and say: "There is £1, will you give me another?" you have a greater chance of meeting with a favourable response from him than if you go to him for £2.
    We have come to this point. All the managers of the schools and religious bodies have agreed, and the Treasury will bind itself to pay pound per pound up to a maximum amount of £21,000 a year. But this they only do under a scheme in which each school will be dealt with independently of any other school, and the question will be, in the case of each school: "Has it been properly heated and cleansed? What sums have been expended." And the authorities will have to satisfy the inspector that the money has been spent to keep the school in proper condition, produce their vouchers for the expenditure, and then the Treasury will contribute a half of the sum which has been spent within a fixed limit. There will have to be a report from one of the Board's inspectors that the heating and cleansing were effectively carried out during the period for which the Grant was made and the amount paid by the managers during the period over which the expenditure extended, and the Government Grant will be made. Unless the inspector's report shows that the heating and cleansing have been effectively attended to, the Government Grant will not be made. Moreover, it will not be a payment in advance but a re-payment of a moiety of the expenditure incurred. That involves an addition to the expenditure on education of this sum of £21,000 a year, but it will not be dispensed without self-help, as it imposes

    207
    a corresponding obligation upon the managers of the schools. I think that now they will be able to accomplish this great purpose of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and he and all who have laboured in the cause will feel, I think, that a genuine effort has been made to rid the country of what was somewhat of a disgrace—namely, the unhealthy, uncomfortable condition to which many of these schools were reduced. Then there is the question of the monthly payment of the salaries of the teachers, and that is a curious and rather troublesome one. I may say at once that the Treasury and everybody else agrees that it is a great hardship that the salaries of teachers, small as those salaries are, and therefore the greater hardship, are not paid monthly. Men and women who receive so small a salary as these teachers have do require that it should be paid to them monthly.
    A difficulty arises from the fact that that has not been the usual course and the salaries have been paid quarterly. Moreover, it is one of those curious effects of arithmetic that when you try to provide a sum in a year necessary to set this matter right, you have to do what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, you have to provide in the first year two extra months' pay in order to make up these payments. When there is an enormous number of these teachers, inadequate as their salaries may be, the cost of finding two months' salaries, in addition to the twelve months, amounts to a considerable sum, altogether £177,825. Then there is the Augmentation Fund, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, and which he suggested might have to be paid on another footing, and that he thought might continue to be paid in a lump sum. But if it were not, and if it were added, it would make a total of £285,375, which would have to be provided for in the Estimate for one year. It would only be for one year, I agree, and as soon as the sum was paid the thing would be set right. The only additional cost on a permanent footing would be the extra additional cost of administration, and that is estimated at no less than £5,240. I must say that seems to me to be a very large sum, and I think that should be looked into to see whether these figures could not be very materially reduced. The Treasury agree that this is a wrong that should be remedied. They make no promise, how-
    208
    ever, in regard to this present year, but they hope to be able to do so at some very early opportunity, and I hope they may next year be able to provide whatever money is necessary to secure that the teachers' salaries shall be paid monthly. If the augmentation is not included in this category that reduces the difficulties of the Treasury and increases the chance of providing a speedy remedy for this evil.
    Then there is the building fund. The building grants have also been referred to, and I think in that matter the willingness of the Treasury to increase the Grant has already become public property. The hon. Member for Mayo cited so accurately what had happened that I need not further go into it except by simply saying this, that the Treasury in 1910 promised to provide a sum of £40,000 a year for each of the three years ending the 31st March, 1913, making a total of £240,000 for the six years ending on that date. It now appears that £218,676 out of this £240,000 has already been expended or will be expended by the 31st March next year, leaving only £21,324 available for the urgent cases that are waiting to be dealt with most impatiently. Consequently the Treasury have expressed their willingness to allow the Commissioners of National Education to receive and sanction further applications for Grants up to a maximum of £348,676 from the 1st April, 1907, including £240,000 already conferred. That is an addition of £108,676. The question of building is one of enormous importance. Indeed, next to the teachers I would rank building in importance. I would rather have a good teacher, teaching in a dry ditch, than a bad teacher, teaching in a palace with all the advantages that buildings and other appliances can afford. Good buildings and suitable playgrounds for the children are, however, of enormous importance, and there is a very great number of urgent cases waiting for consideration by the Commissioners of National Education. It is the hope of the Government that this additional grant of £108,676 will be at once used by the Commissioners of National Education for dealing with the urgent cases, not so much in priority of time as in degree of urgency, because what we want the money to be used for is that it should be spent in building, rebuilding, and rearranging some of the schools in Ireland which are in a very shocking and lamentable state, owing to overcrowding and other circum-

    209
    stances. I therefore hope this increase in the building grant will be at once got rid of and properly applied to the purpose for which it is intended in proportion to the urgency of each case. Then I have to deal with the question of co-ordination, scholarships, and secondary education, and I am only allowed to deal with it shortly, as secondary education in Ireland is not on the Votes of this House at all. I am therefore only allowed to deal with it because it is impossible for any intelligent man to deal with the question of education without linking them up together and considering the relations between primary and secondary education. In regard to secondary education Ireland, undoubtedly, has a very strong claim on the Treasury, because secondary education as such gets no vote whatever from Imperial sources corresponding to the capitation fees which are given in England, Scotland, and Wales to secondary schools, and which amount in those countries to about £750,000 per annum. The provision for intermediate education in Ireland is made out of the income arising from £1,000,000 of the Irish Church surplus, which, of course, is Irish money with which the Imperial Exchequer has no particular concern. As it was derived chiefly from tithe rent-charge, it may be taken in this matter as corresponding to rates. In addition to that, they had a sum of Whisky Money, but England and Scotland also had that sum, which was handed over to the county council to be applied by them as they chose. It might either go for secondary education or technical education, or it might be taken in reduction of rates. It in no way was supplemental to or an alternative for the capitation fees. Ireland, therefore, has got its income from its Irish Church surplus, and it has its share of the Whisky Money, but it has nothing else and it has, therefore, nothing whatever corresponding to the capitation grant of £2 per head, £3 10s. per head, £1 per head, to the secondary schools of this country, assuming that they are properly equipped and entitled to rank as educational establishments, justifying the receipt of public money. Therefore, Ireland, in secondary education, has, undoubtedly, one of the strongest cases that it is possible for anyone to make, because it simply has not anything—nothing at all. I must say that Irishmen often, in my judgment, make unreasonable demands upon the British Exchequer. I have known cases, but I must say in this particular case they really have
    210
    been left out altogether, and the necessity of secondary education in Ireland is, of course, quite as great as it is anywhere else.
    I was glad to hear the hon. Member (Mr. Thomas O'Donnell) very properly say, he refused to regard secondary education as if it were merely a portico to the university. It is nothing of the kind. A great many people in Ireland will only receive education at the National schools, and a great many will only receive it at the secondary schools. There will only be a limited number who will proceed from the secondary school to the University. I for one have no desire whatever to seem to be tempting, urging and pressing young men to regard themselves as unfit for manly life and society unless they have been to a University. There is no greater delusion in the world than to suppose that that is either desirable or necessary in any rank of life or for any vocation in life, and least of all for the vocations in life which, after all, the great majority of mankind may well be proud to be associated with—farming, agriculture, and other pursuits. I do not want at all to tempt people into universities, but still no country is entitled to consider itself in any respect a civilised country until it has a good primary system of education and also a good secondary system of education, and, thirdly, a university and some means, not extravagant, whereby youngsters with literary and scientific tastes may be able, if their abilities warrant it, to proceed from the primary school at the bottom to the university at the top. There are, of course, secondary schools in Ireland at present, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, but they are not in the position they ought to be, or would be in, in a happier arranged country, and they cannot ever be really good secondary schools until they are able to pay, or do pay, reasonable and decent salaries to their assistant teachers.
    The life of an ordinary assistant master in Ireland is detestable, the remuneration is miserably inadequate, and he has no tenure of office at all. He is very often engaged in September for six months, and that is the whole tenure and term of his employment. At the end of that time he may, or he may not, be continued on. It is no use bolstering up any system of secondary education which has so shaky a foundation as that, and the first task and object, I think, of all persons either engaged in the profession themselves or desirous to see it occupying the position of

    211
    repute that it ought to do, would be to try to raise the standard of the secondary teacher in Ireland. I know no better way of attaining that result than by, if possible, securing the registration of persons seeking or considering themselves justified in earning their living in that manner. The qualifications should be pretty high and pretty stiff, though not too high or too stiff—a university degree, some measure of experience of teaching and the like—and when that is done, and when you have your secondary schools supplied with teachers of that kind they would deserve, and, I hope, obtain a very great measure of public support. The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) said that in his experience—I presume as a father—the secondary schools in Ireland were very cheap. They are too cheap; but it is very difficult when you have started a secondary school on a cheap basis to raise the fees. At the same time, I think secondary education, if it is to be worth anything at all, can only be obtained at a certain cost, and the main cost must be in the salaries of its teachers. I therefore hope that that part of the case may not be lost sight of.
    Then there are scholarships, which I was glad to notice the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) spoke warmly in support of. The University Act, which passed a little while ago, enabled county councils to establish, by a ld. rate, scholarships at the universities, and when I was in Ireland a great many people came in a deputation to me and asked me to alter the provisions of the University Act in order to meet the case of scholarships at the secondary schools. They seem to think that in some way that was connected with the University Act. It has nothing whatever to do with it, but County Councils are able to raise a rate for the purpose of establishing scholarships at the university, and in order to qualify yourself in order to hold those scholarships you have to get to the university, and it would be ridiculous to hang on to a University Act scholarships at secondary schools. A university has its own scholarships, which it gives to persons who go to its doors and succeed in satisfying its standards; but I can quite understand County Councils, when they ask for a ld. rate in order to establish scholarships at the university, saying they would like to see in existence some means whereby they could say to their poor ratepayers, "If you give us the money to establish scholarships at the
    212
    university your children will be able to compete for these scholarships by reason of the provision that has been made for scholarships to enable them to proceed from the primary school to a secondary school, where they will be taught what is necessary to enable them to present themselves for examination at the doors of the university." There is, no doubt, at the present moment a missing link in the chain, and it would, I am sure, be a very good thing if means were forthcoming to establish scholarships under a wise and limited scheme which would enable boys to go from the primary schools to the secondary schools. But here I should like to point out an educational difficulty which ought to be borne in mind by those who may be concerned in framing any scheme, and that is that teachers in primary schools are naturally desirous always of keeping their clever boys to the end of their time, and if they have a clever boy it is a great difficulty to get him to go away, as he much better should do, if he is to proceed to a secondary school, at the age of eleven or twelve. The ideal thing would be, I think, if you could get the means of taking clever boys away from the primary schools, say, at twelve, keeping them at the secondary schools till sixteen or seventeen, and then to have scholarships at the University. There are difficulties, but they can be overcome.
    To cut all that short the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite willing this year to set apart a sum of money for intermediate education to be dealt with as the Board of Intermediate Education and as those interested and connected with secondary schools in Ireland, namely, the Headmasters Association and the Teachers Association, in association with the Chief Secretary, whoever he may chance to be, may determine. This I hope may be the means of settling a scheme for scholarships at the secondary schools enabling boys to proceed from the primary schools to the secondary schools, so that they may compete for scholarships at the University. If the sum set apart is more than necessary for that purpose, it may be used to raise the status of secondary schools, which can only be done in my opinion by raising the present status of the teachers in these schools. I hope that may be the beginning of a period which, when it has had full time for fruition, will

    213
    create for the first time in Ireland an adequate system of secondary education, because, of course, it must always be borne in mind that in England no school gets a penny unless it has fully satisfied the requirements of a somewhat rigorous inspection. You must really be able to satisfy people who are experts in these matters that it is really a seat of learning and not a mere cram shop. I therefore hope that hon. Members from Ireland, and those generally interested in education in the United Kingdom, will think we have done something to get over the difficulty and raise the standard of secondary education in Ireland.
    There are only two other points which were referred to. One upon which the right hon. Gentleman laid a good deal of emphasis was about grading. That is a difficult question. It arose in 1900, and I can assure the Committee that the question is full of considerable difficulty, and the real question that arises and has to be determined is how far any teacher was justified in assuming that in 1900, when the change was made, it could not affect his prospects. Future prospects naturally are difficult precisely to estimate, and I do not think it can be made out that anyone has actually suffered. No one's salary was taken away from him. All that these 3,600 teachers say is that their prospects were interfered with, and that, if the alteration had not been made, they would at the present moment be in receipt of larger salaries than they are now. I do not profess to have gone very deeply into it, though I have heard of it from time to time, but I am informed that the Board of National Education at present have obtained from the persons affected six typical cases which they are now in course of considering. These six cases are not the only cases which may have to be considered, but they have been selected as typical and test cases, and when they are decided one way or another the decisions will affect a large number of other cases. All I can say on that point is that we should wait until the Board of National Education have dealt with these cases. When they have done so their decisions will come before me, and I shall be able to consider how far any further inquiry is necessary to elucidate the wrongs of these persons. With regard to civil rights, I had hoped that the efforts I had already made in that direction had successfully got rid of the grievances. The only civil right from which, so far as I am
    214
    aware, teachers are at the present moment debarred is that of taking part in political debate. On that point I am bound to say my views are rather strong. I think teachers had better keep out of political debate. I do not think it is any deprivation of civil right that any person, because he has adopted a particular profession, is debarred from becoming a furious partisan. It is the same with the clerical profession, though, in my judgment, the members of that profession do not always keep out of political controversy. I think a minister of religion or a priest wholly sacrifices his influence if he becomes connected, obviously and prominently, with partisan strife in his diocese, or parish, or any of his schools. Therefore, although, as the hon. Gentleman said, I took a friendly view towards those teachers, and have effected alterations for bettering their positions, and have amended the rules in such a way as to throw open many posts in the social service, from which they were before debarred, I do not think I shall throw myself with much activity or with much heart and soul into any effort to enable the National teachers of Ireland to take an active part in political strife. The time may come when political strife will cease in Ireland, and in that event the present restriction will be unnecessary.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I feel that it is due to the Chief Secretary to intervene at once after his speech and give expression to the impression which the speech has made on my colleagues and myself. Let me say that the general impression on my mind, after listening to his speech, is that everybody connected with education in Ireland, in a high position or a low position, as manager or as teacher, must feel a certain amount of gratification and satisfaction at the result of this Debate. There were a number of points which we have for a considerable time been pressing upon the right hon. Gentleman, and I would like to say—and this much I am justified in saying without any breach of confidence—we found that he was from the very start most sympathetic upon each one of the claims we made upon him. The difficulties which we had in bringing about a satisfactory settlement of some of these matters did not rest with him. It rested largely with the Treasury, and although I say that I do not cast any reflection upon the Treasury at all, for I believe that our claims were carefully examined. As regards most of those claims the Treasury has come to see eye to eye with the right

    215
    hon. Gentleman and the Irish Gentlemen who have been pressing the claims upon him.
    I wish to speak only for a few moments, and I will follow the right hon. Gentleman on the details seriatim. First with reference to pensions, that undoubtedly, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, is the most serious of all those claims. When the teachers came in a deputation to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, last year I think it was, they received a clear and definite promise from him that he would put them on as good a footing in this respect as the teachers of England or Scotland. The teachers went away greatly delighted and relieved by the declaration, but I know myself from my own personal experience and from the communications I have received from all parts of Ireland on the subject that while they trusted implicitly in the good faith of the Chancellor of the Exchequer they were getting a little impatient, and are to-day a little impatient, at the fulfilment of the promise being put off for such a long time. Therefore I heard with the greatest satisfaction the statement which the Chancellor of Exchequer made in introducing the Insurance Bill the other day when he again pledged himself to deal with this question, and to deal with it this year. The Chief Secretary has repeated that promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer again this afternoon. Therefore we may take it, and the teachers may take it, that they have now received a definite promise from the Government, that the undertaking which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to their deputation last year will be carried out this year, and that the matter will be at once considered from the point of view of putting them upon a sound footing before the end of this year. I think that is a very gratifying result from this Debate, and indeed if it stood alone, it would completely justify the action of those who have been pressing these matters on the Government.
    The next point which the Chief Secretary alluded to was one, in my judgment, of enormous importance to the teachers of Ireland, and that is, the alteration in the hard and fast limit of fifty in average attendance necessary for the retaining of an assistant teacher in a school in Ireland. I do not know anything connected with the profession of teaching in Ireland more annoying than the existence of this rule. It is an absolutely cruel rule. I will not
    216
    dwell upon it now except to recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has not only met us on this matter, but has accepted the full demand we made upon him, namely, that there should be a swing of ten. I do not know what sum will be required for that. It may be an uncertain sum, and it may come to be a large sum, but the Treasury are aware of the fact that it will entail a considerable sum to be provided by them. Therefore we have the gratification of knowing on that point that they have completely met the demand made upon them. The same thing is true of the heating and cleaning of the schools. It has been met by the Treasury agreeing to what has been pressed upon them by the right hon. Gentleman and the Irish Members for a considerable time, and I feel certain that there will be most intense gratification in Ireland that the scandal of cold and dirty houses being used as schools for the children of the country will be brought to an end.
    With regard to monthly payments, the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to do what we ask, but I take note of the fact that he has declared that the Treasury admit the grievance. He has declared that the Treasury agree with him and with us that these quarterly payments entail a hardship upon the teachers. It is no answer to the claim to say that the thing all results, as the right hon. Gentleman says, from having begun wrong. When a grievance is admitted it ought to be remedied at once. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that it would entail an estimate for £280,000 for the first year in addition to the regular Estimate for that period. But that would not be payment of £280,000 additional because that money has to be paid. That is simply the debt due by the Treasury to these teachers, and it is only paying a portion of it sooner than would otherwise be the case. I regret sincerely he has not been able to remedy this. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this will be done. He has promised us that the Treasury, having admitted the grievance, will deal with it, but not this year. I do not wish to put words in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth, but I think he gave an undertaking that it will be done next year.
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is not an undertaking, it is a hope.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Well, I cannot put it further than that. The right hon. Gentleman hopes it will be done next year,

    217
    and he will do his level best to have it done. With regard to building grants, think the statement of the right hon. Gentlemen, on the whole, cannot be regarded as unsatisfactory. He has provided a sum of £108,000 additional for buildings. Of course, the need for this is urgent, and the whole of it is required for urgent cases which one of my colleagues has been bombarded with letters on from different parts of Ireland, where buildings have been sanctioned for three, four, or five years, where the plans have been prepared, and everything ready, and where the existing school is in a disgracefully inadequate and unsatisfactory condition, and yet the building has not been commenced. We are told that these most urgent cases have been prepared, and that this money will be expended immediately for these most urgent cases. It is a gratification that at last it has been provided, but I take leave to say that very great injustice and hardship has been done to Ireland by the withholding of the Grants by the Treasury so long.
    I come to the question of secondary or intermediate education. I think on the whole everybody will admit that what the right hon. Gentleman has said is fairly satisfactory. I would say it is wholly satisfactory from this point of view, that in the most emphatic language the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Treasury has admitted the complete justice of our claim. Let me again say what our claim is. We have the interest on £1,000,000, which is our own money—the money from the Church surplus fund, which is a purely Irish fund—and we have a proportion of what is called the whisky money. That is all we have for intermediate education in Ireland. England gets a portion of the whisky money too, so that, so far as England and Ireland are concerned, they both get a portion of the whisky money. England has nearly £1,000,000 of capitation fees given for secondary schools, and against that Ireland has not a single sixpence. We have made an enormous advance upon this question to-night. For the first time the Government and the Treasury have admitted that we have an absolutely unanswerable case. The right hon. Gentleman admits the whole case. If we receive capitation fees on the same scale as England receives them, there will be a sum of between £70,000 and £80,000 a year coming to Ireland. The Government having admitted the justice of that claim say that they are not at this moment prepared to fully meet it. I regret that, but I note with satisfaction the advance that
    218
    has been made in our case by the admission of the Treasury.
    The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken that this year—again I emphasise this year—to provide for all these purposes that a Supplementary Estimate will be introduced before the end of the Session and passed. He tells us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken this year that a sum of money will be provided for secondary education. He has not told us how much, but I presume from his silence on that point that it is not a full satisfaction of the case which he has admitted. I presume that, and regret it. But at any rate a sum of money, a substantial sum of money, will be provided this year, and he says that it will be dealt with and allocated as the Board of Education, the head masters, the teachers, and the Chief Secretary for the time being shall agree. He has indicated further that a portion of it, at any rate, will be ear-marked for the scholarship scheme of which we have been talking this afternoon. Then he went on to say that the remainder of the sum would be used to raise the status of the secondary schools of the country. Of course, we cannot really usefully discuss this matter without knowing the amount. We do not know whether it will be enough even for this scheme of scholarships or whether there will be any balance over after that, but this matter I would press on the right hon. Gentleman, as I presume the exact sum is not yet finally settled between himself and the Treasury, that he should urge the Treasury to give a substantial sum, at any rate, this year.
    I do not say that it would be reasonable to ask them to give the whole £80,000, which they admit is legally due. It may not be reasonable to ask them to give the whole of it this year, because it might be well to take time fully to consider the whole system of intermediate education, and to have a full consultation as to how best that money could be used, before being voted. But money is wanted immediately, and a substantial sum, and I hope therefore that the right hon. Gentleman will obtain as large a sum as he can for the immediate purposes of this year. I will not deal with the other questions of grading and of civil rights any more than to say this, I find that the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Board of Education are snaking investigation into six test cases on the question of grading, and he is waiting until he sees the result of

    219
    that investigation to decide what further step he will take as to inquiry or otherwise into this matter. I think we must leave that for the moment where it stands. On the question of civil rights I entirely agree with the expression of opinion of the Chief Secretary that it would be a lamentable thing if teachers threw themselves into the vortex of political controversy all over Ireland, and I take it for granted that the teachers themselves have too much sense to desire to do anything of the kind, and I am quite sure that the public opinion of the country would not tolerate it. But our claim is this: Why should there be a stigma put upon the teachers of Ireland that is not upon the teachers of this country? In this country teachers do not run into the vortex of political life, and yet there is no rule to prevent them. They are prevented from doing so by their common sense and the public opinion of the country. But in Ireland you insist on an insulting rule, which forbids them to do these things, and I think that these teachers would be less than men if they did not feel that a slight had been put upon them. I do think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to insist on that slight being entirely removed. In concluding, I wish to express to the right hon. Gentleman our gratification at the success of his strenuous efforts to meet us on all these points. I feel certain that his speech will give great satisfaction in Ireland both to managers and to teachers and all who are interested in education, and I sincerely congratulate them on what may be regarded as a most welcome and friendly message to Ireland.
    Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I am glad of the rather unusual opportunity of asking to be permitted to join in the congratulations offered by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) on the statement which we have heard from the Chief Secretary this afternoon. We Irish Members, sitting above the Gangway, are only too pleased to have this opportunity of stating that in the present Chief Secretary we have had a very warm friend of Irish education and one who has done as much as any one man could in trying to storm the Treasury on behalf of educational interests in Ireland since he came to occupy his present position. We have listened to his statement with the greatest interest this afternoon, and we entirely concur in what has been said in appreciation of it by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. I confess I should have
    220
    liked, speaking for the moment of the pensions of the teachers, if he had been able to-night to interpret somewhat more deliberately the exact meaning of the promise now confirmed of the Chancellor as to the immediate future. I entirely agree with the Chief Secretary when he says that perhaps of all the shortcomings of the Treasury generally towards Irish Education there is no shortcoming which cuts so deeply as the present inadequacy of the pension given to Irish teachers. While we have the Chancellor's promise confirmed this afternoon, and the further assurance of improvement in the early future, teachers who have had the pleasure of hearing the Debate this afternoon must feel so far that it is only a confirmation of old promises. The improvement of the pensions is not to form part of the Supplementary Vote, which is to go to cover the other concessions mentioned by the Chief Secretary. We have also listened with the greatest gratification to the concession that has been given with regard to the minimum of a small school which will be a source of great happiness to many assistant teachers, who have been thrown out of employment during recent months by the harsh and cruel operation of that rule, and I hope that whatever changes the future may bring we shall see no attempt made to revert to such a harsh and an arbitrary state of matters as prevailed during the last twelve months.
    In that connection I hope I have the sympathy of the Chief Secretary in saying that we hope his action will be retrospective at least to the extent of the last twelve months. The rule has operated exceedingly harshly during recent months, and we hope there will be no difficulty in having its relaxation made retrospective, at least to that extent. I may add a word as regards a question which has not been solved this evening. That is the question of monthly payments. As has already been pointed out by more than one Member, the Treasury are exaggerating the cost to them of making this concession to the people. The hon. and gallant Member for East Down (Captain Craig) suggested one principle by which greatly to lessen the burden that would be laid on the Treasury at the starting period. May I add that so far as the present financial year is concerned it does not seem to have been observed that it will not cost the Treasury a single extra penny to pay the salary once a month during these last twelve months. I hope that the last word has not been said upon this Budget by the Chief Secretary's

    221
    reply. Passing to the question of building grants, I think that the substantial concession made to-night will meet the urgent cases, cases which we always come in contact with where plans have been ready for improved schools which are urgently needed and these plans have been put aside during the last two or three years. I may now say one word on the question of co-ordination which was eloquently touched on by the Chief Secretary. He pointed out that the system of education would not be complete until we have the secondary schools in a better state, and I think, rather inadvertently, he seemed to suggest that secondary education in Ireland had been too cheap to be properly appreciated. I venture to inform him that so far as I know secondary education, of a good quality, is not any cheaper to-day in Ireland than it is in England or Scotland, and, further, I believe that the standard of teaching in our leading secondary schools is quite equal to the standard of teachers of this side of the Channel. So I think that whatever the sources of his information may be he would find that the university quality of the average teachers in our secondary schools is quite equal to the average quality on this side of the Channel.
    We are glad to hear that a certain amount of money has been allocated for the purpose of improving the salaries of the teachers in secondary schools. No branch of Education has suffered so much under the recent Finance Act as our secondary school, and the only complaint with regard to the Chief Secretary's statement is that he did not tell us exactly how much was to be granted in this connection. I hope there will be no delay. Surely he is aware that the need is exceedingly urgent, and I trust that there will be no delay in having the meeting to which he has referred and in framing his scheme to let the authorities connected with the secondary schools know exactly where they stand. On the question of civil rights, I am one of those who believe that Irish Members should have the fullest liberty as regards civil rights enjoyed by their brethren on this side of the Channel; and may I recall, as I do with interest, that the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, at their last Assembly meeting, passed a resolution on these lines. So far I have seen no desire on the part of the Government to give effect to it, but I hope that this Debate, which I think will be recalled in future as recording a substantial advance in the prospects of Irish education,
    222
    will be immediately followed by the Government giving legislative effect to the growing desire—and I think I speak for the moment on behalf of Irish Members of all shades of opinion—that civil rights in the fullest sense of the term shall no longer be refused to a most worthy and deserving body of citizens.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. LYNCH: I desire to add a few words before the Debate closes, although the course of the Debate shows that it is almost superfluous. It is rarely that I have heard a Debate in this House in which there has been such a general concurrence of opinion. One might hail it as a happy augury for Home Rule to see Irish Members on both sides of the Gangway rowing in the same boat and pulling the same stroke. The exhaustive speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo, who opened the Debate, covered almost the entire ground, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary gave entire satisfaction, and I have no doubt that it will enhance his already great and deserved popularity in Ireland. But there are one or two points which cropped up in the Debate which I may emphasise. One is with regard to pensions. The contracts spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman who represents Dublin University really are based on what should be legally regarded as a binding contract, for I know of one case where a teacher had desired to enter into a contract with the Board and was required to back his agreement with a 2s. 6d. stamp and pay all their arrears of compound interest for five years to 1884, which was the last year on which the agreements could be entered into; and yet in spite of the argreement drawn up on those terms the Government failed to keep its obligations. It is one of those events which could only have happened in the bad old days in Ireland, and on the principle of St. Augustine I believe it only because it is impossible. In regard to civil rights I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), that it is very little to be feared that the teachers of Ireland when they have civil rights accorded to them will rush into the vortex of politics as partisans, doing irremediable harm to their own interests and to the cause of education in Ireland. At the same time, simply because they are deprived of their civil rights, simply because of this invidious bar put upon them, they feel the

    223
    matter very keenly, and rightly so. The last time I was in my constituency a deputation waited upon me, and they asked me to see "the slaves." May I say that these slaves constituting the deputation consisted of respected members of the teaching profession in West Clare. This question of civil rights, not excluding even the questions of pensions and salaries, lies nearer to their hearts than any other because of the undeserved stigma cast upon the whole teaching profession in Ireland.
    I have been asked in numerous letters from my constituents to say a few words in reference to the system of inspection. It may seem a trivial matter, but to the teachers it is one of very considerable importance. I find, for instance, that in the case of one school which was regularly receiving the highest mention from year to year, this mention, owing to a certain change, fell some points. And that was repeated in many instances throughout. Ireland. These schools have fallen down two points, not because of any loss in character, but owing to the idiosyncrasy of some inspector. There is no greater difficulty in keeping a school on the right lines, and in giving high and efficient education, than is experienced where an inspector pays too great attention to points which may be little personal idiosyncrasies of his own, and which may discourage a teacher and lower the general level of the education.
    Another source of some difficulty is that the inspector of a school should, if possible, pay regard to the most essential points of education, which are, after all, the most intangible, not so much the curriculum, not so much what can be packed into a child's brain, as education in the true and original sense—the education of the child's character, and bringing out its natural abilities. That which should be the foundation of education is the most, difficult of all education to touch by a system of inspection. With regard to the general course of education, the hon. Member for West Kerry remarked on the importance of teaching agriculture. That, of course, is of special interest to Ireland, and the whole scope of technical education should be revised so as to make it more thorough. I mean to say that technical education should not be merely a kind of top-dressing on the education received in the school, but that it should be some-
    224
    thing real and tangible, having direct relation to the pupil's work in after-life. For instance, technical education in Ireland should be directed to agriculture, not merely in the sense of giving certain instruction in the realm of science with regard to agriculture, but in teaching him how to be a better farmer—in teaching him in the most practical and thorough way how he can set about his own business and make a farm of ten acres produce more than formerly a farm of twenty acres produced.
    That is not a mere dream. For instance, in France, by the law of heredity, landed property is cut up amongst the sons of the original possessor. It often arises that a man has to make his living on a farm of very small proportions, perhaps two or three acres. Often people in France make their living with one acre, certainly in the vineyard country. Anyone who goes to certain parts of France will find that technical education has been brought to a high degree of finish, and his impression of farming in France will be that it is almost comparable to gardening. All that redounds to the enormous prosperity of France in agriculture. Such a thing is possible in Ireland, where the land could be made to produce far more than at present. To put it in a striking way, the land of Ireland, which now supports little more than four millions of people, could be made to support eight millions of people in comfort.
    Another question to which I wish to refer has reference to the passage from the primary school to the university. There were few things in the speech of the Chief Secretary which pleased me more than that in which he showed that it would be possible eventually for the poorest child, by dint of his own ability, to win his way to the highest places in the university, and therefore to the highest places which a nation can offer. Hitherto although Irish genius has shone in many realms and even in science, yet I think on the whole it has not given the full measure clue to it. It is not lack of ability, but lack of opportunity. But what the right hon. Gentleman has said to-day will pave the way, so that, primary schoolboys of remarkable intelligence and ability will be selected and will be able to pass to the secondary schools and thence to the university; and having no other advantage in the world than their own ability, courage and enterprise, they may aspire to the highest offices in the gift of the State. I

    225
    wish to join in the general chorus of approbation and goodwill which has been expressed to the right hon. Gentleman, and to say how delighted I have been with his exposition to-night.
    Mr. KEATING: After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I think the grievances both of teachers and of children are in a fair way to being removed, in view of the promises which have been given by the Chief Secretary. As to the question of pensions in connection with the National teachers, I might point out that of £114,000 which goes to Ireland not a penny of that money reaches the workhouse teachers, a class which is not dealt with by the concessions made to-night. The workhouse teachers in Ireland are paid on a different basis from other teachers, and I think it is only just that this class should be put on the same basis as other teachers. The National teachers in 1892 received an increase of 20 per cent., but the workhouse teachers got nothing at all, and remain practically at the same rate as they did forty-eight years ago. It should be remembered that these teachers must possess the same qualification as the National teachers. I appeal most strongly to the Chief Secertary to bear this fact in mind when he is considering the whole question. The other point I want to mention has reference to the conditions of transfer of a teacher from Ireland to Great Britain. When a transfer takes place of a teacher from Ireland to Great Britain the number of years' service in Ireland is not counted for pension in this country. The Irish teacher who has given ten years' service in Ireland, when he comes to this country, and is compelled to retire at sixty-five years of age, must fall short by ten years for pension, and thereby gets a curtailed allowance.
    It may be replied that in some instances the teacher receives the amount of his contributions plus 2½ per cent. But the young teacher does not want to receive his contributions with this addition, because he is anxious to provide for a benefit which he will receive in his old age. In connection with the transfer of a teacher from Ireland to England another point arises, namely, that a certificate given in Ireland is not recognised by the English Board of Education as of the same value as a certificate given in England. I do not think that is fair. The Board of Education in England, I understand, has transferred its responsibility to the local education authorities.
    226
    This affects the welfare of Irish teachers in a very considerable degree. They regard it as a very serious matter that the teacher who has served in Ireland ten or fifteen years, on being transferred to this country, is to lose the whole of that service in regard to pension. Further, a first-class teacher in Ireland is only regarded as a third-class teacher in England. I trust the Chief Secretary, in considering the whole of this matter, will bear in mind the two points as to workhouse teachers and the transfer of teachers from Ireland to this country.
    Question, "That Item A (Salaries and Wages) be reduced by £100," put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS II.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, IRELAND.
    Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £77,514, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, including sundry Grants in Aid.—[Note.—£30,000 has been voted on account.]
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday); Committee to sit again tomorrow.
    ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Dudley Ward.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes after Eight o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  PROFIT-MAKING CONCERNS.
  PROFIT-MAKING CONCERNS.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Deputies-Lieutenant (Ireland).
  Deputies-Lieutenant (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Petty Sessions (County Donegal).
  Petty Sessions (County Donegal).
  Teachers (Annuities and Disablement Allowances).
  Teachers (Annuities and Disablement Allowances).
  Motor Omnibuses (Narrow Roads).
  Motor Omnibuses (Narrow Roads).
  West African Records.
  West African Records.
  Bombay Tramway Company.
  Bombay Tramway Company.
  Detention of Children in Workhouses.
  Detention of Children in Workhouses.
  Cinematograph Stores (Public Buildings).
  Cinematograph Stores (Public Buildings).
  Agricultural Holdings Act.
  Agricultural Holdings Act.
  Emigration from Scotland.
  Emigration from Scotland.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Gloucester Corporation.
Hornsea Urban District Council.
Also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2). [H.L.]

Gas and Water Orders Confirmation [H.L.]

Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1). [H.L.]

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the
South East Kent Electric Power Company, Limited,
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill:
Read and agreed to.

SLOUGH URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
EAST KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
BRIGHTON, HOVE AND DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
DOVER CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, without amendment.

CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY (ACTON DISTRICT) BILL.
CHESTERFIELD GAS AND WATER BOARD BILL.
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
CHAPEL-EN-LE-FRITH, CHINLEY AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
now
CHAPEL WHALEY AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
WIRRAL WATER BILL.
WEST CHESHIRE WATER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (ALNWICK CORPORATION PAYMENT) CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
MIDDLESBROUGH, STOCKTON-ON-TEES, AND THORNABY TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL. [H.L.]
  PENLLWYN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    SWANSEA GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TAMWORTH GAS BILL.
  BLACKBURN CORPORATION WATER BILL.
    LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MACCLESFIELD AND DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION AND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Standing Order No. 92 considered (according to order), and dispensed with in respect of a Petition of the New Electricity Company of Macclesfield, Limited: Leave given to present the said Petition.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 89.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL.
NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Wicklow be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Clanwilliam (E. Clanwilliam); read, and agreed to.

PARLIAMENT BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time. The circumstances in which the Bill appears before your Lordships are no doubt fairly well known. After the rejection of the Budget in November, 1909, His Majesty's Government propounded their policy, which was this—formally, definitely, and by Statute to abolish the power of this House to intervene in finance, and in legislation outside of and beyond finance to take away from this House the power of absolute Veto. Then came two elections and two Parliaments. In the first of those two Parliaments the Resolutions upon which this Bill is founded were passed by a majority of between 100 and 120. In the second Parliament—still sitting—the Third Reading of this Bill was passed by a majority of 121, after three months of full discussion, in which many earnest and skilful disputants took part, and in which the two distinguished men who lead the great Parties in the other House, according to all accounts, which I am sure must have reached your Lordships from every quarter—these two men of unsurpassed Parliamentary character and experience were at their very best and fought their very hardest. That is the history, as far as it concerns us, of this Bill.
I hope your Lordships will not take it amiss if I go over in a very few sentences what it is that the Bill proposes. It has been much talked about during the debates on the noble Marquess's Bill which was read a second time last night. The provisions of it, stated shortly, are that a Money Bill passed by the House of Commons should become an Act of Parliament, on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the House of Lords shall not have assented thereto. The question whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill is to be decided by the Speaker of the House of Commons. That is the first clause. The second clause proposes to enact that any public Bill other than a Money Bill passed by the House of Commons in three successive sessions, whether or not in the same Parliament, having been sent up to the House of Lords and there

699
rejected in each of those three sessions, shall be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that this House shall not have assented to it. That is, of course, the centre of the Constitutional conflict in which we are engaged. The other important clauses are that nothing in this Bill is to diminish the privileges of the House of Commons, and that five years shall be substituted for seven years as the duration of a Parliament. That is an epitome of the Bill, and it is so important that noble Lords should clearly understand what it is that we propose that I have ventured to give it.
The provisions of the Bill and the arguments for and against it have during many months past been the subject of close and tenacious argument on hundreds of platforms, in thousands of speeches, and in millions of leading articles. It cannot be said that this Bill has been suddenly intruded upon the attention of your Lordships' House. There is no doubt one new circumstance since last night—that is to say, that this House has now admitted in the most formal and definite manner that I can imagine, that its moral authority in discussing and opposing this Bill is not what it was before the noble Marquess's Bill received a Second Reading. The noble Marquess called the Bill a death blow. So it is indeed. Other noble Lords talked of burning the bridges and the boats; and therefore I submit with all respect that we are not proposing the Second Reading of this Bill to a normal House of Lords.
I am astonished to see that distinguished men, who I venture to think ought to have known better, say that this is a single-Chamber conspiracy. I am surprised to hear that, because it really shows some ignorance of the views held on the relations between the two Houses long before this Government came into being and long before most of its members came into being. In the year 1836 the very proposal which lies at the bottom of this Bill was brought forward by one of the chief of the utilitarian Radicals. He said—
"Be it enacted that if a Bill is passed by the House of Commons and thrown out by the House of Lords; is renewed in the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament and passed, and again thrown out by the House of Lords, it shall if passed a third time by the House of Commons become law."
700
Much later than that it was my fortune, in the year 1883 I think, to hear one who was not only a great orator, but one of the soundest and truest Englishmen who ever took part in our affairs—a man who was a Conservative in the best sense—Mr. Bright, propound that view. A quarrel was going on between the two Houses on the question of the County Franchise Bill. There was very much the same sort of excitement that there is now. He then put forward the very scheme which the utilitarian Radicals had proposed in 1836, and the very scheme which we propose to-day. Therefore it really shows an entire want of acquaintance with the history of these political ideas to say that we have invented this in order to pass a Home Rule Bill and that it is a single-Chamber conspiracy.
A remarkable argument is used on another aspect of the introduction of this Bill, and has found much favour among noble Lords opposite and the leader of their Party in another place. It really comes to this, that a General Election is totally worthless as a verdict upon any important issue, because Mr. Balfour, in copious and rather lurid language, says that the issue in a General Election is so mixed up, so confused, so clouded, and so hidden away amid a thousand other issues that you cannot be sure what is the decision of a majority of the electors. A General Election, therefore, is, in the words of Macbeth—
"A tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."
Never before, even in the most heated controversy in this country, has that view of a General Election and its significance been taken. I have never assented to the idea that a Parliament is to be confined to a single great issue. On the contrary, I voted away from my own friends in 1900, after the war election. They objected, and do still, to the Education Bill and the Licensing Bill. My argument was that when a General Election returned a Parliament, it entrusted power to Ministers to pass whatever Bills they thought fit.
Let us take the great case of the most active and most fertile Administration in recent history, Mr. Gladstone's first Government, which sat from 1868 to 1874. He got his majority and the electors had in the forefront of their electoral vision the Irish

701
Church. But before that Ministry came to an end six years later the fact of that being the central question did not hinder the radical reform of land in Ireland, the complete reform of the Army, the establishment of a system of national elementary education, the introduction of the ballot, the abolition of tests at Oxford and Cambridge, and the opening of the Civil Service to competition. These things were not in the minds of the electors. How could they be? Probably they were not even in the minds of Ministers at the election, but the electors did what I believe most electors would do. They returned a First Minister in whom they had confidence and to whom they were determined to give a chance of showing his power and force and constructive ability, and they left it in his hands and in the hands of his colleagues. That is my view of the right theory of the result of a General Election.
Another point which has found great favour in the speeches of many noble Lords is that the cause which produced this Bill is violent Party vituperation, and that it is violent Party vituperation that has produced these remarkable results in the Bill read a second time last night and in this Bill which your Lordships may think fit to read a second time at some future date. I cannot imagine anything much more unreasonable. What a shallow view it is that an institution like the House of Lords, so famous, so entrenched in the roots of traditional power in a nation that is so attached to old institutions as our country is, should fall before the blast of a few Party trumpets! Let me diverge for a moment to say what, as I judge it, is the real root of what has happened, and the divergence that has come in the views between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. In his last speech in the House of Commons Mr. Gladstone said that these divergences between the House of Lords and the House of Commons were not temporary or casual, but were far deeper than that. They were due to a different mental habit, to different prepossessions, to a different order of political and economic ideas.
Let us see how far those differences went. My noble friend on the Cross Benches who succeeded Mr. Gladstone as the head of the Government used these words within a few months of that, speech. My noble friend referred to me the other night and he will
702
understand that I do not revive them for the purpose of any stupid gibe about inconsistency. A man has a perfect right to change his views, of course, but I think that a man who changes his mind ought to be very charitable in his language to those who do not change their minds. This is what he said, and the words bear on the very point we are arguing to-day. It is a third person report—
"In his judgment the House of Lords was not a Second Chamber at all, but a permanent Party organ controlled for Party purposes. They were told that the Peers never resisted the known will of the people. He wanted to know how the wishes of the people could be bettor expressed than through the representatives of the people. Who gave the Peers the right and instinct to decide as to what wore or were not, the wishes of the people when those wishes were expressed through their representatives."
My Lords, I subscribe to the whole doctrine conveyed in those remarks.
I dare say some of your Lordships may recall the language used by my noble friend in the debate in November, 1909, and by my noble friend Lord Crewe, whose absence we all lament, and nobody more sincerely or for better reasons than myself. What did Lord Crewe say? He said this—
"I came here for the first time in the short Government of 1886, when I had charge of a Department. After that we went into exile for several years, and in fifteen years of Opposition I can say that neither I nor any of my noble friends—Lord Rosebery, Lord Kimberly, nor Lord Ripon—did the slightest good to himself or to any human being by attendance at the House of Lords. I cannot recall a case where anything we have said there had the slightest effect. I cannot recall a case when owing to any amendments of substance any of the Bills of the Government were modified in a single instance."
You talk about a single-Chamber Government! During those fifteen years my noble friend Lord Crewe and others sat under a system of single-Chamber Government. My noble friend in a very dramatic outburst the other night spoke of the abject and degraded state to which members of this House would be exposed if this Bill, of which I am now moving the Second Reading, is passed. During all those fifteen years did he and my noble friends behind me feel that they were abject or degraded? Not at all. They took the institution as they found it and resolved, I suppose—I am sure my noble friend did—to alter it. It is this process, prolonged year after year, this prolonged and obstinate resistance, which prevented any of my noble friends effecting even a single amendment of substance in a

703
single Bill, that has made the present majority of the electorate resolute and determined that this system shall come to an end. That is what is the meaning of this Bill and the meaning of the Second Reading.
We have been asked what is the principle of the Bill. The principle is what every one of your Lordships has abundantly admitted, and nobody more abundantly than the noble Marquess opposite and Lord Curzon and Mr. Balfour, that in the event of differences between the two Houses it is the reiterated and deliberate decision of the House of Commons that must prevail.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; of the people.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: That is the principle of the Bill. You may quarrel, if you like, with our method of enforcing that principle, but it is a principle which you all accept. Call it a single-Chamber principle, if you like, but it is undenied and undeniable, and to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill is to deny that principle. War, defence, treaties, finance, the whole control of executive government, the displacement of Governments, the power of changing Ministries and the power of forcing a Dissolution, all those vast powers which cover all the most important departments in the whole sphere of government are all withdrawn. Does it make all the difference between a practically single-Chamber system such as that signifies that you should no longer have an absolute Veto on Bills but a suspensory Veto under conditions such as are set out in this Bill?
I see it constantly said—"Oh, this is a log-rolling coalition." Some noble Lords agree. I wonder if they realise what it is that they are approving. I was reading of a controversy some time past on the same point when the speaker said—
"It is monstrous that the unity of the kingdom should be broken to please an Irish clique; it is monstrous that the unity of the Church of England should be broken to please a Welsh clique; it is monstrous to alter your land laws to please a Scottish clique; and, above all, it is monstrous to invade the rights and interests of property and capital to please a Labour clique."
My Lords, if you come into power tomorrow are you going to act on that view? Is it possible? Of course it is impossible. In my opinion it is an impossibility. You
704
could not, if you came into power tomorrow, act in open antagonism to the Welsh people, the Scottish people, the Irish people, or the Labour people. Therefore, that is a perfectly idle remark.
You say our majority is composite. The noble Marquess and other speakers in this debate have contended that for a Constitutional settlement you must have as many people as you can gather, in order that that settlement might have proper hold and weight on the mind of the country, to approve of it and support it. I wonder why, if it is a very virtuous thing—and so it is—to have as many groups of parties and sections of the community to support a great political settlement, it is such a very wicked thing, so unheard of, that English educationists, Scottish crofters, Welsh Nonconformists, the Irish, trade unionists, representatives of labour—that each of these groups has got a special resentment of its own against the action, hitherto at all events, of this House. This combination makes resistance to your Veto all the more inevitable. Clearly the more numerous are the reasons that bring a great body of men together, the more obvious it is that their concentrating on one particular point shows the depth of feeling that they have for their own interests and for the interests of the other groups who work with them. No man in his senses denies or disparages—I hope it is not impertinent for me to say so—either the talents or the benevolence of individual members of the House of Lords, but it has been, it cannot be denied, uniformly partisan, and it has been a partisanship, may I say, of the very worst description, because it has really been, in no inconsiderable degree, an unconscious partisanship. Unconsciously, noble Lords have constantly voted against Bills approved in another place partly from partisan reasons, no doubt, but partly because they thought that they were bad Bills. There is no question of that, but I think it would be a very narrow view to impute class depravity to any body such as the House of Lords.
But see the difference between the two Houses. The House of Commons, from the very nature of things, from the nature and the conditions of its existence, is constantly inclined to grope and feel the way forward in the direction of popular feeling and popular improvement. They have, in

705
our own time, widened the electorate; they have admitted within their body Jews, Roman Catholics, and Agnostics—they are all free to enter. They have reduced the cost of elections, they have secured the secrecy of the ballot, and they have done as much as they could to put down corruption in elections. They have done this with a sort of spontaneous and instinctive desire to make their House, as far as they can, a sensitive index to the feeling, the political wishes, and aspirations of the people who sent them there. The divergence has been growing. It is perfectly certain that the members of this House cannot be as sensitive to the feelings and wishes of the general bulk of our population. They may know some districts pretty well, but they cannot be as constantly watchful of the direction in which popular feeling is going as the House of Commons. And the history of this House shows that that is the case, because, if you go through a list of the conflicts between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, say, since the Reform Bill of 1832, you cannot but see that in these instances of prolonged, critical, and acute conflict between the two Houses, when the thing has been finally settled, that it was the views of the House of Commons that proved to be right, and the views accepted by the country with contentment and satisfaction.
I do not want to rake up immediate controversies, but one of the most satisfactory things done, and it is said in every household to-day—at all events in all these Imperial Conference gatherings—what thing has been better done than the recognition of the rights of self-government in the Transvaal? Do you remember the line taken by distinguished men in this House on that subject? The noble Marquess said, "It is a tragical act." The Duke of Marlborough used some extremely vehement language which—I wish him no mischief—I think I had better not read. Lord Milner used some very strong language which, again, I will not trouble the House with. It is only for the sake of good feeling I do not read it.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I hope the noble Viscount will read what I said. I have no recollection of ever having said anything against the South African Union.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: No; it was self-government in the Transvaal. I must again remind the House what the Bill does. The House of Commons has to pass a Bill three times. It is to be rejected here twice. Two years must elapse, so there is no sudden flood-tide. A General Election will loom, it may be darkly but certainly ominously, in the minds of the House of Commons during those two years, and it will be growing two years nearer. Just let me look for a moment at the question of Home Rule. I suppose I am the only man here—I am pretty sure I am—who sat through the whole of the debates on the 1893 Home Rule Bill. We had eighty-two sittings. Does any one suppose, when we bring in a Home Rule Bill—I do not say there will be eighty-two sittings, but there will be a great many sittings. It will be an immensely long process, and there will be all the blaze of the Press, all the thunder of the platform all the time. Are we to suppose that the reiterated and deliberate arguments used in this House by very competent advocates are to count for nothing, and that they will make no impression at all upon the mind of the voter? No one can think anything of the kind. There will be all this blaze of public opinion; perhaps some sort of blaze may come from the country immediately concerned. To suppose that a Home Rule Bill is to go through those two years unchanged, unmodified, for the purpose of the Government, is really to show a curious ignorance, it seems to me, of legislative conditions in this country.
Before I close I want to say a few words on the immediate aspect of the Bill. It is idle to pretend that the powers that we have left to the House of Lords will not be both substantial and important. There are those, I may confide to your Lordships, in my own Party, persons who have a good right to an opinion, who regard the powers to be possessed by the House of Lords as formidable, and even, if they were very unwisely used, as menacing to all the things that Liberals at all events care for. There is no doubt of this—that, if these powers were wisely used in a spirit of co-operation, they would enable the House of Lords to exercise a constant and very important influence on the whole character and shape of legislation. The fact that they could impose, or exact, two years' delay is really an effective instrument for bargaining. I

707
do not mean bargaining in any ignoble Party sense, but for pressing upon a Minister in charge of a Bill from the Commons the introduction of changes that were desired. The fact that by insisting over-much upon a certain provision in a Bill, controversial or non-controversial, the House of Lords could keep it back for two years—that in itself would be a very important element in discussions between this House and a Minister. This right of delay—and this is a very important thing indeed—would rest no longer upon the disputed survival of an antiquated right, but would rest on the definite and formal assertion of a modern Statute. That is a great difference. It would give the House of Lords a consciousness of power which it can never have under the existing system.
Now it is evidently the interest of His Majesty's Government to secure a more evenly-constituted body to exercise the wide powers which are contained in our Bill. For us to try to discuss matters so long as the House of Lords possesses the final Veto to every or any proposal would lead us no further than—what? No further than the Conference which failed. And so, in our view, will any Conference fail unless we went into the discussion on more even terms than we should if we went into a discussion to-day. We must make it clear that we regard the Parliament Bill as defining an advance in the democratic character of our institutions. The actual methods of the Parliament Bill are not necessarily final. When the Bill is passed it will be open to us to consider the reconstitution of the Second Chamber. As to which the assistance of the Party opposite is, as we have admitted all along, most desirable and even essential. We are all agreed that for a permanent settlement satisfactory to the mind of the country, and such as the country would be willing to help us in working—we are all of one mind that that will be best done by agreement. But whether a more convenient and less dilatory procedure may not be devised which may commend itself to Parliament and the country—that, after a certain amount of experiment, may appear to be desirable. But let me say this. A fair balance does not mean a balance against any article that the Government cares for and is pledged to. I agree with settlement by consent, but we do not and cannot mean by that, consent to a Second Chamber constructed
708
and planned on the principle of resistance to all the things that the Government and the present majority of the House of Commons believe the country wants and believe it is good for the country to have.
I would recall to noble Lords opposite that this is not the first Constitutional conflict we have had since the Reform Bill, and I hope they will remember that no names are held in greater honour, no men are considered to have rendered more useful service in the working of our Parliamentary institutions, than those who have by wise and prudent counsels avoided bringing things to extremities. To-night, and during the course of this Bill, it is for noble Lords to consider what will be a course leading to extremities. The Bill is there and the Bill stands. I do submit that the Duke of Wellington when he gave way on the Reform Bill of 1832 won universal approval; he saved the country from a great disaster. Coming down to our own day, nobody can forget the services which were rendered by Lord Cairns and the then Archbishop of Canterbury in connection with the Irish Church. Their wise and prudent counsels—and courage—avoided a great danger. Then later, in 1884–1885, it was the prudence and wisdom of men like the late Lord Salisbury that avoided a great disaster. So now, my Lords, I hope on this occasion we shall avoid—or you will avoid—a course which will land the country, which may land the country, in circumstances of great difficulty and perhaps grave confusion.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(Viscount Morley of Blackburn.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I think the concluding sentences of the noble Viscount's speech had, perhaps, more effect upon the House than the remarks which preceded them. The noble Viscount's speech up to the last few sentences was a very disappointing one, and very little applause was heard from the crowded Benches behind him throughout his speech, which, though none too long, still occupied fifty minutes and offered some advantage to those who hold, or are supposed to hold, very strongly the views which the noble Viscount put before the House. When he came to talk to us of 1832 and to compare the condition of the House at that period with its condition to-day, I could not help feeling how much the noble Viscount has

709
lived in the atmosphere of the Cabinet of which he is an ornament, and how little he recognises the difference between the feelings of the people in 1832 and the feelings of the people to-day towards your Lordships' House. Why, the whole of London almost were in Palace Yard in 1832. Is anybody outside moved by the introduction of this Bill? Has any one of your Lordships received from the parts of the country in which you reside demands that you should vote for "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," which was the case in 1832? I go to as many public meetings as most men, and I have never yet on an election platform been asked a single question on this Bill, and I have always noticed the satisfaction with which other topics have been introduced which were less abstruse and nearer to the electors.
The noble Viscount disappointed many of us because he took the whole of his case for granted and did not show what were the derelictions on the part of this House which made it necessary to bring in this drastic, one-sided, and unprecedented measure. We heard a good deal extolling the present position of the House of Commons, and we had a quotation, which I confess I thought was strangely inadequate, in which the right of the House of Commons to override this House was put in the fore-front. We cannot mistake the House of Commons for the people. The Prime Minister speaks of the House of Commons, of the Government, as if it were the counterpart of the constituencies. He treats all questions which the Government have not taken Up as not having received the mandate of the people, but as soon as they are taken up he claims for them a mandate of the constituencies. I can only say this, in passing, that recognising to the full the importance of the House of Commons, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, called attention, there is as much room for change and improvement in the House of Commons as there is in your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, spoke last night of his experiences in the last campaign. Until the noble Viscount came to this House he was one of 62 Scottish Liberal Members out of a total of 70, there being only 8 Unionists Members; but by the votes polled at the last General Election in Scotland there should have been, not 62, but 41 Liberal Members, and not 8 but 29 Conservatives. I maintain that that is a distribution of electoral strength which has
710
long called for action by the Government, and which might easily overturn great Constitutional issues. I shall ask your Lordships to give some attention to the procedure of the House of Commons, because on that procedure under this Bill depends the decision of almost every political question for two years to come.
I confess that I think we have a right to complain of the description which Lord Morley gave of the genesis of this Bill. In his opening sentences he said that from the date of the rejection of the Budget of 1909 His Majesty's Government gave clear indications that not merely would they remove from this House the whole of its powers as to finance, but they would bring to an end its complete Veto on other subjects. That is the language of autocracy; it is not the language of argument. It is the decision of the Government; it is not the decision of the people, and never has been. In that respect I challenge what was said the other night by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and repeated last night by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane. The Lord Chancellor said—
"Had there been before your Lordships a Bill more definitely approved than the Parliament Bill at a General Election?"
And Lord Haldane said that it was as near a Referendum as it could be. I submit that that is a very partial statement. I do not want to labour small issues or side points. I might say something of the difficulty of asking constituencies in the month of December to reject a man whom they had elected in January, when during half of the intervening period there had been a suspension of hostilities owing to the demise of the Crown. I might say something about the election being taken on the old register—a point that would have been taken pretty broadly by noble Lords if a Government on this side had gone to the country on a December register. I might say something also on the unseemly strife which, after the election of January, 1910, we saw between Parties in the House of Commons, who apparently came to the conclusion that their only chance of security was to agree to this Bill as the way out of their domestic differences. But I put all that aside and will come to close quarters with the main issue.
I admit that this measure was placed before the country in December, 1910, but I say that it was so placed before the country, and the election was so timed, as to preclude any possible alternative being

711
discussed by the country. What were the circumstances? The Conference sat for five or six months. The agreements of the Conference and the disputed points were alike concealed from the electors. During those six months the Opposition were chained up. Had we proceeded with our views for the reform of your Lordships' House we should have been held, in diplomatic language, to have been guilty of an unfriendly act. The Referendum, which for a long period had been in our minds as the proper outcome and issue of these disputes, had to be brought forward at the last moment as if it were a forlorn hope instead of a considered policy. Your Lordships will perhaps allow me to say that I speak from knowledge on that subject. It had been under discussion from the beginning of the whole proceedings. Then the Lord Chancellor told us that for six months the Parliament Bill was before the country. Last night the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, told us that the difference between the Referendum and the submission of matters at a General Election was that you must have discussion on the Bill itself. You must have the illumination of the electors by this discussion. The Veto Resolutions were discussed briefly. The Bill never passed the other House of Parliament. It was never heard of in this place at all. Our alternatives were put aside. The noble Earl's (Lord Rosebery's) Resolutions had to be brought forward at the last moment, and if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack boasts that your Bill and your policy was before the country for six months, what does he think of a procedure which enabled our policy to be hidden from the country until about six days before the polls?
I also think we have a right to complain of the statements that were made to the electors as to the past conduct of your Lordships' House. If your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments I would like to raise a point on which the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, was discreetly silent. He showed great courage when he descanted at length on the Home Rule Bill, because I assume that if the will of the people means anything, he will admit that the rejection of the Home Rule Bill of 1893 by this House, though it led to a collision between your Lordships' House and the other House, was unquestionably accepted by the people. The best proof is to be found in the fact that, although this
712
Government have been in power for five and a-half years, they have not yet touched the question, and from their public utterances it seems likely that when they do touch it it will be a very different Bill from that from which your Lordships saved the country eighteen years ago.
The noble Viscount paid a high tribute to Lord Salisbury for his conduct over the Franchise Bill of 1885. That was the most signal victory ever obtained by your Lordships over the House of Commons. I will not go into details, for time presses; but we all know that the settlement on which the House of Lords insisted was not merely accepted by the House of Commons but has remained the shibboleth of both Parties up to this date. And that is not the only class of measure on which I think we can claim to have done good work. The noble Viscount spoke of measures for Ireland—Irish Land Acts. Undoubtedly there was great friction in this House on some of those measures. There has been a rejection of one or two of the least important; but I should like to know if any one can say that the Irish Land Bills as amended by this House fell short of the purpose which those who designed them had intended? I would also ask whether the Purchase Acts initiated by those on this side of the House, which were in the forefront of Unionist measures and in the background of Liberal measures, have not had as much or more to do with the present improved condition of Ireland as any of the measures relating to the land which came from the Liberal Government?
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in words which were astonishing coming from him, said that this House is—
"the invincible obstacle to Liberal legislation, and wrecks all our principal measures."
I am not going back, as some of the critics of this House have done, to the Reform Act of 1832. I would no more dare to take up your time by vindicating the action of this House in the forties than I would attack the House of Commons for their neglect of social questions at that time. The Factory Acts—all those measures on which the Liberal Party of that day obstructed the efforts of Lord Shaftesbury—all these remain in evidence. Therefore let us take measures within living administrative memory. I go back to the great Parliament of 1868. Were all Liberal measures wrecked in that Parliament? Practically every measure passed by the House of Commons was

713
passed by this House. Two measures of importance were rejected by this House. The first was the Ballot Bill. How long had that Bill been before the House of Commons? It had been before the House of Commons for thirty-eight years—from 1833 to 1871. It was twenty-four times rejected by the House of Commons, then finally hurried through in the expiring embers of a session at a time when there was no limit to the period of the sittings; and yet your Lordships underwent abuse because for six months you had delayed that which the House of Commons had delayed for thirty-eight years. The second measure rejected by this House was the Bill dealing with purchase in the Army, on which I can only say that my sympathies were all for the abolition of purchase. That was a measure which also received the support of Lord Derby's distinguished relative throughout his career. That measure was a hardy annual in the House of Commons for something like twenty years. Finally, by the efforts of Sir George Trevelyan it was pressed on the Government of the day, and made part of a great scheme for the re-organisation of the Army. Four-fifths of the scheme were dropped in the House of Commons, and the remaining fragment came up here. Your Lordships rejected it on the ground that you wished to see the complete scheme. That Ministry, which for a period of nearly thirty-two years consecutively had held office, had ignored and pooh-poohed and put aside this question, as they had done the Ballot Bill, and then they proceeded to declare that your Lordships' House had come between the people and a reform which they had so long desired.
Then to come nearer home, I take the case of the Licensing Bill in 1907. The subject had been before the country for forty-three years, and between 1864 and 1880 Motions dealing with it were rejected thirteen times by the House of Commons; and this is a most remarkable fact, that when the noble Viscount entered the House of Commons it had already carried Resolutions for Local Option and Sunday Closing by large majorities, and did so in the two subsequent years. Twelve years later, in 1893, the Liberal Government at last introduced a Bill, but threw it over without carrying it, I think, to a Second Reading. Finally in 1907, when they brought their Bill up to this House, they claimed not merely that they had
714
a mandate for the Bill, but a mandate for all the punitive and confiscatory clauses which it contained. And with grim humour the Lord Chancellor, who now charges us with wrecking all Liberal measures, asked your Lordships on that occasion not to allow the unpopularity of the Bill in the country to preclude your Lordships from showing that independence of judgment which would be shown in carrying it against the wishes of the country. I would like to know what man in this House will tell me that if that measure had been sent to a Referendum there would have been a majority for it in the country, with all Ireland seething against it. The inference I venture to draw from all these facts and from this recital is this, that the House of Commons for a period of thirty years can delay action on a particular subject, but if the House of Lords hesitates for a single session it must be subjected to censure. If noble Lords propose to send a matter for the consideration of the people they are told that they are interfering with the sacred rights of the House of Commons. It is not because we oppose the people but because we oppose the Ministry that we are called in question this day.
I much regret that the Lord Chancellor is not in his place at the moment, because I should like to say a few words regarding what fell from him the other night on the question of fair play and on which both noble Viscounts opposite said something. We quite realise that it is difficult to carry on proceedings in a House in which so large a majority is on one side. The moderation shown by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, has been acknowledged throughout this House, but it is impossible to carry on business permanently by the self-denial of one Party. But surely fair play could be sought and should have been sought in a change in the constitution of this House. It cannot be obtained in a change in the powers of this House such as that proposed in the Bill which we are discussing to-night. What is the fair play which the Government intend to put in force in opposition to the present system? I think only members who have sat in the House of Commons can properly gauge it. The Government hold the majority of the House of Commons in their hands. I mean nothing disrespectful in what I am about to say, but since the recent decision as to the payment of Members every one must realise that the Government have an even

715
greater hold upon their supporters than before, for to the terrors of a General Election must be added in future, not merely in case of revolt the loss of official support, but also a pecuniary loss to a man who may have given up a great deal on coming into Parliament on the strength of the certainty of some remuneration. Certainly the position of the Government is strengthened, while the position of the private Member has been weakened. We see only to-day that one man who raised a difficulty about this Bill on the Government Benches has received warning that the official support will be withdrawn from him at the next election unless he conforms. And there is the lamentable fact that by far the most independent and eloquent man on the Liberal side, Mr. Harold Cox, has been summarily ejected from the House of Commons, and is not received by any constituency.
It is worse than that. Under the present procedure, the Government bring in a measure and assign the time for it. The Government, through their partisan Chairman whom they have put in the Chair, settle even the subjects which are to be discussed in the Bill and the limit of time to be given to each part of the measure. And what then takes place? We are told that there will be a second and a third opportunity for the House to deliberate. But what is that opportunity worth? The men are the same; the place is the same; the subject is the same; the conditions are the same. We have only the addition that the desire for consistency will lead most men in the second and third years to vote the same as before. Then we are told under this Bill that any disputed points on the most contentious question of what are and what are not Finance Bills are to be settled by the Speaker of the House of Commons—the servant of the House of Commons, a man who, as was said by one of his eminent pre-decessors—
has neither eyes to see nor ears to hear anything ut what the House of Commons bids him."
Yet he is the arbiter placed between the other House and your Lordships' House on these important questions. And this is what is recommended to us in the name of fair play!
The noble Viscount spoke of those who were opposed to the Bill as having fought their hardest and done their best in opposition, but they fought with the rope round
716
their necks and with the guillotine falling, with the Government absent from the Front Bench, with the Foreign Secretary abroad, and very often with an Under-Secretary representing the Government most of the time. Those were the conditions under which they made their fight. The noble Viscount passed lightly over the interregnum, that period in which the Government, who tell us this is a temporary measure, propose to carry measures of the first importance both to the Church and the State, without any interposition from this House or the constituencies. That is the species of fair-play which the head of the English law recommends as being an adequate safeguard for the people and a sufficient recognition of the rights of your Lordships' House. I only trust that the humblest litigant who comes to that Bar will obtain from the Lord Chancellor a greater measure of fair play and of justice than that which he proposes to concede to your Lordships, whose talents in the same sentence he extolled, and to his political opponents whose respect he has enjoyed.
I can add nothing to the outspoken language in which the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition described what our condition would be under this Bill. Lord Rosebery, in masculine language, said it was "a degrading and abject condition." The Government will find it very difficult to dispose of those terms; but if they find it difficult with regard to the House at large, they will find it still more difficult with regard to the situation in which they propose to put individual members of this House. You are to say to a man who has been elevated to the Peerage for his success in ruling various Dominions of the Crown, or to a man who has sat for twenty years in the House of Commons, or to a man who has been a Minister of the Crown or even Prime Minister, "Not only shall you not give a vote which shall dispose of the Ministry of the day, not only shall you have no right to influence the Executive; more than that, in all ordinary matters you shall have no right to bring to a conclusion that experience and knowledge for which you were sent here and which entitle you to form a judgment; you may warn, but you cannot restrain; you may complain, but you cannot avert; you may criticise, but you must not govern; you may talk, but the decision will be left to the merest tyro who has found his way into the House of Commons."

717
That is a position which I think individual members of this House who have performed public service may well resent. There is only one man on the Front Bench opposite who has had the courage to step in where others have feared to tread. The noble Earl, Lord Carrington, who never loses an opportunity outside this House of explaining the strong zeal which animates him for democratic institutions at the expense of the Peerage inside this House, went out of his way to urge your Lordships to give up reform, to accept restrictions, and to content yourselves with "clinging to your seats and to your coronets." We have no appetite for the gilded impotence for which Lord Carrington would give us credit.
We look upon this Bill as an unjust Bill and as a short-sighted Bill. Indeed, even the noble Viscount opposite must be aware that the Bill if passed as it is will leave behind a rankling sense of injustice. Are you wise in pressing a Party which represents nearly half the British people as hardly as you are pressing us to-day? Are you not drawing rather a heavy cheque on your balance of public confidence which some day you may find it difficult to honour? Have noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite entirely forgotten the revolution of the wheel and the seventeen years out of twenty in which they sat in Opposition from 1886? Do they suppose that if this Bill is passed in the face of the protests of five-sixths of your Lordships' House and of a minority in the House of Commons representing twenty-one millions of people, it will have any permanency on the Statute Book? We have made our contribution towards endeavouring to relieve the situation. I do not think that in the whole annals of Opposition in this country you will find so important a concession by one Party to another as that which was outlined in the Bill of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, which was read a second time without a Division last night. I think we can detect on the benches opposite a certain feeling not only of astonishment, but of hesitation, with regard to that Bill. After all, it gives up privileges and rights which have been enjoyed for generations, and which would be enjoyed by our descendants. It gives a wide representation, and while you have had nothing but evil to say of the balance of Parties, it does give to the Party which has been in a minority of one to five in this Assembly a practical equality in an Assembly which,
718
unless it is to be a rival of the House of Commons, can never be its exact counterpart. It is not a theoretical change forced on us from without, but a practical evolution from within. Yet in the face of all this, the Lord Chancellor said—
"We are invited to surrender at discretion after we have obtained the victory, to lay down our arms and accept the solution of our adversaries."
Is not that exaggerated language? You asked for equality. You asked for fair play. A majority of 400 will be brought down, you say to 40, we say to under 20, and under certain conditions it will be no majority at all. As Lord Curzon pointed out the other night, in Joint Sittings with the House of Commons such a majority as there is in the present House of Commons would give the Government a certain victory. If we go a step further, we come to the Referendum. I notice that the Prime Minister has not rejected the Referendum in such vigorous terms as some noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite. What is the worst under the Referendum which could happen to you? Is it not strange to see the representatives of democracy in this House complaining of procedure which, in nine cases out of ten, would give a verdict to the House of Commons, and in the tenth case would put them in the power, not of the Peers whom they profess to fear, but of the people whom they profess to represent?
We have been asked why our Reconstitution Bill was put forward. That is very germane to the question which is now before us. We recognise that this is a crisis in which it is the duty of every man to do his best to find such a reasonable settlement as will prevent those dangers of which the noble Viscount so eloquently spoke. We recognise also that the time has come when we can no longer rely on the unwritten law of the Constitution, and that in some form or another the relations between the two Houses must be decided by written law. We recognise further, as one or two of my noble friends behind me who are among the warmest advocates of the position of this House recognised twenty years ago, that some reform of this House is necessary if it is to be strong enough to hold the confidence of the people, and to be a check on the democracy. The Prime Minister flattered the House of Commons the other night by telling them that the powers of interposition on the part of this House were as obsolete, and had been for

719
years, as the powers of the Crown a century or two back. I am not sure that the Duke of Northumberland was not a more accurate student of history and a more faithful judge of events when he warned your Lordships that the encroachments of the Crown were not always so dangerous to the people as the encroachments of the Commons. I say without hesitation that we desire to strengthen this House, and we desire to do it by the Bill, or something like it, which was before your Lordships yesterday.
I shall no doubt be asked, after the speeches made in the House of Commons and after the speeches of Lord Rosebery and Lord Lansdowne, why, if we think the Bill before us now so deplorable, we have not the courage of our convictions and do not move the rejection of the Bill. The answer is that those with whom we act feel that we cannot look only at the immediate issue before us, at the partial instrument which we are asked to read a second time. We have to look at the whole field of controversy. And when we do that we remember that your Lordships' House have by Resolution agreed to surrender certain powers which are touched in this Bill; that by the Bill read a second time last night we have agreed to effect a great change in our constitution; that by the constant statements of the spokesmen of all Parties we are agreed that when the will of the people is clearly pronounced we will not stand in the way. We admit that for some change—not for this change—the people are fully prepared. If we took the other course and rejected this Bill summarily we would create at once an issue of the first magnitude. We would arouse the extremest feelings. We would close the door to the wiser counsels which we yet believe will prevail on the opposite side of the House. That would make all negotiation impossible. Another reason is that this Bill is brought before us as a temporary Bill, and as such we mean to deal with it. We do not accept the idea that this Bill can permanently remain on the Statute Book. When we ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading, or not to object to the Second Reading, we know that we are making a very heavy demand on the forbearance of the House. If we allow it to be read a second time it means that we must forget the number of unjust charges the fruits of which are enshrined in the Bill. We must ignore the vituperation to which the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, referred,
720
and we must do it simply because we believe it is more patriotic sometimes, as well as more courageous, to refuse battle than to accept it.
But if we do read the Bill a second time I venture to say that we shall have grave Amendments to propose. We believe that in this atmosphere it can hardly be seriously argued that such questions as the power and position of the Crown, the establishment of National Councils in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, and other Constitutional issues can possibly be left to the hazard of a chance majority in the House of Commons at a given moment. I am not stating the gist of our Amendments, but merely mentioning subjects which cannot possibly in this discussion escape the most serious and prolonged attention of this House. I would say on my own part that if the House of Lords is to be a reality in the future and not a sham, we must have some other tribunal than the Speaker of the House of Commons to act as arbiter between the two Houses.
There is one other subject I should like to mention before I sit down. If we are to negotiate with the Government, surely we must be allowed to do so on something like equality. We cannot negotiate on the terms which the noble Viscount has suggested to us. The Government say, "Pass the Bill, and we will come to an understanding with you." But we should then go into the matter as bond slaves, and not as free agents of a great Assembly. The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, begged us to accept this Bill as a mere evolution of the Constitution. We are prepared for evolution, but this Bill is not evolution. It is simply a catastrophe so far as this House is concerned. If the Government refuse to negotiate, it will not be the last chapter of this Bill. On the contrary, they will have opened a chapter which will never be closed until some fair and just scheme, fair and just to both Parties, can be discovered. We ask for a permanent settlement. You are proposing what can only be a permanent sore, and what must always leave, so long as it remains on the Statute Book, a sense of inequality and injustice. You are proposing to apply to the great majority in this House fetters which you have not dared to put on the white population in Africa or in Australia. Do we not present a sorry spectacle at this moment, when the representatives of the great Dominions overseas are here amongst us,

721
and you have proposed to this House conditions which would not be accepted in any of the countries from which they come, and which we have not imposed upon them?
We were asked whether we had said our last word on our Reconstitution Bill. I venture to hope that the Government have not said their last word on this Bill. You can, of course, as Lord Beaconsfield said of the Liberals in his day—you can agitate against a class in the interests of a class. "But that," he said, "is not a precaution, it is not policy, it is vengeance." I venture to tell the Government that they will not settle this question by merely introducing a punitive measure of this kind. If they wish to make a permanent settlement, if they wish to free themselves and their legislation to which they attach importance from the continual and galling attacks of the Opposition, they cannot do that by trying to force down the throats of a free Assembly a measure which asks it to give up its privileges and leaves it none of its rights. They can only give the country a permanent, a just, and a statesmanlike settlement by acting as the agents and the spokesmen of the great majority of the people.
LORD MARCHAMLEY: My Lords, the House has listened with deep interest to the remarkable speeches which have been delivered by leaders on both sides of the House, and I very much regret that the exigences of Party debate should have made it necessary that in my few modest and short observations I should have to follow the noble Viscount opposite. I am sure that the House will acquit me of anything like unseemliness or impertinence if I venture to express the opinion that the Unionist Party throughout the country, particularly noble Lords opposite, have only themselves to thank for the fact that we are this afternoon discussing this Bill. I think I shall gain acquiescence from the opposite side of the House when I say that this is a most remarkable Bill. It is, if I can describe it in a colloquial phrase, a chicken-coming-home-to-roost Bill. It is the retribution, the headache that follows a somewhat protracted political debauch.
From the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, I do not think that noble Lords opposite have even yet really appreciated or fully gauged the position of Liberalism and of the Liberal Party throughout the last five or six years. The noble
722
Viscount, in a very able speech, talked as if the Unionist Party were the injured Party. That is not so. During the past six years the lot of the Liberal Party has been indeed a cruel, painful, and pitiable one; it has been almost ridiculous. Our position has involved the negation of the supposed inherent right of the British people to govern themselves. In 1906 the Liberal Government were put into office by one of the largest majorities ever recorded. At two subsequent elections the Government were continued in power by majorities, perhaps not on such a large scale, but of considerable significance. In 1906 we came into power chiefly upon the education question, allied with the general unpopularity of the Unionist Government. But although we have been in office six years, to what extent have we been able to give effect to our ideas and our policy upon educational affairs? We have made no progress whatever, and we never shall under our present Constitution and with the present relationship between the two Houses. With this House constituted as it is, we Liberals would never be able to give effect to our ideas and policy on the education question, or carry out our ideas and policy with regard to plural voting. For all the good that Liberal electors have done throughout the country during the last three elections upon these vital matters, they might as well have been playing marbles or spinning tops.
I well remember during the short period before the Transvaal War when there was a general demand on the part of the Uitlanders in the Transvaal for the franchise, a noted American said that had he been President Kruger he would have given them all the franchise and all the votes they wanted, but he would have kept the counting in his own hands. That is exactly what your Lordships do. You have no objection to our voting. You do not even object to our returning a Government to power, but you keep the counting practically in your own hands, and by your majority decide whether Liberals shall or shall not give effect to their policies and ideas. The noble Viscount opposite spoke a good deal of fair play. But how does it appeal to your Lordships' sense of impartiality and fair play that when you are in office you are in a position of unchecked power, but that when we are in office—in so-called power—we really have no power whatever? We might as well be employed

723
in building sand castles for noble Lords opposite to knock down. I shall not forget the first session of the Parliament of 1906, because I was then Chief Whip. We sent up to your Lordships a large number of subsidiary measures, all of which you passed; but all our measures of primary importance, to the extent of four, your Lordships either directly or indirectly rejected. This House might almost have been skittle experts, with such deftness of precision did you knock down all our big Bills when they came up. Still, the country did not show commotion, and I really marvelled at the time that that should be so. If seemed difficult to flog it into a recognition of the overwhelming difficulties with which we had to contend.
Then your Lordships became bolder; your appetite seemed to grow in eating, and in 1909 you rejected the Budget. A more stupendous act of foolishness never was perpetrated by any House of Parliament. So long as your Lordships only claimed to deal with the ordinary measures we sent up, perhaps no difficulty would have arisen, but when you laid hands on the ark of the covenant itself—the right of the British people to supervise and control their own financial powers and the taxation of the country—you then claimed that you had power, not only to dismiss the Commons when you wished so to do, but to hold up the finances of the country in order to secure your own ends and aims. It is a pity that noble Lords opposite, particularly those on the Front Bench, could not have consulted some crystal gazer when about to take that action. If the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition could have had a peep into the future, could have seen himself moving the Second Reading of the Bill which he moved a few days ago, I think it would have made him hesitate. I know how difficult it is for leaders to control the turbulent and fighting spirit of their followers, but I cannot think that the action of the leaders of the Tory Party was wise when they rejected the Budget two years ago. Hotheadedness and inexperience got the better of a calm judicial frame of mind and of experience. I believe it was Palmer the Rugeley murderer who on being found guilty exclaimed, referring to the speech of the prosecuting counsel, "It is the riding that did it." I cannot but think it was bad riding on the Front Bench opposite that has brought about the present position. Whether your Lordships do or
724
do not pass this Bill one thing is bound to ensue. Your power of crippling and curtailing Liberal legislation is absolutely gone.
My Lords, I think this Bill is in a measure a good Bill, and it is my intention to vote for it. I am bound to say it is not altogether the Bill that I should have liked to have seen introduced into this House to settle the difficulties which have occurred during the last five or six years. At the beginning of last year I ventured to forward to the Press a little alternative scheme of my own which would have more fully dealt with and met the difficulties and the deadlock winch have occurred. I did so not from any altruistic motive, but from somewhat of a selfish motive as a Party man. I feared very much that the Liberal Party would not be able to hold their own and carry the election if they introduced into the House of Commons anything like a single-Chamber form of Bill which was embodied in the "C. B." Resolutions passed a few years ago. I thought they would be defeated if they went to the country upon this single-Chamber Bill, and because of that I ventured to urge an alternative scheme of my own. If defeated, it would have been the greatest disaster that any Party would ever have had to face, and we should have had grafted on our financial affairs a system of Tariff Reform, which to many people spells disaster to the country. But I must frankly say that I was utterly and entirely wrong. The country did not reject the Bill which had been introduced into the House of Commons by the Government, and therefore I shall never claim to be a prophet on these matters again. I had not appreciated the strength of the feeling throughout the country that your Lordships' power for altering democratic measures and Liberal legislation should be determined.
Now we have a Bill passed through the House of Commons and introduced into this House which does give, I frankly acknowledge, single-Chamber government in one shape or form, but single-Chamber government tempered by two years' delay. May I ask your Lordships to consider for one moment how far that delay of two years does remove it from the category of a single-Chamber measure? As an old electioneerer, I say it goes a long way to remove this Bill from that category. That two years' delay is very much more important than appears upon the face of it. I do not think we need fear that any revolutionary

725
legislation will be rushed through the two Houses of Parliament even if this Bill is accepted in toto by your Lordships. Noble Lords who have not been in the House of Commons do not know the peculiar relationship that exists between Members and their constituents. It is of a very delicate and sensitive character. A Member is largely concerned, no doubt, for the safety of the Government of which he is a supporter, but he is very much more concerned for the safety of the seat which he occupies, and if any Bill were likely to prove obnoxious to a section of his constituents he would be very soon made aware of it, long before two years had passed over. Deputations would wait upon him, pressure would be brought to bear upon him, and, realising the state of affairs, he would come up to London and see the Whips, and they would have a most uncomfortable time. He would say to them, "It is absolutely impossible for me to hold my seat if you propose to push on with this Bill. When the Second Reading comes on, or any other stage of the measure, you must not look to me for support." Long before six months had passed over it would be well known whether the Government could carry the Bill to its Second or Third Reading in the other House. Not only that. Legislation is like a good many things. If you hang it up for too long it becomes stale, and I do not think any Bill, unless it were one of cardinal importance and hacked up most strongly by the people throughout the country, would stand two years' delay, with three times passing through the House of Commons.
But apart from this, I ask your Lordships to consider the circumstances in which this Bill was passed by the House of Commons and ratified and adopted by the country. If there are degrees in what you may call an ad hoc election, surely the last election presented the superlative degree. It was an election taken upon one specific matter alone; the verdict of the country was sought upon the Bill of the Government and upon nothing else. It is all very well to say, as did the noble Viscount opposite, that other considerations had sway. But that is not so. The question was one between the Lords and the Commons, and that was the only one debated at the election in January last. Do your Lordships contend for one moment that you can stand against the deliberately expressed will of the people, expressed as it has been practically in two
726
elections? You cannot do so. It is absolutely impossible that you should be able to do so, and if you could it would be a most lamentable fact. If it were possible for you to maintain that position and reject this Bill, you would be heading straight for revolution, because there is no other means by which the power of the people could be made to prevail. The noble Marquess, in his speech the other day—a speech to which I listened with close concern—said that in his opinion this House had lost ground with the country. I rather think he gave, as the reason the House had suffered discredit in the country, the fact of the continued and frequent additions to it from the House of Commons and elsewhere. I am one of the incursionists. I am of the "frequent additions." But you are not the only sufferers. We likewise, coming from the House of Commons, are in some respects sufferers, because we find your Lordships very dull. I sat in the House of Commons—no doubt every Member will think the same of his own constituency—for the most intelligent constituency in the United Kingdom. It is a constituency that only recently, within the last fortnight, has received its long delayed raced of recognition in one of the articles of the "Punch-cum-Belloc" series in Punch. It is a constituency that delights and glories in the name of Pudsey. I often wish when listening to debates in this House that I was back in the sun-flecked groves or the Elysian fields of Pudsey.
Although, as I say, I was not entirely in favour of this Bill, I press it on your Lordships because I recognise that it is an honest attempt on the part of the Government to solve the difficulty, and I believe the two years delay will remove any suspicion of single-Chamber government. Unless your Lordships are going to stand in the way of the expression of the popular will you are bound to accept it, for no Bill has ever come before you with greater popular credentials. It may be that when you are passing the Bill you will state your formal objections to it. You may say that at the present time you are submitting to major force, but that the time may come when, as the noble Viscount pointed out, you may have another period in office and be able to mould the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament in the way you desire. But at the present juncture the wisest and the most statesmanlike thing

727
you can do is to take this Bill which comes hot from the crucible of the country and pass it.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: Your Lordships will, I think, agree with me that any atmosphere of unreality which might have hung over our recent discussion with regard to the composition of the House of Lords has now been entirely dispelled by the consideration of a far more important aspect of the Constitutional struggle—namely, not as to who shall sit in the House of Lords but what they shall do when they are there. As to the functions of this House, we on this side at any rate are agreed upon this proposition—that the House of Lords, whether hereditary, nominative, or purely elective, shall be of sufficient authority to exercise those powers which are appropriate to Second Chambers in all well-regulated countries.
We heard just now from one speaker—and it was alluded to in the brilliant speech we have just listened to from my noble friend Lord Midleton—that there is a certain amount of apathy in the country among the electors with regard to this matter of the House of Lords, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has constantly, and I venture to think with great truth, taken the view that the people do not care so very much about Constitutional questions provided they get what they want. That is a view with which I find myself in hearty accord. The electors are quite right. They think that the reform of the Poor-law is a great deal more important than the reform of the House of Lords. The "man in the street" takes what has always been the Tory view of the British Constitution. In this matter the "man in the street" is on the side of the angels. He takes the same view as Lord Bolingbroke and Lord Beaconsfield took—that the British Constitution exists to promote the social welfare of the people. From the slight study I have made I have been led to the same conclusion as Lord Beaconsfield—I hope I may say this without disrespect to noble Lords opposite—that the Whig tradition with regard to the Constitution is that it is a contrivance for the purpose of keeping the Radical Party in office, and that it ought to be manipulated from time to time in order that it may properly discharge the function of keeping the Party opposite in their places.
But although it is true, in a sense, that there is a certain amount of apathy about
728
this question, I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Midleton make this point, that he had not at any rate received any letters from anybody begging him to pass this Bill. I can only tell you that I have received a great many letters from all parts of England imploring me to use what small influence I have to secure the destruction of this measure—letters in which noble Lords opposite and their friends are described in perfectly accurate terms, which I will not repeat on the present occasion, and letters which evidently show that a great many people are watching this struggle with a great deal more interest than some of us, at any rate, give them credit for. The frame of mind of the ordinary elector with regard to the present controversy is either one of contempt for it as a struggle between Party politicians for Party purposes, or of bewilderment with regard to the many counter proposals which are put before him; or else he entirely fails to realise the magnitude of the fraud which it is proposed to commit upon him on the present occasion. But there is no doubt of this, that, whatever the man in the street may think of what is going on here, we are face to face with one of those periodical encroachments which the Radical Party have made from time to time on the ancient Constitution of this country, and the less it is realised out of doors the more it is the duty of noble Lords who belong to the Constitutional Party on this side of the House to protect the interests of the people, which are, unconsciously to them, being sought to be taken away from them by noble Lords opposite.
We will do the supporters of this measure the fullest justice that we possibly can, but I do not think I am understating their case when I suggest that it is not based on any national demand for a national settlement. That argument is not open to them, because if they say that one-half of the people are in their favour we are perfectly entitled to say that the other half are in our favour. This, therefore, cannot be a national settlement when approximately half the electors are dead against you. What runs through Radical speeches, both indoors and out of doors, is that this proposal is based on nothing else except the necessitous condition of the Radical Party. We have heard that argument over and over again. It was repeated for the thousandth time by the noble Lord who has just sat down, that the Radical Party with regard to the House of Lords suffer a permanent disability in—

729
shall I say?—the game of Party politics; that they go into the struggle with one hand tied behind their backs, on account of the House of Lords. That is not our fault. They have had an equal chance—a greater chance than we have had—since 1832 of packing the House of Lords with their own supporters. You have taken full advantage of all the opportunities that have been offered to you in this respect, and you are easily first in the race of sending your former supporters in the House of Commons and others who can be relied upon to support you up to the House of Lords. You have no right whatever to find fault with the majority against you in the House of Lords to-day, because so many of them are creations of your own Party.
But when it comes to all this talk about the handicaps and disabilities of the two political Parties in the State, what I want to know is, How about the Irish? You say we have a permanent advantage in having the House of Lords on our side. We say you have a permanent advantage on your side, if you are going to look on statesmanship as nothing else except a game, in having eighty Irish votes that Mr. Gladstone bought for you when he first capitulated with regard to Home Rule for Ireland becoming part of the programme of the Radical Party; and it is subject to these eighty Irish Members, who very much over-represent the number of electors behind them and who have to be treated by the Radical Party on the strict United States interpretation of most-favoured-nation treatment, that you have in the House of Commons the majority you at present have. We are always hearing the argument—the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is particularly fond of giving expression to it—that the existence of the Radical Party with a House of Lords is an impossibility. I have never been convinced that the existence of the Radical Party is a necessity to the State at all. I have always felt inclined to agree with what I believe Talleyrand said to a deputation who waited on him and explained that they must live. "Je n'en vois par la necessite," was his reply. We may, I think, say the same thing with regard to the Radical Party. Instead of regarding their existence as a national necessity, I think a great many on this side of the House and a great many people in the country regard their existence at the present juncture as something very like an Imperial calamity.
730
I submit, with great respect, that noble Lords opposite have very little case against the House of Lords at all. The argument runs through all their speeches that they are never able to do anything while in office on account of the House of Lords. That was insisted upon in its most naked form by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I know noble Lords opposite can take extracts from former speeches of Statesmen illustrative of almost any point of view they desireto support. Let me take an extract from a recent speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, at Fakenham. I take it from the Morning Leader. His Lordship is reported to have said that in 1906 when the Liberals were returned to power with a great majority—
"great changes commenced, and looking back over five years he saw a great record of work accomplished."
That does not tally with what has been said by other speakers—
"Though the Government in some cases have failed—they had not, for instance, succeeded in putting the educational system on a proper foundation—there had been other things which had changed the face of the earth, and each year had brought its crop of measures of social reform."
That is what the noble Viscount said. Radical speakers always assume that the House of Lords possesses and exercises an absolute Veto over legislation. Nobody knows better than the noble Lords opposite how misleading that is. We have no absolute Veto. I am one of those who heartily wish we had an absolute Veto over a great deal of legislation. Everybody knows perfectly well that neither the Conservative Party nor the House of Lords has ever opposed any measure for the social welfare of the people. As my noble friend Lord Midleton reminded your Lordships so eloquently just now, the Tory Party and the House of Lords have always been the pioneers with regard to measures for the social welfare of the people. I was about to illustrate that argument by the historical instance which he brought forward, but as he expressed it so much more eloquently than I could hope to do I will leave that recollection in your Lordships' minds. But the immediate necessities of noble Lords opposite, for which I understand they desire this Bill to pass into law, have nothing to do with the social welfare of the people. We shall never oppose your national insurance scheme or anything of that kind. The Bills which you think the House of Lords will probably

731
demand a reference to the people upon have nothing to do with the welfare of the people. Home Rule for Ireland, for instance, is not going to add a single day's work or a single shilling of wages to the working classes of this country. Disestablishment of the Church in Wales is not going to add work or wages to the working classes, and the same remark equally applies to "One man one vote."
I should like to say a word with regard to the argument which is always dinned into our ears that the House of Lords committed suicide when they rejected the Budget. I, for one, am absolutely and entirely unrepentant with regard to having, not rejected, but referred the Budget to the people, and I should have been prepared to support the noble Marquess, not only in referring the Budget once to the people, but, if he had thought fit to do so, in referring it twice to the people, because after that celebrated Budget I do not suppose the Radical Party ever went to the polls with a greater chance of a sweeping victory, or at any rate maintaining their position. They had all the prestige of an enormous majority in the House of Commons; they had the people's Budget, and all the arguments about black bread and horse flesh and that kind of thing; they had the cry of "Peers against the People," and class against class; yet in spite of that you came back to the House of Commons having lost 100 seats, and you could not pass your Budget for four or five months until you had managed somehow or other—I am sure I do not know how—to placate that portion of your supporters who hated the Budget and were very unwilling to vote for it until they had been able to extract their own terms from the Radical Government. The House of Lords would have done a most signal service, in my humble opinion, in the cause of free government by giving the people of this country a second chance of considering that Budget.
The Budget either was or was not a revolution. If it was a revolution then the House of Lords was quite right in referring it to the people. If you cannot refer a revolution to the people then you had better not have a Second Chamber at all. If it was not a revolution, then for the Radical Ministers and their supporters to go about the country proclaiming almost in terms that it was a revolution partakes
732
very much of the nature of a conspiracy against the Constitution of this country. If they did that with a desire to draw the House of Lords into the position of rejecting the Budget in order to rake up a case against the House of Lords afterwards—they evidently did so, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his eloquent way described the House of Lords as "rats caught in a trap"—I say that was a treasonable conspiracy against the Constitution of this country, the proper way of dealing with which should have been by impeachment. The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, in proposing this Bill, said that after all there was nothing new about trying to do away with the House of Lords—I am, perhaps, paraphrasing what he said in a slightly exaggerated way—that there was nothing new about the present proposal, because it was analogous to something that had been brought forward by Mr. John Bright in 1836—
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Brought forward by Mr. John Bright in 1883.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. It does not very much matter whether it was brought forward in 1836 or in 1883. The reason why it did not take effect either in 1836 or in 1883 was that the people of the country realised that it was a single-Chamber conspiracy. They are determined to have double-Chamber government. On the only occasions when the people of this country have had to do without double-Chamber government for any length of time they have always come back to it in the long run, and, not only that, they have always come back to the hereditary House of Lords, because the institution set up in its place was absolutely valueless. Everybody knows quite well that it was not on account of the rejection of this or that particular measure that the campaign against the House of Lords has taken place. The fiery cross, the destruction of this part of the Constitution, went out when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Government came into power in 1906, and it was perfectly evident that they did not intend to exercise their power in the first instance for the common welfare of the country but in order to destroy the House of Lords. They had one of the finest majorities that has ever been returned to the House of Commons, and after having had two encounters with the people they

733
are obliged to come back to Parliament and say that the whole world is wrong, that they cannot govern with the machine that was good enough for the great Statesmen who governed this country in the past, and that for the future the British Constitution is to be modelled on the lines of such countries as Greece and Costa Rica.
You say that you always have single-Chamber government whenever the Conservative Party is in office. I do not think that is a very good argument for Radical Cabinet Ministers to bring forward on this or on any other occasion. If the decrees of the Conservative Government go through, then it tallies with your own theory of government that the laws which are passed by the representatives of the people in the House of Commons ought to become law; and as I ventured to put before your Lordships just now it is not available for the Party opposite to criticise the majority in the House of Lords seeing how very many Peers they themselves have sent up to this House. The principle of this Bill is to limit and whittle away the powers of the House of Lords in such a manner that any decree, not so much of the House of Commons but of the Cabinet, shall become law in two years' time provided it is passed by the other House three times. The noble Viscount, in his explanation of the Bill, did not lay very much stress upon Clause 1, which provides that any measure of a purely financial kind shall become law without the House of Lords being any party to it. I would remind those who think this a reasonable proposal that this gives full play to the entire doctrines of the school of Mr. Philip Snowden, who have for their object the abolition of capital by means of taxation. But the powers of the House of Lords in this country are so small that they will not stand any whittling away or else they will be gone altogether. It is the deliberate opinion of Mr. Marriott, who has written a very admirable book on Second Chambers—I have no doubt many of your Lordships have read it—that of all Second Chambers the ancient House of Lords has less power than any other.
The point I wish to put to noble Lords opposite is this. If you think it is really a fair proposal that any measure which has been through the House of Commons three times, although rejected by the House of Lords three times, shall still pass into law, then the first Bill which ought to
734
be the subject of the provisions of the Parliament Bill is the Parliament Bill itself; the Parliament Bill ought not to be passed into law until it has been sent up to this House from the House of Commons at least three times. The Prime Minister is always going up and down the country saying that the Royal Prerogative has disappeared, that it is no longer exercised and has fallen into disuse. It may be that the divine right of Kings no longer exists, but a great many people in this country would much sooner submit themselves to the divine right of Kings than submit themselves to the divine right of the Radical caucus. This Bill is calculated not to diminish any exercise of the Royal Prerogative; it is actually calculated to revive it. Let me take this instance. We will suppose that this Bill is passed and that a Home Rule Bill is then produced in the House of Commons and sent up to the House of Lords. In the House of Lords it is rejected, we will say for the sake of argument, three times. In the meantime there has been a prodigious agitation against the Bill in the country, and we will also come to the supposition, which is not an extravagant one, that the Radical Party decline to drop the Bill and still proceed with it. Very well. You are then face to face with this situation that, instead of there being a House of Lords to refer the Bill back to the people, the only power which is what Mr. Bagot used to call "getatable" will be the power which used to reside in the Sovereign himself; and if the House of Commons stand firm, there is nothing between the electors who do not desire the Bill and the passing of the measure but the actual Royal Prerogative. So that instead of this measure placing the Royal Prerogative beyond the reach of the people, it would actually tend to bring it more into play, to revive it and make it a living thing.
There is no argument that we have heard in favour of legislation without any appeal to the people. The only argument you are able to bring forward is your own majority in the House of Commons. There is we admit in the House of Commons a majority in favour of the Bill, but we have a much larger majority in this House against the Bill, and you have a Bill which in the country would be rejected by the electors. We need not analyse the majorities in the two Houses. The majority in

735
the House of Commons is subject to quite as destructive and critical analysis as is our majority in the House of Lords; and, as the late Lord Salisbury used to say, "It is not the House of Lords who have left the Radical Party; it is the Radical Party who have left the House of Lords." One by one the Radical Party have thrown over in the House of Commons all the great principles which used to be common ground between the two Parties, such as the unity of the United Kingdom, the Establishment of the Church, the authority of the Law Courts, and the protection of private property. You have got, in your desire to destroy the House of Lords, nearer to success at the present moment than ever you have done before. If you pass this Bill, it will be passed by noble Lords opposite and their Party entirely on their own responsibility, and I trust that noble Lords on this side will be no party whatever to passing this Bill in the shape in which it is at the present moment. The creation of Peers may be the way in which you may choose to force it on the electors of this country, but I submit that the time for the creation of Peers to pass this Bill is not yet. It has only been before the people in a purely, technical sense at the last General Election, and the usage of the Constitution is that the question of the creation of Peers does not arise until a Bill passed by the House of Commons is rejected by the Peers, then submitted to a General Election, and rejected by the House of Peers a second time.
We are asked to read this Bill a second time. My noble friend Lord Midleton observed, with great truth, that it was placing a considerable strain upon some noble Lords on this side of the House, and speaking for myself I would have willingly supported the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading. Still on the Committee stage we shall at any rate have a full and a free examination of the clauses of the Bill. A full and free examination is possible here, because we have no closure like they have in the House of Commons, and we shall remember in this matter that we are trustees for a great many people. There are forty-five million inhabitants of this country and only seven million electors, and the House of Lords represents that portion of the inhabitants who are not electors just as much as do the House of Commons. This is not a struggle, as it is always represented to be, between the Peers and the people;
736
it is not a struggle between the Lords and the Commons. It is a struggle, as Mr. Lowell put in his book about the English Constitution, between the Lords and the Cabinet. I will go further than that. It is a struggle between the Cabinet and that vast body of opinion which still realises what free government means in a free country. The only argument you can produce in favour of this Bill is the argument of necessity, which Pitt used to observe, very truly, was the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves. You may adopt the argument of tyrants if you desire to do so, but we on our side do not wish to adopt the creed of slaves. We do not wish to pass this Bill, because we are afraid that some day or other a worse thing may overcome us. The Parliament Bill will destroy the House of Lords itself, because nobody would care in the future to sit in a House of Lords which cannot exercise those powers which all the second Chambers in His Majesty's Dominions oversea and in every country of Europe where representative government is carried on can exercise and do exercise.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, I hope I may be permitted, as an old Parliamentarian, to say a few words on the Bill before us. In the first place, I desire to repudiate the suggestion of Lord Midleton that there has been any great change in the attitude of the Government to its supporters or any stricter application of Party manœuvres in another place in respect of Bills before the House as compared with past times. Still less is it true that this Bill has been forced through the House of Commons by an improper use of the guillotine or the other processes for the purpose of stopping discussion. My recollection of the House of Commons goes back to the days of Lord Palmerston. Lord Palmerston's Government, I need hardly point out, was kept in office for something like ten years by a majority of not much more than twenty-five, and that Government could only have been carried on by the strictest application of the Party whip, and I undertake to say that during the forty or fifty years which have elapsed since then there has been no practical change in the attitude of Governments to their Parties or any great change in the application of the Party whip. So far as I have observed, the state of things in the House of Commons now is very much what it was at the time I speak of. I have never known a Bill such as that before us which had been more

737
fully and ably discussed in the House of Commons.
I also repudiate the suggestion made a few days ago by the Duke of Northumberland and also by Lord Ampthill, that there has been any deterioration in the personnel of the House of Commons. I undertake to say there is not a word of truth in those statements. No doubt there have been great changes in the House of Commons during the last fifty years. New classes have come in. The Irish Nationalists, the Labour members, and the Welsh members form new classes who seem to me to have added to the ability and variety of the House of Commons without detracting from it in any respect whatever. The noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, devoted a considerable part of his speech to meeting the statements made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the Liberal Government for some time past, and Liberal measures, had been unfairly treated. The noble Viscount pointed out a number of measures that had been before the House of Commons for twenty, thirty, and forty years, and then went on to say that it was not unreasonable that the House of Lords should be given an opportunity of delaying those measures for a further number of years. I should have thought, if such measures had been discussed so long in the House of Commons and had only reached ripeness after so many years, that the argument ought rather to have qeen that public opinion had been concentrated upon them, and that they might reasonably be passed into law after such long discussion and consideration. But the noble Viscount seemed to think, notwithstanding all the discussion that those measures had had, that time House of Lords would be justified in yet further delaying them. Four years ago when the Education Bill was under discussion I made a careful examination of the number of Bills which have been passed by the House of Commons and rejected by the House of Lords, and I found that since the year 1832 about sixty measures had been passed by the House of Commons and rejected by your Lordships. Of those sixty Bills I found that all, with only two exceptions, were subsequently passed by your Lordships after delays sometimes of five years, sometimes of ten, and even of thirty and forty years.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Were they all passed in the same form?
LORD EVERSLEY: Generally they were passed in a very much stronger form than when originally passed by the House of Commons and rejected by your Lordships' House. I could quote several instances in support of that, and I would say that as a general rule delay has caused the measures to be passed in a stronger form ultimately than the form in which they were originally propounded. Only two of those measures, as I have said, which were originally rejected by the House of Lords still remain unpassed. Those are the Home Rule Bill of 1894 and a measure for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy in Ireland, which was passed by the House of Commons in 1850. The difference between the two Houses has been greatly accentuated of late years. It began in Lord Melbourne's Government as regards Irish measures. The wise counsels of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel in the days of the Reform Act of 1832 prevented any issue between the two Houses upon English and Scottish measures, but Irish measures were abandoned to the free will of the House of Lords and numerous cases occurred in which those measures were rejected.
The action of the Lords was still more accentuated in the Government of Mr. Gladstone, between the years 1869 and 1874, again in 1880 and 1884, and again in the later Government in 1894 which was presided over by my noble friend Lord Rosebery. My noble friend Lord Morley has called attention to the speeches made by Lord Rosebery on that occasion. I need hardly remind the House that several measures of that Government which came from the House of Commons were rejected by the House of Lords, including the Home Rule Bill of 1894 and other Bills of importance. It became a question with that Government how best to deal with the matter, and after grave consideration the Government came to the conclusion that it was not by reform of the House of Lords, but by dealing with the Veto, by restricting the Veto, that an alteration could be made, and Lord Rosebery was commissioned by the then Government to lay the case before the country. Lord Rosebery spoke at several large meetings in different parts of the country on the subject. I have myself a perfect recollection in the matter, because the first of those great meetings addressed by Lord Rosebery was at Bradford, which I then represented. It was at Bradford that Lord Rosebery opened his campaign against

739
the House of Lords and presented the policy of his Government and of his colleagues. He devoted himself, in the first of those great speeches at Bradford, mainly to an attack upon your Lordships' House and upon the policy of rejecting Liberal measures; but later, in the two speeches which he made at Glasgow and Devonport, he propounded the remedy of his Government and stated that his colleagues were all united in the belief that the crisis could only be met by the suspension of the Veto of the House of Lords. The noble Lord made use of these words—
"I say confidently that no such act of insanity as our proposing reform of the House of Lords has ever for an instant occurred to any of us. We want to readjust the relations of the House of Commons to the House of Lords, so that the deliberate will of the House of Commons shall not be overborne by the action of the House of Lords. In our opinion the time has come when the right of the Lords to oppose an absolute Veto to the wishes and to the legislation of the House of Commons shall for ever cease."
That is exactly the policy of the present Government. For my part I have no wish to twit the noble Earl with any change of mind upon the subject. The noble Earl has a perfect right to change his opinions, and, after all, sixteen years is a long interval in which to effect this. He has been seated during that time on the Cross Benches, and probably his divergence from his old friends has become greater. But, none the less, the statement made by Lord Rosebery on that occasion on behalf of his colleagues and representing all their views has a significance which cannot be disregarded. His statements then were made on behalf of all his colleagues after full consultation with them and represented their views on the subject, and his colleagues included among their number such men as Lord Spencer, Lord Granville, Lord Kimberley, and Lord Ripon, the mainstays in those days of the Whig Party, and with whom I am sorry to say there are very few to be compared at the present time. In my judgment what has taken place has immensely strengthened the case in that direction. Lord Rosebery's Government was followed by ten years of Unionist Government. At the end of that time a Liberal Government came into power under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. It came into power with an immense majority and with a definite programme, but your Lordships set to work deliberately to destroy the measures of that Government. One after another they were presented to this House and were
740
rejected by large majorities here after having been carried by enormous majorities in the House of Commons. It seemed to me that the position of the Government in those circumstances was most humiliating, and one which they could not possibly endure.
The time has at last come when the issue must be taken. The issue has been before the country at two General Elections, and it seems to me a definite and clear one. The fact that your Lordships have passed a Reform Bill in the House of Lords seems to me to be an admission of the case which we have made. It is an admission that great evils exist from the present state of things and that a remedy must be found. In our opinion the remedy is not in the direction of reform of your Lordships' House, but in the direction of the suspension of the Veto in the manner suggested by the Bill now before us. In my humble judgment, if the Government were not to persist in this measure and carry it to a conclusion, they would lose the confidence of their supporters, and would be considered traitors to the cause which they were sent to Parliament to represent. In my belief, therefore, they will do well to press this Veto Bill to a proper conclusion, and I feel very confident that one way or another it will pass into law before the end of the present session.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am sure there is no member of your Lordships' House—certainly no one sitting on this side—who does not feel that the discussion which is taking place on this Parliament Bill is the most important and perhaps the most critical that has ever taken place in this House. For, after all, what does the Parliament Bill mean? It is nothing more or less than an attack on our Constitution. It proposes to alter that system of Government under which for so many centuries this country has lived so well, so happily, and so free. Whatever guise the Government may choose to give it, they propose to hand over the administration of this country to the tender mercies of a Single Chamber. As my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke said, we have only to study the course pursued by every other important civilised Power to see the necessity of double-Chamber government.
It is somewhat interesting to notice the manner in which the various members who form the present Ministry view the question

741
of a Second Chamber. The Labour Party are honest. They say frankly that they prefer single-Chamber government, and I think we must admire them for their straightforwardness. But what is the attitude of noble Lords opposite, and of those who hold their views? They say they desire double-Chamber government. Sir Edward Grey spoke very strongly against single-Chamber government. The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, has also put forward that view. But with all deference to them, I think they are endeavouring to throw dust in the eyes of the people of this country, for they must know full well that if this Parliament Bill becomes law in its proper sense it will certainly mean single-Chamber government at the end of two years. If a Bill is sent up three times to your Lordships' House in the short space of two years, on the last two occasions it will very likely be rushed through the House of Commons—as we have seen this Bill rushed through, by means of the closure, the guillotine, and the other modes of procedure adopted by the present Government. The Government will be able to carry through Parliament measures which very likely they know the country does not want and upon which they certainly have taken great care not to consult the country. I venture to suggest that that condition of affairs is nothing more or less than single-Chamber government. Why is this measure brought forward? We know full well that one of the greatest complaints urged in the country by supporters of noble Lords opposite is that the House of Lords offer what they call a blank wall to Liberal measures. That is a very curious statement to make. The noble Earl opposite, the Minister for Agriculture, has frequently boasted in this House of the harvest of Bills that have become law since his Party have been in power.
EARL CARRINGTON: Only my own Bills.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think the noble Earl can congratulate his colleagues also for I find that in the last five years 226 Government Bills have been passed into law by your Lordships' House. Only eight Bills have failed to pass this House, three of them because the two Houses could not agree with regard to Amendments. That being so, what becomes of the suggestion that the House of Lords presents a blank wall to Liberal measures? Certainly there was one Bill your Lordships
742
rejected—the Licensing Bill. But what was that Bill? It was a Bill which we considered, and I think rightly so, to be of a vindictive and unjust character, a Bill which did not promote the cause of temperance. It would have brought ruin to a great number of people who had invested their money in an absolutely honest undertaking.
What was the feeling in the country when we rejected the Licensing Bill? My noble friend Lord Midleton alluded to the appeal of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who said he hoped your Lordships would not allow the unpopularity of the Bill to prevent its passing into law. We had a further proof that we had the country at our back in rejecting the Licensing Bill. During the time that Bill was before the country the present Home Secretary, Mr. Winston Churchill, fought a by-election at Manchester on being appointed President of the Board of Trade. What was the result? He was defeated. Then as to another measure. We are always being told that your Lordships rejected the Education Bill of 1906. That Bill was not rejected. It was amended, and was dropped by the Government because they would not accept the Amendments which your Lordships rightly insisted upon—namely, the provision that in a free country parents should have the right of choosing the kind of religious instruction which their children should receive in the schools. The action of your Lordships was fully vindicated, for two years afterwards Mr. Runeiman introduced an Education Bill in which were embodied those very Amendments upon which your Lordships had insisted in the case of the previous Bill.
One noble Lord pointed out that your Lordships had never resisted the will of the people when that will had been clearly expressed. He quoted with truth the case of the Irish Church Bill. Your Lordships rejected that Bill, but after the General Election took place in which the people clearly showed that they wished that Church disestablished, you acceded to the will of the people. Again, turn to the Trades Disputes Bill as it was called. Your Lordships passed that measure although it had been declared by the Government themselves to be an inefficient measure, altered during its progress through the House of Commons. When the General Election took place undoubtedly the Trades Disputes Bill occupied a very prominent

743
part among the important questions of the day, and your Lordships put on one side your own ideas and passed that measure because you considered that it had received the support of the country. Can it be maintained, then, that the cry against your Lordships' House of permanently rejecting Liberal measures is justified? The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, does not think so, for at Rhyl on October 30, 1907, he said—
"Whenever the nation had been in earnest with a measure the House of Lords had in the end been no permanent obstacle."
How, then, can noble Lords opposite who support that view of Lord Haldane reconcile their consciences to bringing forward a measure to deprive your Lordships of the powers you have always possessed, and which it is admitted you have never brought to bear against Bills upon winch the country has decided? But Lord Haldane found salvation because of the action of the House of Lords in respect of the Budget. In the House of Commons he said, on April 6, 1910, that he would willingly have left the House of Lords alone had it not been for their action on the Budget. In his mind, then, so far as general legislation was concerned, the House of Lords had only exercised those functions of revision and delay which it was proper for a Second Chamber to perform.
I am not going into the action of this House on the occasion of the Budget of 1909, because Lord Willoughby de Broke said everything as to that, and what he said entirely commends itself to me, and, I think, to noble Lords on this side of the House. But I would remind your Lordships that the House of Lords proved that it was a better judge of the will of the people with regard to the Budget than the Government of noble Lords opposite. The Budget is now law. But no one will contradict me when I say that it did not become the law of the laud on its merits. It passed the House of Commons on the first occasion by a majority of 230, but after the General Election it passed through the House of Commons by a majority of only 93. How was that majority obtained? It was obtained by a policy of log-rolling, by squaring Mr. Redmond in order to induce the Nationalists to vote for the Budget. I do not think any one will dispute that had that log-rolling not taken place the Budget would not be the law of the land at the present time. Mr. Redmond himself
744
said in Dublin that if Home Rule were put on one side he would fight the Budget, but if it were a question of the Budget and Home Rule he would accept the Budget. Therefore I maintain that the Budget only passed the House of Commons because the Government promised Home Rule. There is another point, and it was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. Long before the Budget was referred by this House to the country attacks were made on your Lordships by some of the most important leaders of the Party opposite. As far back as January, 1907, Mr. Lloyd George, speaking at Carnarvon, said—
"He would say this to his fellow-countrymen. If they found the Government manœuvring their artillery into position for leading an attack on the Lords, the Welshman who worried them into attending to anything else until the citadel had been stormed ought to be put into the guard-room."
Therefore this attack was made on your Lordships long before you referred the Budget to the country.
I do not think it can be said for a moment that this Parliament Bill can be looked upon as even intended to be a permanent settlement of this great Constitutional question. To my mind the Bill establishes a system of Parliamentary procedure whereby an autocratic Prime Minister at the head of a subservient majority can carry any measure he chooses through the House of Commons, and eventually it would become law. Or there might be the case of a weak Prime Minister held in the hollow of the hand of a Party of extremists and revolutionists, not unlike the present situation I venture to say, who would insist on the measures they brought forward becoming the law of the land whether the House of Lords desired them or not. If the Government had desired to arrive at a settlement of this question they ought to have dealt with certain other complaints that have been made. One of those complaints is that there are too many Unionists in your Lordships' House. As my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke said, that is not the fault of the Unionist Party. We have frequently found that, when free from the pressure of the Radical Whips in another place, noble Lords having entered tins House have changed their politics and become Unionists. Why? Because they do not desire to see the Constitution undermined. The Parliament Bill offers no settlement of tins question. It does not

745
propose to equalise the two Parties in this House. No; the Bill that proposes to do that is the Bill of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. That Bill deals with this question, a question which the Parliament Bill has entirely left out.
Then there is another point of complaint—namely, with regard to the hereditary principle. We hear of many speeches made by members of the Party opposite on this subject, notably the not very eloquent one of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he talked about the "first of a litter," but we do not see anything in this Bill which proposes to deal with the matter, however much the Radical Party may complain of it out of doors. Again, the Bill of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne does deal with the hereditary principle—a matter which, if you had wished this to be a permanent settlement, ought to have appeared in your own Bill. It is as well to look the facts in the face, and I think the "man in the street" if he studies the question will come to the conclusion that this Bill is proposed to be passed for purely Party purposes. The Prime Minister told us that it was not an end in itself, but a means to an end. What is to be that end? Mr. Balfour, in his speech at the Albert Hall the other day, put the matter in a nutshell. His expression was—
"If there had been no question of Home Rule there would have been no Parliament Bill."
My Lords, I believe that to be absolutely true. The object of this Parliament Bill is to pass Home Rule in order to obey the mandates of Mr. Redmond, who forced the Prime Minister to toe the line before he would give his support in the House of Commons. This is the repayment to Mr. Redmond. I maintain that the question of Home Rule is the most important question of the day, and that this measure is brought forward for the purpose of securing Home Rule I do not think even the Prime Minister himself would for one moment deny.
I trust your Lordships will insist on this matter being thoroughly thrashed out in this House when we go into Committee. I sincerely hope that Home Rule will never be permitted to become the law of the land until the people of the country have said with no uncertain voice that they desire it. I believe if the people were asked that question to-morrow they would reply as
746
they did in 1886 and 1895. Therefore I say to endeavour to obtain Home Rule by such a measure as this is a betrayal, not only of the trust of the Government, but of the people themselves. I have not only ties of blood with Ireland myself but I have also had the honour of serving the Sovereign in an official capacity in that country, so that I have both a private and official knowledge of Ireland; and I can say from my experience that if Home Rule were granted to Ireland it would turn what is now a prosperous country into a country of ruin and misery and bring about in all probability civil war. That is why I maintain that this question should be brought prominently before the people of the country before Home Rule is ever permitted to become the law of the land. In that connection I may refer to a letter to The Times on November 25, 1891, in which the present Prime Minister made use of this expression—
"I retain the opinion which I have more than Once expressed, that it is desirable, both upon tactical and other grounds, that before the General Election comes the country should be made aware of the general outline of the proposed settlement."
It is Home Rule that he was referring to. Speaking at the Manchester Reform Club earlier in the same year he gave expression to the same opinion. He said—
"He confessed he was one of those who had felt that it would be desirable before the next General Election to give a general outline of the Home Rule Bill."
No outline has been given of what their idea of Home Rule is, and I conclude by again expressing the hope that your Lordships will stand firm on this question and insist, so far as lies in your power, that Home Rule shall never become the law of the land until the people of this country have declared for it with no uncertain voice.
Further debate adjourned, till To-morrow.

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order): Amendments (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.