Sitting of 7 March 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Barry Railway Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),
Midland Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Taff Vale Railways Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Dover Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 4835 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PERSIA (No. 1, 1912).
Copy presented of Joint Note addressed by the British and Russian Representatives at Teheran to the Persian Government on 11th September, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (PARTICULARS OF WORK AND WAGES).
Copy presented of Order, dated 27th February, 1912, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, applying the provisions of Section 116 of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, with modifications, to Factories and Workshops in which the manufacture of Chocolate or Sweetmeats is carried on [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Tripoli (Triple Alliance).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any treaty or undertaking is known to exist between the Powers of the Triple Alliance by which Italy is allowed a free hand, or is supported by the other Powers of the Alliance, in her attempt to make Tripoli an Italian province?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I have no knowledge of any such treaty or undertaking.

  Amazon (Putnmayo Basin).
  Mr. KINGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the result of action by the Peruvian Government consequent on the Report of Sir Roger Casement concerning affairs in the Putumayo basin of the Amazon?
  Sir E. GREY: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on Tuesday of this week to the hon. Member for Norfolk, N.

  Young Turkish Party.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the decisions of the Annual Congress of the Young Turkish party, the Committee of Union and Progress, held recently in Salonika; and whether the policy then decided on, which in some ways attacks the liberties and recognised rights of Christian dwellers in European Turkey, has been the subject of representations to the Turkish Government?
  Sir E. GREY: I have received no official report of the proceedings. Probably the reports published represented a resumé of ideas discussed, and I am not in a position to know whether any policy was decided or to make representations to the Turkish Government about it.

  Red Sea (Lighting of Islands).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will state what right or title Turkey has to the barren islands in the Red Sea other than occupancy; whether, as her sole occupancy consisted of lighting them, now she has ceased to light she has any right to retain control of the islands; and, whether, in the interests of British shipping, His

  517
  Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of taking, at all events, temporary possession of the islands and relight them in the event of Turkey declining to carry out her international obligations in this respect.
  Sir E. GREY: The right or title of Turkey to the islands in proximity to the Arabian coast of the Red Sea has, so far as I am aware, never been questioned. As the hon. Member was informed in answer to his question of 29th February, the Ottoman Government have, of course, the right to extinguish the lights in their territorial waters, if they consider such action necessary to guard their national interests and ensure their safety. In answer to the last part of the question there can be no question of any such action on the part of His Majesty's Government as that suggested by the hon. Member without a departure from neutrality.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that complaints have arisen in regard to British shipping, and will he press more strenuously for the relighting of the islands?
  Sir E. GREY: I am quite aware that inconvenience has been caused, but I am afraid it is impossible, so widespread as British shipping interests are, for war to occur in any part of the world without some inconvenience being caused. I did, in the earlier stages of the war, make certain suggestions, in the hope that some arrangement might be come to for the neutrality of the Red Sea, but it was found impossible then. Of course, if an opportunity does arise by which the lights can be re-established, we shall avail ourselves of it.

  CRIME IN IRELAND.

    OUTRAGE AT BALLYMURPUY.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that on 8th February, 1912, an attack was. made on the house of a farmer named Denis Cahill, at Ballymurphy, near Kilfenora; whether about a dozen gunshots were discharged into the house by a party of men; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this outrage?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The police inform me that one shot was fired into an unoccupied room of Cahill's house and a number
    518
    of other shots outside. No arrest's have been made.

    BISHOP OF KILLALOE'S SERMON.
    Mr. SANDYSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to a sermon delivered on 17th December, 1911, by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Killaloe in Ennis Cathedral, referring to various outrages which had taken place in the district, and especially to the murder of a farmer's wife in East Clare, and the shooting of a postman in the neighbourhood of Crusheen, crimes he attributed to the system of intimidation and outrage that had been rampant for a long time in certain districts of the county and to the immunity from punishment enjoyed by the moonlighter in deeds of crime; whether there is any improvement in the condition of this part of Ireland since these statements were made; and, if not, what special steps are being taken to prevent such occurrences?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen a newspaper report of the sermon referred to. The police authorities inform me that while the state of the county is still very bad a certain improvement has taken place in some districts. There is a large extra force of police in the county, and special measures have been, and are being, taken, for the protection of life and property and the prevention of outrages.
    Mr. MOORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if either of the representatives in Parliament of this county have expressed any condemnation of these outrages?
    Mr. W. REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to take any notice of that insult. It is a gross insult.

    FIRING OUTRAGES.
    Mr. SANDYSasked how many cases of firing into dwellings and firing at the person, respectively, were reported during the year 1911; and how many cases of similar outrages have so far been reported during the present year?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that during the year 1911 there were forty-two cases of firing at the person and thirty-one of firing into dwellings. So far this year there have been seventeen cases of firing at the person and eleven of firing into dwellings.

    ABBEYFEALE, COUNTY LIMERICK.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that shots were fired into the house of a national school teacher, near Abbeyfeale, county Limerick, and an attempt made to burn the schoolhouse; and what steps are being taken to protect the schoolmaster and to bring the perpetrators of this outrage to justice?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The facts are as stated. The house fired into was not a schoolteacher's residence, but the house in which he lodged. The police are giving all necessary protection and doing all that is possible to bring the guilty persons to justice.
    Mr. MOORE: Has any arrest been made?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No.

    ENNIS SPRING ASSIZES.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been called to the statements of the Lord Chief Justice at the opening of the Spring Assizes at Ennis on Saturday; that the calendar contained one case of murder and three deliberate attempts to murder; that there were nine cases of threatening notices in which no one had been made amenable; and that this indicated that in some parts of county Clare people were so utterly demoralised that they would not come forward to assist the authorities; if it has been found necessary to postpone the trial of a prisoner charged with murder because of the feeling of terror which prevails in the county amongst witnesses and jurors; and if he will state how he proposes to deal with this state of affairs?
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the address of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland to the Grand Jury at Ennis Assizes on Saturday, 2nd March, in regard to the reign of terror now existing in county Clare; and what steps, if any, he proposes taking to cope with the situation in that part of Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen a newspaper report of the address of the Lord Chief Justice. The case referred to has been postponed for the reasons stated. There is a large extra force of police in the county who are doing all they can to prevent intimidation, but the difficulty is to
    520
    obtain evidence, and I am not aware of any measure which would meet that difficulty.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of his answer, whether he is not aware that these lamentable outrages have been condemned by the people generally and by every public body in the county of Clare, by the bishop, and also by the Parliamentary representatives for the district; and whether it is not true that outside a limited area in which these occurences took place the county of Clare is quite as free from crime as any county in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is no doubt the fact that these lamentable and detestable outrages, which I am glad to say have met with great condemnation in all parts of the county, are confined to particular black spots in the county.
    Mr. MOORE: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is the case that county Clare requires forty-six policeman to every 10,000 of inhabitants, whereas only ten policemen are required for every 10,000 inhabitants in Antrim and Down?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That fact only proves the truth of what I have said, or at all events it is not inconsistent with the truth of what I have said, that these lamentable outrages are confined to small localities in the county.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was in this county Head Constable Whelahan was stationed for many years, and whether it was in this county Whelahan employed Cullinan at 10s. per week for the purpose of getting up outrages, and that under a Tory regime?

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether he is aware that the parish of Geevagh, county Sligo, contains several unsold congested estates, namely, those of Messrs. Utred Knox, Carnadargney, Hewson, agents Messrs. Robinson, Sligo, J. L. Powell, Tinnicarra, Boyle, and F. Frazer; whether the great majority of the holdings on these estates are valued at £6 and under, although they contain large tracts of untenanted land; whether the owners refuse to sell through the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, what steps it is proposed to take in order to have sales brought about?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have decided to make an offer for the purchase of the Knox estate, and expect to complete arrangements for the purchase of the Powell estate in a few weeks. The estate of the Misses Frazer has recently been offered for sale to the Board, and it will be inspected as soon as practicable. I understand that a number of holdings on the Knox and Frazer estates are valued under £7.
    Mr. FLAVINasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can state why the road promised to be made in connection with land purchase in the townland of Aughrim, Newtowndillon, on the Blacker-Douglas estate, has not been, made; and whether he will state whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any practical step to carry out this work, in view of the needs of the people of the district?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners hope to take the necessary steps in this matter at an early date.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to see that this work is carried out before the landlord gets his purchase money?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I will call the attention of the Commissioners to the matter.
    Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state when the Turfarney portion of the estate of the late Arthur Owen, Queen's county, will be inspected, and also the conditions under which a tenancy was created of part of the property in question by the late Arthur Owen, one of the owners becoming tenant, of a large portion of the untenanted land; whether a memorial was received by the Estates Commissioners, subsequent to the late Arthur Owen's death, requesting them to purchase this holding for distribution amongst the occupiers of uneconomic holdings adjoining; whether an attempt is being made by another large landholder in the district to create a tenancy and get an advance for the purchase of this untenanted land; and can he state what course the Estates Commissioners propose to adopt in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on 21st March, 1910. The matters referred to by the hon. Member will be inquired into by the Estates Commissioners when this estate is reached in order of priority.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked what steps, if any, it is proposed to take with regard to the action of Mr. John Mulhall, who refuses to sell his Knocknagee and Carricknagat estates, situate in the electoral division of Ballinakill, Sligo union, to the Congested Districts Board; whether the great majority of the holdings on this property are under £7 valuation; and whether the owner is the same gentleman who occupies the position of chairman of the General Prisons Board and who has publicly stated that he will not sell until the Act of 1909 is amended?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board communicated with the agents regarding a sale of this property, but no reply has so far been received. A further communication will now be addressed to them. The Board have received information regarding the circumstances of the estate on behalf of the tenants, but they know nothing of the statement referred to.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the Coonela estate, the property of the late Mr. Jackson, of Ballintogher, Cullooney, county Sligo, and now in the hands of a trustee named A. Gillmor, J.P., Bally-mote, county Sligo, has yet been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board; and, if not, whether, seeing that this estate, Coonela, consists for the most part of large grazing tracts, from which fourteen families were some years ago evicted, and that it is situated in the centre of a congested district, steps will be taken by the Board to acquire it, compulsorily or otherwise?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The estate referred to has been offered for sale through the Congested Districts Board, and a decision will be arrived at regarding purchase as soon as practicable.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the Castleneno estate, situate in the electoral division of Ballinakill, union of Sligo, has yet been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board cannot identify the property referred to in the question without fuller information as to the name of the owner and the townland comprising the property.
    Mr. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary whether the tenants on the Leahy estate, Castletown, Bere, county Cork, though having arranged for the purchase

    523
    of their holdings, are still paying their full rents; and, in view of the fact that these tenants are rack-rented, whether he will have arrangements made that in the future annuities of interest will be paid in lieu of the rents until their holdings are vested in these tenants?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners cannot, from the particulars given, identify this estate as the subject of proceedings for sale before them at present under the Land Purchase Acts. The sales of the only estates of this name in county Cork which were the subject of such proceedings before them have been completed and the holdings vested in the purchasing tenants.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Canon Geraghty, President of the Glynsk and Crosswell branches of the United Irish League, occupies a farm of 279 acres in a congested district of Glennamaddy union, county Galway; that, on the public recommendation of Canon Geraghty, a holding of land on the Pollok estate was allotted to a teacher named Michael Lennon, a man who holds no qualification as a tenant on the estate, while on the same estate fifty bonâ fide tenants still hold uneconomic holdings, and the postmaster of Gortnadieve was disallowed additional land to his one-acre holding because he was publicly denounced by the Glynsk and Crosswell branches of the United Irish League; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no information as to the accuracy of the statements in the first part of the question, nor can they find that any person named Michael Lennon was allotted a parcel of land on the Pollok Estate. The application of William Naughton, who appears to be the person referred to in the last part of the question, for a parcel of land on this estate was fully considered by the Commissioners, and they decided to take no action on his application. They are not aware that he was publicly denounced as stated.

    Teachers' Pensions (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked if the right hon. Gentleman will say whether the Treasury or the Commissioners of National Education are responsible for not paying teachers on their retirement on a pension the portion
    524
    of their salary designated augmentation and residual Grant earned on date of retirement; whether he is aware that teachers retired in June do not receive this moiety of their salary for over nine months after, as in the case of the teacher of the Kenmare Boys' School, who retired at sixty-five on 30th June last; and will he see that this arrangement is remedied, so that the employé may get his wages without delay in future?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the Grants referred to are, under Regulations sanctioned by the Treasury, payable annually in the month of April in respect of the year ending on the previous 31st March. The Parliamentary Vote out of which these payments are made does not become available until the month of April. A teacher retiring in the month of June cannot, therefore, be paid these Grants in respect of his service since the preceding 1st April until the month of April in the following year.

    Surcharges (Ireland).
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of cases of surcharge and the nature of such surcharges made by the Local Government Board of Ireland in 1910 and 1911 against district councils and county and borough councils?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The actual number of surcharges could only be obtained by the examination of every audit report furnished during the two years in question. The Board keep a record of the number of appeals made to them against surcharges, and particulars of these will be found on page 309 of the Board's Annual Report for 1909–10, and page 278 of their Report for 1910–11. These appeals relate to almost every phase of expenditure of local authorities. These surcharges are not made by the Local Government Board for Ireland, but by the Local Government auditors.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman find out the number of surcharges to which my question refers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member will find information on referring to the pages I have given him. In 1909–10 the total number of appeals to the Board against disallowances and surcharges were 213, and in 1910–11 the total was 436.
    Sip H. CARLILE: My question is as to the number of surcharges, and not the number of cases of appeal. Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain that information?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That will entail a very long examination, because I should have to examine every Order of the Board furnished during the last two years.

    Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
    Mr. LUNDONasked whether a tenant of a labourer's cottage is entitled to sit, act, and vote as a rural district councillor on a local authority; is there any Section in the Irish Labourers Act which empowers those having charge of their administration to reject applications for cottages or plots, under a scheme formulated by a rural district council, on the sole grounds that the rural councillor in the electoral division in which such applicants were situated occupied a cottage and was tenant of the same to the council of which he happened to be a member; was any circular ever issued by the Local Government Board on the legality or otherwise of a tenant of a labourer's cottage acting as rural or urban councillor; and, if so, when and at what particular date was it issued?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It has been judicially decided that no legal disqualification for the office of rural district councillor attaches to a person by reason of his being the tenant of a labourer's cottage. There is no such Section in the Labourers (Ireland) Acts as that indicated in the question. A circular was issued by the Local Government Board on the 12th March, 1901, to every rural district council explaining the effect of the judicial decision referred to.
    Mr. LUNDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that quite recently in Limerick the County Court Judge rejected a number of applications for labourer's cottages because of the reasons set out in the question; and, in view of the fact that the Kilmalloch District Council are just now carrying through a scheme for the granting of 700 additional hall-acres, will the circular referred to by the hon. Gentleman be again sent to those having charge of the administration of the Labourers Acts, because, if not, this County Court Judge may inflict, in his ignorance of the law, a further penalty on the working classes of county Limerick.
    Mr. BIRRELL: If the circular has not been successful it must be repeated.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked when the Local Government Board intend to hold the next inquiry into the scheme for labourers' cottages in the district of Tulla, county Clare?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board are not at present in a position to say when an inquiry will be held.

    National School Teachers (Ireland).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state how many teachers were promoted for highly efficient service, during the present financial year, to the first and second sections, respectively, of the first grade, and the number in each section who were not paid the resulting increment of salary to which they were entitled under the rules of the Commissioners, and the amount saved to the Treasury by the partial payment of arrears of increments to the twelve teachers whose cases were dealt with by the National Board in December last; and if he can now state when the teachers from whom the increased salary has been withheld may expect to receive what they regard as their just dues?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, during the current financial year, they have promoted five men and eight women to first division of first grade, and twenty one men and thirteen women to the second division of that grade. The numbers in each grade and division are fixed by rule. As there were vacancies for the women they have all been paid the increased salary resulting from this promotion; but the twenty-six men are still awaiting vacancies. The twelve teachers referred to in the latter part of the question would have received £123 more if their promotion had entailed an immediate increase of salary. The question of increasing the number of teachers in the first grade is at present before the Treasury.

    University Scholarships (Ireland).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Meath County Council on Monday last, by twelve votes to six, decided that the university scholarships provided out of public funds should be tenable only at the National (Roman Catholic) University, and that condidates for such scholarships must pass in Irish; if any of the Irish county councils who have attached similar

    527
    conditions to their schemes of university scholarships have modified their schemes in consequence of his declaration in November last that such restrictions were not in harmony with the spirit of the Irish Universities Act, 1908; and if he intends to take any steps to prevent Protestant students being penalised and the non-sectarian universities in Ireland being boycotted by Nationalist county councils?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings of the Meath County Council on the occasion referred to. I have no information as regards the second paragraph, nor have I any control over the county councils in the matter; but, as I have already stated, I have some hopes of being able to establish a scheme of scholarships to enable boys to pass from primary to secondary schools, and ultimately to compete for county scholarships at the universities. Such a scheme will only be possible if the county councils refrain from drawing invidious distinctions between the different universities, all unsectarian, in Ireland.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to secure fair play to the Protestants under the Irish Universities Act, how can he expect the Protestant minority in Ireland to trust their liberties to the Nationalist party?
    Captain CRAIG: On what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman base his statement that the National University of Dublin is non-sectarian?
    Mr. BIRRELL: If the hon. and gallant Member will read the Act he will find that is so.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dublin Corporation have stipulated that scholarships are to be held at Trinity College only if the Irish language is taken?

    Fishing Industry (County Clare).
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked what work for fishermen in the Ballyvaughan district, county Clare, is under immediate consideration by the Congested Districts Board?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have agreed to make at Derreen and Ballyinny landing places suitable for curraghs, which are the only boats used by the fishermen on that coast.

    Ancient Order of Hibernians.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether permission has been given by the spiritual director of the diocese of Ross to the local branch of a political body known as the Ancient Order of Hibernians to use the national male school-house at Skibbereen, county Cork, for the purpose of holding their weekly meetings; and, if so, whether such use has been sanctioned by the National Commissioners of Education for Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education have no information on the subject. They have not sanctioned the use of any school in Skibbereen for the purpose stated.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the use of this school could be granted without the sanction of the Commissioners?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; I think not.

    Alleged Boycotting (Robinstown, County Meath).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a meeting held at Robins-town, near Trim, county Meath, on 1st February, when a certain individual was denounced by the Dunderry branch of the United Irish League as a grazier, and the audience were advised by the chief speaker to severely boycott the man so denounced; whether he has been able to ascertain the name of this speaker; whether a Government note taker was present; and whether he intends to take further action in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The meeting referred to was held at Robinstown, on the 3rd February, and a police shorthand writer was present. The language used by the hon. Member for South Meath, who was the principal speaker, has been carefully considered, and I am advised that, in the circumstances, further action would not be justified.
    Captain CRAIG: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he considers action would be justified in cases of this sort?
    Mr. BIRRELL: All I can say is I have here the opinion of the Attorney-General on the subject, and in his opinion, having regard to the evidence which was taken down by a shorthand writer, action would not be justified.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the reasons why the Local Government Board sustained the appeal of the pension officer against the award by the local pension sub-commttee of a penson at the rate of 5s. per week to Mrs. Alice Murphy, of Collooney; and whether he will direct special inquiry into this case in view of the unanimous decision of the committee in applicant's favour?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The appeal of the penson, officer in this case was upheld on the ground that the claimant was unable to furnish sufficient evidence of having reached the statutory age. The Local Government Board have no power to reopen consideration of the case.
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked upon what evidence the Local Government Board reversed the decision of the Fermanagh old age pension committee sitting at Kesh, county Fermanagh, on 24th November, 1911, awarding a pension of 5s. weekly to Mary Timlin, of Ballynant, Kesh, county Fermanagh; whether some years ago the late Dr. Baptist Graham certified that claimant was older than he; that as they were reared beside each other he remembered her when he was a boy; that she was older than he, and that at the time of giving the certificate he was seventy-one years old; that such certificate signed by Dr. Graham was sent by Mrs. Timlin to the Local Government Board on an appeal some years ago by her against the decision of the then committee; whether at the meeting of the committee on 24th November last Mr. James Aiken, merchant and postmaster at Kesh, went before the committee and gave evidence that he knew Mary Timlin when hired with a relative of his and when she was fourteen years old; that at the time he was giving evidence he was seventy-six years old and that the claimant was at least seventy-five; and seeing that the only question is one of age, and there being no suggestion that the claimant is not of full qualifying age, the Local Government Board can see their way to send one of their inspectors to investigate the case?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The facts generally are as set out in the question. The pension officer reported to the Local Government Board that on questioning Dr. Graham further the latter stated he was not sure whether Mary Timlin was younger or older than himself. Claimant was not born in 1841, according to the Census Records of
    530
    her parents' family; and the statements made by Dr. Graham and Mr. Aiken could not be accepted as being sufficient to prove that she was of the statutory age. The claim has been disallowed by the Board, and they have no power to reopen the case.
    Mr. MEAGHERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Castlecomer old age pension subcommittee have had before them the claim of a Mrs. Mary M'Donald for an old age pension; that the committee, having a local knowledge of the case and after full inquiry, considered that the claimant was. entitled to the full pension of 5s., and allowed the same to her; whether he is aware that the pension officer calculated the means of the said claimant at £34, and had not recommended her for the pension, and appealed against the decision of the committee, and that the Local Government Board on 26th February decided that the claimant was not entitled to any pension; and, seeing that this woman's husband died intestate, and she having four children whose labours on the farm have helped to keep it from being sold, and who are by law entitled to two-thirds of the father's property, she being entitled to but one-third, he will see that the circumstances of the case be reviewed, with a view to have the law as regards intestacy observed, and that she be granted the full pension?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The facts generally are as stated in the first part of the question. It appeared, however, that Mrs. McDonald was the actual occupier of the farm, and that it was purchased in her name under the Land Purchase Acts. Her claim for pension was accordingly disallowed by the Local Government Board on appeal, and the Board have now no power to reopen the case.
    Mr. MEAGHERasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain in what manner the Local Government Board calculated the means of Mrs. Norah Kenny, of Ballylinnen, in the Castlecomer subcommittee district, through which calculation they decided the above-named woman was not entitled to a pension?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The decision of the Local Government Board in this case was based on the size and nature of the farm on which claimant resided, and on the number of stock and the extent of the tillage As the claim has been disallowed

    531
    the documents are not now in the Board's possession, and the exact circumstances cannot be stated.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that a pension was granted by the local pension committee to Mrs. Kate Lavery, of Herbertstown, county Limerick, and that an appeal was lodged by the pension officer; and, if so, will he say on what grounds; and will the statements made by the officer in Ms appeal form be furnished to the local pension committee, so that the latter may be able to see if there has been any alteration made in the statements made before the committee when the claim was passed, and then going to the Local Government Board?
    Mr. BIRRELL: An appeal was made to the Local Government Board against the pension granted to Mrs. Lavery on the grounds that her means exceeded the statutory limit. The pension officer made no statement on his appeal form regarding claimant's means other than what was placed before the pension sub-committee.

    Ballinagh Band.
    Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether a force of police prevented the Ballinagh band from marching on the public road on the 23rd February last; were any members of the band batoned; and whether he has received any report in the matter, giving the substance of same?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Prosecutions are pending in connection with the occurrence referred to. I cannot, therefore, make any statement in the matter at present.

    Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the cost of living has substantially increased in all parts of the United Kingdom since the year 1901, the date of the last inquiry into the pay of the rank and file of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and that the pay of almost all other classes of public servants has been revised since that date, and especially that the rates of pay of nearly all the British police forces have recently been substantially increased; and whether he proposes to take steps to secure similar treatment for the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that the cost of living has increased in all parts of the United Kingdom since 1901. The last increase of pay was granted to the rank and file of the Royal Irish Constabulary in 1908, not 1901, as suggested, and, as I have already stated, it is too soon to reopen the question.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what was the increase of pay—was it not a mere trifle?
    Mr. MOORE: A shilling after six years.
    Captain CRAIG: Is it not a fact that the increase of pay was among the higher ranks, and not among the rank and file?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The whole question has received my careful attention. I quite agree it would be desirable, were it possible just now, to make some improvement in the conditions, but I really cannot hope to carry it out.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to make an inquiry into this matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am just as anxious to do everything I can for the Royal Irish Constabulary as the hon. Gentleman.

    Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether a memorial was presented to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction by ship inspectors attached to the veterinary branch of the Department at the different ports throughout Ireland, praying that a recommendation be made to the Treasury to extend the age limit for retiring from sixty to sixty-five, as in the case of all other branches of the Civil Service, including veterinary surgeons of the Department; whether, under the present regulations, thoroughly experienced and capable men are forced to retire at an age when prospects of further employment are remote; and whether, under the circumstances that most of the men are poor with families to maintain, he will favourably consider the question and recommend the Treasury to extend the age limit to sixty-five?
    The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland, Mr. T. W. Russell): The memorial mentioned was duly received, and has been replied to in the negative. The ship inspectors employed by the Department

    533
    are mostly police pensioners. The rule requiring them to retire at sixty is regarded as being in the interests of the service. It was adopted, after full investigation, by the Treasury, about nine years ago. It has been applied in a very large number of cases since, and the Department are not now prepared to recommend its modification.

    Tarbert Female School, County Kerry.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether, seeing that in a letter dated 7th November, 1911, he promised to inquire into certain circumstances connected with the female school at Tarbert, county Kerfy, he will now say whether he is satisfied that the answer supplied him in reply to a question by the hon. Member for East Down on this subject in November last was false; have the little girls who were expelled from this school on the 28th February, 1911, attended this school during the past twelve months; are their names still on the roll-books of this school in order to deceive the school inspector and the school attendance officer; is the manager of this school a member of the local school attendance committee; has he influenced the attendance officer to avoid this school in particular; have three more little girls been expelled from this school within the past month and, if so, for what reason; and will anything be done by the authorities to protect little girls from the treatment they are subjected to by the teacher and manager of this school?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have made inquiries as promised, and find that the Commissioners directed the re-admission of these three children. One of them did not return, and a second left after three days because the schoolmistress refused to teach her without payment as she was over fifteen. Although the Commissioners have pointed out to the manager and the child's parent that her exclusion on the ground of non-payment, was unauthorised, she has not returned. The third child left after a fortnight, and is now in service. The manager of the school is not a member of the school attendance committee, and the Commissioners of National Education cannot say whether he has any influence over the attendance officer. They will make inquiries as to the other matters referred to in the question, and if they find that any pupils have been unjustly treated they will take measures to prevent such injustice and to safeguard the interests of the pupils concerned.

    Trawling (Bantry Bay).
    Mr. GILHOOLYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that two steam trawlers are continuously trawling in the inner harbour of Bantry Bay; whether this system of fishing is destructive of the spawn of the fish and causes injury and loss to hundreds of trammel and line fishermen who fish in Bantry Bay; and whether he will have an inquiry held in connection with this matter?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Department are not aware that trawlers are fishing in the inner harbour of Bantry Bay, in which area all trawling is prohibited. The question of placing further restrictions on trawling in Bantry Bay was fully gone into at an inquiry held in 1910, and the Department are not aware of any circumstances calling for a further inquiry into the matter.
    Mr. GILHOOLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman, under the changed circumstances of the harbour, seeing there are now two harbours, make further inquiry locally?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Yes.

    Home Rule Bill.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister what was the precise reference to the Committee on Irish Finance?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As I have frequently stated, the Report of the Committee is a confidential document, prepared for the use of the Government. I cannot, therefore, answer any questions as to the terms of reference or as to the contents of the Report.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is there any reason for shrouding the proceedings of this Committee in such extraordinary mystery?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is no shrouding or mystery. As I said before, this was a confidential inquiry undertaken by the Government for their own information.
    Captain CRAIG: Does it matter very much what the Report is?
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that a majority of this House has affirmed the principle that authority for the manage-

    535
    ment of purely local affairs, on the lines of powers now possessed by a constituent province of the Dominion of Canada, shall be delegated alike to both Scotland and Ireland, he is in a position to state that the proposed policy of the Government coincides with the expressed wish of a majority of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can say nothing beyond that the Government could clearly not pass any legislation which did not meet with the approval of the majority of the House. The matter is obviously too large to be adequately dealt with in answer to a question.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce the Home Rule Bill before the Easter Recess?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: May I respectfully press for a more satisfactory answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Have some little decency. May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is unreasonable for an Irish Member, now that all but a month has passed in the third Session of this short Parliament, to inquire about and obtain some information when we shall hear of a Bill which we have been waiting for for six long years?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, it is not at all unreasonable, and I never said it was. But the exigencies of the Parliamentary business are such that it is impossible to introduce the Bill before the date mentioned in the question.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Has the right hon. Gentleman arrived at that decision since the defeat in South Manchester?

    Census of Production (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the official Return under the Census of Production Act dealing with Irish agriculture has yet been presented; and, if so, can he state approximately when it will be published; and whether, in view of the steps now being taken for the preparation of schedules for the next Census of Production, he will state whether any, and, if so, what special suggestions have been put forward by the Department to secure an exhaustive return of Ireland's agricultural industry?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I understand that the information prepared by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction is practically ready for publication, and it will, I hope, be published shortly. Special suggestions have been made by the Department with regard to the next Census of Production, and I shall be happy to discuss these suggestions with my hon. Friend if he will communicate with me.

    Commissary Officers (India).
    Mr. JOHN GORDONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the pensions of Commissary officers in India, not deputy or assistant Commissary officers, were, in fact, increased in 1904, as stated in answer to a question on 16th November, 1911; and, if so, by what amount; what is the amount of such pensions now as compared with those fixed in 1881; are not those pensions lower than the pensions of officers holding similar rank in the home service; and, if so, will steps be taken to increase the pensions of those Commissary officers and put them on an equitable basis?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): In 1904 the pensions of Commissaries paid in India were raised from Rs. 2400 to Rs. 2592. This rate is lower than the highest which it is possible for an officer holding similar rank in the home service to earn; but I am advised that the methods of calculating service for pension in the two services are so different that the rates of pay do not compare unfavourably. I will bring the hon. Member's question to the notice of the Government of India, in case they may wish to make any recommendation to the Secretary of State.
    Mr. J. GORDON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the highest pension that can be secured is something like £216 a year; is there any appreciable difference between that and what was fixed in the year 1881; and, having regard to the increase in the cost of living, will he further consider the matter?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The suggestion of the hon. Member shall be brought to the notice of the Indian Government.
    Mr. J. GORDON: Does the increase apply to the Commissary, or only to his deputy and assistant?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It applies to the Commissary.

    Chingleput Magistrate.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary for India, whether his attention has been called to the conduct of Mr. Jackson, joint magistrate of Chingleput, who on 6th January last, after sentencing a prisoner, described the application of pleader for the accused for a copy of judgment, with a view to sentence being revised, as gross impertinence and impudence; and, having regard to the fact that the pleader was within his legal rights in asking for copy of judgment, steps will be taken to prevent such conduct on the part of Mr. Jackson or any other such magistrate in future?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has no information on the matter.

    Prison Treatment (India).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary for India whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Chidambaram Pillia, who was convicted of sedition, and whose sentence on appeal was reduced to six years' transportation, which has not been carried out, the prisoner still being in gaol undergoing rigorous imprisonment; and whether, in view of the fact that prisoners sentenced to transportation obtain many relaxations denied to those in the ordinary gaols of India, there is any reason why such amenities should not be given in the case of Mr. Pillia?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has carefully considered this case in all its aspects. The sentence of transportation for life passed on Chidambaram Pillia was reduced by the Madras High Court on appeal to one of transportation for six years. Originally all convicts sentenced to transportation were sent to the penal settlement in the Andamans, but under an Indian Act of 1882 the Executive Government have been empowered to appoint certain gaols in India where prisoners sentenced to transportation may be confined; and now only life-sentence convicts are usually sent to the Andamans. Pillia is accordingly serving his sentence in an Indian gaol. The conditions of detention are so different that the special rules mitigating the severity of convict life in the Andamans are not applicable to gaols in India. I may add that on the occasion of the Coronation Durbar Pillia was granted a remission of six months of his sentence.

    Crime in Somerset
    Mr. MOONEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that there were in the county of Somerset during the year 1910 one case of murder, four cases of indecency with males, six cases of indecent assault on females, three cases of defilement of girls, six cases of sacrilege, twenty cases of burglary, forty cases of housebreaking, six cases of arson, and three cases of killing and maiming of cattle; and can he state how many of these crimes were committed in the Wells division of Somerset?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): The figures quoted are the figures of crimes reported to the police as given in the Criminal Statistics. The Secretary of State has no information with regard to the latter part of the question.
    Mr. SANDYS: In how many cases were the guilty persons brought to justice?

    Metropolitan Police (Strike Duty).
    Mr. WILESasked the Home Secretary whether compensation is to be paid to Members of the Metropolitan Police Force who were employed during the strike in South Wales in November, 1910, in respect of the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by them in providing their own food through the breakdown which occurred in the commissariat arrangements of the local authorities; and whether he will consider compensation for overtime owing to the long duties performed, which in many cases amounted to continuous day and night duty, often performed without change of clothes?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The Metropolitan Police who were sent to South Wales all received many months ago extra allowances on a liberal scale in respect of the period for which they were absent on this special duty. No question of any further payments by way of compensation could be entertained.

    Illiterate Voters.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Home Secretary when he proposes to publish the Return of Illiterate Voters moved for by the hon. Member for Salisbury on 15th February?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The Secretary of State is not able to grant the Return desired by the hon. Member showing the number of persons who voted as illiterates

    539
    at the General Election of December, 1910, as under the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, all ballot papers are destroyed after twelve months from an Election. My right hon. Friend wishes me to point out that a Return giving this information in respect of the January Election in the same year was given and published as a Parliamentary Paper.

    Suffragist Outrages.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to Members of this House and to the public by the large crowd which assembled in Whitehall on Monday evening last; and if he will in future give orders to the police to prevent any large assemblage in Whitehall, as was done on the occasion of former disturbances by disorderly persons of both sexes?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Careful police arrangements were made on Monday evening with a view to minimise inconvenience to Members of Parliament and others, but the Commissioner of Police would not have been justified in removing the public from so important a thoroughfare as Whitehall unless there had been stronger reasons for so drastic a course than existed that evening.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the occasion referred to in the question the crowd were kept back by a police cordon at the Trafalgar square end of Whitehall, and would it not minimise the inconvenience if that arrangement were reverted to.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: That question will be considered.

    Reformatories (Discipline).
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESasked whether the sittings of the Committee appointed to inquire into the discipline of reformatories have been completed; and when the Report will be issued?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The sittings of the Committee have not been completed, and it cannot yet be stated when the Report will be ready.

    Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association.
    Mr. COOPERasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that statistics already compiled and easily obtainable by his Department have been recently refused to a number of branches of the
    540
    Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association; whether he is aware that a stereotyped and indefinite answer is being given both nationally and locally to officers of that association; and whether he will direct that information obtainable by his Department, and essential in the preparation of evidence, shall either be given or definitely refused?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am not aware of any case in which statistics already compiled have been refused to the staff of the Post Office. I am willing to afford all reasonable facilities to the staff for the preparation of evidence for the forthcoming inquiry, but as I have already indicated to the hon. Member, the question whether any particular information is given or refused depends on whether it is readily available.

    Telephone Service.
    Dr. ADDISONasked the Postmaster-General whether he has caused any inquiry to be made into the dangers which have been stated to arise from the use of telephones by persons suffering from open tuberculosis; and, if so, whether he is in a position to state the result of his inquiry?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A prolonged investigation was undertaken by the eminent bacteriologist. Dr. Spitta, at my request and has recently been completed. It extended not only to telephones used in public call offices, but also to certain telephones which were installed at a sanatorium for the regular and exclusive use of patients in all stages of tuberculosis. As a result Dr. Spitta reports that, in his opinion, "the transmission of tuberculosis through the medium of the telephone mouthpiece is practically impossible." I propose to issue a full statement to the Press, as the subject is naturally one of considerable public interest.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked the Postmaster-General whether the whole of the telephone business being now in his hands, he is prepared to abolish area boundaries, and so remove the in conveniences and inequalities arising from their existence?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot abolish boundaries for local business, as that would involve the abandonment of all trunk fees. But for inter-town business I am anxious to substitute as soon as possible a uniform system of charges on a zone system for the present anomalous area

    541
    system. But as the agreements with subscribers for a local service are based upon existing areas, the change can only be effected gradually, and after careful examination of all the conditions.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: In view of the fact that all the areas have disappeared by reason of the Government having taken over the telephones, and that, as a result of this change, there is no need for maintaining the area basis, and the hardships of the system can be removed, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the desirability of doing away with that basis?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The areas have not been created on account of the business having been partly in the hands of the National Telephone Company. The area is necessary in order to determine what are local calls and what are trunk calls. If I were to abolish local areas it would mean that I should get no revenue for trunk calls between, say, London and Liverpool, or London and Manchester.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: Is it not a fact that the area merely maintained the control of the National Telephone Company and that these junctions are not junctions at all; and seeing that the National Telephone Company as such has disappeared is there any need for maintaining the junctions and the hardships which the junctions cause?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Wherever there was a Post Office telephone exchange there was also an area attached to that exchange.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now prepared to order that all Post Office telephone ex changes shall be kept open for calls continuously, as was the case under the National Telephone Company; and whether, in those Post Office exchanges where a disturbance fee for night calls is made, he will now discontinue that practice?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Is is my intention to maintain a continuous attendance at all the exchanges taken over from the National Telephone Company. In the last few years the Post Office has opened a large number of exchanges in very small places in rural districts which were not served by the National Telephone Company on account of the unremunerative character of the business. At a number
    542
    of these exchanges extra fees are charged for night calls because the ordinary subscriptions are insufficient to cover even, the cost of the day service. I think it is better to open exchanges on these conditions rather than withhold telephonic communication, but the circumstances of each case are kept constantly in view, and a continuous service is given without, extra, charge as soon as the increase in the number of subscribers justifies such a step.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: Is it not a fact that the company in all their systems had a night service, and in view of the fact that the telephone can only be of use to meet requirements of emergency, will not the Government see its way to keep the continuing system of the National Telephone-Company and have an all-night service in towns?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have already stated that I propose to continue the practice of the National Telephone Company in all their exchanges. Wherever our exchanges are similar in character to those of the company there will be a similar service, but there are one or two small villages, with only one or two subscribers,, where it is not possible to give, without extra charge, an all-night service.

    Post Office (Relay Clerkships).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Postmaster-General whether he can state if any vacancies exist at the present time for relay clerkships; if so, whether they will be recruited from the ranks of the sorting' clerks and telegraphists; and, if not, whether he can state in what manner any existing vacancies will be filled?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No further appointments will be made to the class of relay clerks; and the work at the relay stations will in future be done by sorting clerks and telegraphists and overseers temporarily detached from certain large offices to which the relay stations will be affiliated.

    New Post Office, Stafford.
    Mr. ESSEXasked the Postmaster-General when he expects to have the new post office at Stafford ready for the transaction of public business?
    The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Captain Guest): It is expected that the building will be ready for the transaction of public business within, fifteen months from this date.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    POSTAL SERVANTS AS LOCAL AGENTS.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether postmasters and postmen will be allowed to undertake the work of acting as local agents under Part II. of the National Insurance Act (Unemployment) as well as sub-postmasters and registrars of births, deaths, and marriages?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): It is open to any person who can provide the necessary accommodation and give the requisite amount of time to apply for the post of local agent. The Board of Trade are in communication with the Post Office on the question whether salaried servants of the Post Office can be permitted to act as local agents.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether friendly societies and trade unions giving benefits similar to the sickness benefit under the National Insurance Act, and which do not wish to bcome approved societies under the Act, are compelled to bring in a scheme under Section 72, or whether they may be dissolved in accordance with their existing rules under the provisions of the Friendly Societies Acts, or continue their business in their own way without bringing in any such scheme?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Section 72 applies to all registered friendly societies, whether they decide to apply for approval or not, but not to trade unions or unregistered friendly societies. The Act does not deprive a society of any right to dissolve, existing under its rules. It is doubtful whether a society can exercise any such right before complying with the statutory requirements of Section 72.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how the doubt he expresses is to be cleared up?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: We are taking advice in the ordinary way.

    LECTURES
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in order to prevent confusion, he will say whether the Mr. F. J. Robertson, journalist, whose name appears upon the list of lecturers under the National Insurance Act for Scotland, is the same as a gentle-
    544
    man of a simliar name and initials who is a prominent member of the Young Scot Society, or whether he is the same gentleman who acted as a Liberal election agent, or the same as another gentleman who was a Free Trade lecturer; and, if not, in what branch of journalism is he employed?
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him to state in his reply, in order to prevent confusion, whether the Mr. Byers Black, whose name appears in the same list—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice if he refers to some other person.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed that the lecturer referred to is a member of the Young Scots Society, that he has lectured upon Free Trade, and that although not a political agent he has in the past acted as an. election agent for a Liberal candidate; that he has not himself been a candidate for Parliament; that he is a member of the Town Council of Edinburgh, a writer of distinction in various newspapers, and appears to be in every way qualified for the position which he at present occupies.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: In order to prevent confusion, will the hon. Gentleman give a list of the lecturers and their antecedents? May I add that I had no intention of reflecting upon the capacity of this individual.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is not Mr. Robertson also secretary of the Knox Club in Edinburgh, and is he not at the present moment employed in propaganda in connection with that club, lecturing and holding meetings in order to bring about the nullification of the Ne Temere decree, and in view of that fact will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of transferring the services of Mr. Robertson to lecture in Belfast?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Secretary to the Treasury cannot be expected to know the life history of this gentleman.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Have the Insurance Commisioners in Scotland appointed any ex-Tory candidates to act as lecturers for the Insurance Act, and is it a more heinous offence to be a Young Scot or a Tory candidate?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Each Member must judge of that for himself. It is a fact that an ex-Tory candidate has been appointed.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked what is the proportion to population of the

    545
    official lecturers on the Insurance Act in England and in Ireland respectively?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There are fifty-three English and twenty-five Irish lecturers; in England one to about 635,000, in Ireland one to about 175,000.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: Can we have the figures for Scotland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I shall be glad to give them, if possible.

    SMALL FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the Insurance Commissioners are interpreting Section 39 (2) of the National Insurance Act to mean that a village friendly society with less than 5,000 members cannot, under the Act, become associated with a large county society with upwards of 5,000 members, such as the Wiltshire Friendly Society, and at the same time retain its independence and self-government; and, if not, whether, under Section 78 of the Act and in view of the desire of several village societies to take this course, the Commissioners can and will modify the provisions of the Act accordingly?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No actual cases have yet been before the Commissioners, but I see no reason why the objects aimed at by Section 39 should not be affected by means of an association of societies some one or more of which at the date of the valuation proves to have more than 5,000 members.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the hon. Gentleman consider, after taking legal opinion, as I understand he has, that it is possible for such an association to take place?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As at present advised, yes.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in the interests of the smaller friendly societies, especially in rural districts, the committees of which can only attend to friendly society work in their very limited spare time, and in view of the fact that the model rules for approved societies, under the National Insurance Act, were only issued on 27th February, that societies are instructed to send in copies of their future rules when applying for approval, and that the Insurance Commissioners propose to commence the process of approving societies on 19th March, giving priority to all societies applying for approval before that date, the above date will be
    546
    postponed so as to afford sufficient time for the committees of the smaller societies to decide what course will prove most beneficial to their members?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is a matter of great importance that approval should be given at the earliest date possible. If the Commissioners find that any society is unable to submit its proposed rules completed by the 19th March, but are in a position before that date to apply for approval subject to any such adjustments in its rules as may subsequently be found necessary, they will, so far as practicable, see that the society is not prejudiced.
    Captain MURRAY: Has any society priority over another society?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think a good many societies think they gain advantages under those circumstances. The only advantage they may gain is a gain in numbers by being able to say they are approved societies.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these model rules were not issued to all societies on the same date, and that some are complaining of the others having an unfair advantage?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: We will try to see that everyone has a fair chance.

  Secondary Schools (Denominational Instruction).
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Education how many secondary schools providing denominational religious instruction have received Government Grants in each of the years 1904 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1910, and 1911; and how many of such schools have applied to the Board of Education for leave to modify their trusts during those years?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I am afraid this question cannot be answered without an investigation, which would take a little time. I must, therefore, ask the hon. Member to give me a little further notice.

  Commissioners of Woods and Forests.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any successor has been appointed to Sir Stafford Howard as Commissioner of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, or whether the office will be suspended for the present or abolished?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Wilton Division on the 20th ultimo.

  Royal Veterinary College.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the reduced supply of competent veterinary surgeons and of the admitted need of further scientific research into the more serious animal diseases, it is proposed to make an additional Grant to the Royal Veterinary College in aid of its general expenses for the conduct of specialised research, or towards the provision of post-graduate courses for the benefit of students proposing to qualify as veterinary inspectors of local authorities?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The question is under consideration, and I have recently discussed it with a deputation of the governors of the college, who are now preparing detailed proposals on the subject. It is proposed, in any case, to make a Grant to the college to enable further research work to be carried on.

  Income Tax (Allowance for Depreciation).
  Sir JOHN BARRANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has recently received representations from many chambers of commerce as to the inadequacy of the allowance made for the depreciaion of commercial buildings and machinery for Income Tax purposes; and whether, in view of the altered conditions now existing and the shorter life of much modern machinery, he can promise an inquiry into the matter, with a view to the revision of the present scales?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I will refer the hon. Baronet to the answer that I gave on the 20th ultimo to the hon. Member for Roxburgh. The Commissioners, local or special, have power under the existing law to allow such deductions for depreciation of machinery and plant as they think just and reasonable. The Board of Inland Revenue have assisted the Commissioners in the past and are willing to continue such assistance by negotiating with recognised representatives of organised classes of traders who have authority to produce information and accept conclusions as to rates of depreciation. Negotiations of this nature are, I find,
  548
  now going on with representatives of the gas companies. Such negotiations seem to promise the best means of arriving at the results desired by my hon. Friend. I would mention that the allowances for depreciation have nearly doubled in the last seven years, an increase far larger than can be accounted for by the greater quantity of machinery now in use.

  County Councillors, Scotland (Expenses).
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to a resolution unanimously passed in July, 1910, by the Aberdeenshire County Council, that members of the council should be paid their railway fares to and from their homes to attend committee and council meetings, the principle of which was approved of by forty-one Scottish votes in this House against eighteen, if he can state what has been done to give effect to such resolution; and whether, seeing that in view of the fact that the granting of such a privilege might induce many desirable men to offer themselves as candidates for county council work, he is prepared to take action in the matter, more especially as the Scotch Education Office, with the sanction of the Treasury, gives to the governors of agricultural colleges and to the provincial committee of the training of teachers, similar privileges in the shape of their railway fares and personal expenses while engaged on that work?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Under the existing law and practice governing the question raised by my hon. Friend, travelling expenses—that is, the expenses of locomotion—are allowed to county councillors in the event of their being deputed as individuals or as members of a sub-committee to undertake some special work for the county council. It is not according to the accepted view of the law, permissible to pay out of the county fund the expenses of county councillors travelling to or from the ordinary meetings of the council or of district committees. The position of members of a provincial committee and governors of agricultural colleges is not analogous to that of members of an elected body, and is regulated by different provisions. I am aware of the resolution of the County Council of Aberdeen, which is not, so far as my information goes, generally supported by other local rating authorities. I cannot, in the circumstances, give any undertaking to legislate in the matter.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CONSTBUCTION (1911–12 PROGRAMME).
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked what were the reasons for the delay in placing the contract for the fifth armoured ship in the 1911–12 Navy Estimates; whether the contracts for the last two unarmoured ships have yet been placed; if not, what is the reason for the delay; and whether the unexpended portion of the sums voted in the Navy Estimates for the construction of those ships will be devoted to other naval purposes during the current financial year?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The delay in placing the order for the fifth armoured ship of this year's programme has been due to reconsideration of the design. In the case of the two remaining protected cruisers, the delay is due, as the Noble Lord is aware, to my earnest endeavour to give the contract to the Thames. Some portion of the surplus which, for this and other reasons, has accrued under the contract shipbuilding Vote, has, with the sanction of the Treasury, been expended on other urgent services.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Would it not be bettor to put that fifth armoured ship into the 1912–13 programme instead of the 1911–12? It will really be a 1912–13 ship.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, no. All the work of preparing the specifications, receiving the tenders, and adjudicating on the tenders, and allotting the contract has already been completed and the ship has now been placed and the work of collecting the material will go forward. The sum expended will not be very large, but at least four months off the full period of construction of the ship will count as falling in this year.

  Portsmouth Dockyard (Crane Drivers).
  Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the steam travelling-crane drivers working in the engineer department, Portsmouth Dockyard, are not provided with fearnought suits of overalls, while the locomotive drivers of the same department are so provided; and if he is able to remedy this oversight?
  The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Requests for the supply of over-all clothing have come before me at the annual
  550
  hearing of petitions, though I do not recall this particular request. However, I am looking into the matter in connection with the replies to the other petitions.
  Mr. FALLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of overalls altogether?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Requests have been made, and they are being considered.

  Outdoor Relief (Medical Treatment).
  Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in cases where treatment of children is prescribed by school medical officers and the parent is unable, by reason of circumstances, to pay the cost of such treatment, the board of guardians is bound to provide such treatment for the child if it is not undertaken by the education authority; and whether he will, by circular or otherwise, call the attention of boards of guardians to their duties in this respect; and whether the cost, if defrayed, will be medical relief which does not disfranchise the parent?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): It is the duty of boards of guardians to relieve destitution, and, as pointed out in the circular to guardians on the administration of outdoor relief, a person may properly be regarded as destitute who is unable to provide for himself the particular form of medical attendance or treatment of which he is in urgent need. The principle would appear to me to apply to the case of children who need medical treatment which the parent is unable to provide. I realise that the relative position of the boards of guardians and the local education authorities in this matter is one of some difficulty, and I have already had the matter under consideration. I may add that medical relief of the kind referred to afforded by boards of guardians would not involve disfranchisement of the parent.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking, in view of the complete breakdown of the Poor Law system which will inevitably take place, to deal with poor people, especially in the iron districts?
  Mr. BURNS: I have satisfied myself that all the authorities concerned are taking the proper and necessary steps to meet the improbable contingency to which my right hon. Friend refers.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman say there has been no breakdown whatever, and that there are no hungry children?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes, I do.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I say there are.
  Mr. BURNS: I am keeping my head. Some of the newspapers are not.

  Vivisection (Dr. Klein's Experiments).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked whether the Dr. Klein, who conducted experiments in regard to the rat plague in Suffolk in October, 1910, is the same Dr. Klein who gave evidence before the Royal Commission on Vivisection on 28th October, 1875, and stated that he had no regard at all for the sufferings of the animals on which he experimented; whether he is the Dr. Klein who experimented upon thousands of animals, such as pigs, rabbits, horses, guinea-pigs, rats, cats, monkeys, calves, cows, and mice, and has described his experiments in various reports to the Local Government Board; whether he is still employed by the Board; and, if not, when his engagement terminated?
  Mr. BURNS: The reply to the first and second inquiry is in the affirmative. I may observe, however, that Dr. Klein stated in 1875 that the evidence, as printed, did not express his real intentions. I may also point out that any experiments carried out for the Local Government Board have been subject to the condition that no experiments on living animals are to be conducted at the cost of the State without the employment of anæsthetics in the case of painful operations, nor without a report from time to time explaining the object of any such experiments and showing their necessity for the purposes of discovery. The only connection which Dr. Klein now has with my Department is that he acts as an occasional consultant in regard to the examination of doubtful specimens of suspected plague material.

  Income Tax (Mineral Royalties, Rents, and Wayleaves).
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount of money yielded in the financial years 1909–10 and 1910–11 from Income Tax on mineral royalties, rents, and wayleaves?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that I am unable to give the desired information.
  552
  Royalties, rents, and wayleaves are not directly assessed to Income Tax, but are included in the assessment on the working lessee, who recoups himself by deduction of the tax from the payments made to the lessor. Consequently, no separate record of the tax attributable to these payments is available.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether mining royalties are included in the assessment as among the profits of mines?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, that is so.

  Warrant Officers (Age Limit).
  Mr. FALLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that no warrant officer can be commissioned as a district officer after the age of forty; and if he can extend the age of forty to forty-five as for quartermasters?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I will ask the hon. Member to refer to my reply to a question put on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich on 11th May, 1911.

  Flying School.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Undersecretary if he will say how many aeroplanes are now actually on order, and, of that number, how many are ordered from foreign and how many from English firms?
  Colonel SEELY: Negotiations are now in progress for thirty-six new aeroplanes, eighteen of which are British.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Undersecretary whether he will state how many aeroplanes he expects to manufacture in the aircraft factory before 31st December of this year?
  Colonel SEELY: As I have already explained to the House the functions of the factory are to repair damages, to alter or improve those aeroplanes which have been already obtained, and to make experimental machines. It is not intended for the manufacture of aeroplanes on any large scale.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the non-commissioned officers of the London Balloon Company have been recently learning flying at Eastchurch; whether one of them has obtained his certificate, and whether the War Office has now decided that they cannot sanction the training of

  553
  the Territorial Force in aviation; and, if so, what is the reason for this decision?
  Colonel SEELY: It is understood that arrangements were made for the training of a limited number of officers and men of this company in aeroplane work at East-church. Official sanction for this training could not, however, be given as the organisation of the Air Service and the conditions of employment in it had not been decided. It has not been reported to the War Office that a non-commissioned officer has obtained a pilot's certificate. The Flying Corps is open to all branches of the Army, including the Territorial Force, and it is hoped and anticipated that a number of members of that force will join.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether military aviation is to be confined to officers of the Army and Navy, or whether the services of non-commissioned officers and men who pass the tests will be available for Army and Navy purposes?
  Colonel SEELY: It is proposed to train non-commissioned officers and men as well as officers in flying.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Undersecretary if he will state in what respect British aeroplanes are more dangerous to human life than French ones; and upon what information he founded his recent statement to that effect?
  Colonel SEELY: As I explained to the House, the distribution of the orders for aeroplanes was based on the advice of the technical members of the Air Committee. They were guided entirely, as I have said, by considerations of efficiency and safety.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not also give orders for aeroplanes to British makers?
  Colonel SEELY: I am glad to have the opportunity of answering that question. The French are far ahead of ourselves or any other nation in this matter, and, therefore, their machines are on balance the safest of all the machines manufactured. There are some British machines which are safe enough, but, altogether, the French are building safer machines.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a Return, if I ask for it, showing the number of lives lost in connection with French and British aeroplanes?
  Colonel SEELY: I will try to get the information for the hon. Gentleman and send it to him, but I doubt whether it will give him the impression which he thinks he will receive.

  Territorial Force (Rifles).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) if he will specify what precise time he means to convey in his statement that the Territorial Force will be armed very shortly with Mark VII. ammunition and with rifles sighted for that purpose, and why is it necessary to alter the sights; (2) if he will explain why, if the existing rifle with which the Territorial Force are now armed is superior to that of foreign nations, have the Government gone to the expense of converting it to a rifle which he states to be less preferable than the long rifle; and (3) whether he will state why, if the new pointed ammunition suits both the converted and the old rifle and is absolutely interchangeable, it was necessary to manufacture the new converted rifle; and why is it necessary to have stocks of both kinds of ammunition, and is it proposed to continue manufacturing the old ammunition?
  Colonel SEELY: It was considered expedient to adopt ammunition with a flatter trajectory than that of Mark VI., and the sights require to be altered to suit such ammunition. It is possible to use the old ammunition with the new sights, but it is not, of course, proposed to do so. It is obviously necessary to keep up the supply of the old ammunition for the rifles until they have the new sights. The Territorial Force will be given the new ammunition and the resighted rifle with the least possible delay. The short rifle was adopted in 1903 because, amongst other considerations, it was considered that the increased handiness and lightness more than compensated for a somewhat higher trajectory.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he intends to give the Territorial Force the rifle with the greater handiness, and, if so, when the distribution will be made to the force?
  Colonel SEELY: I have said that with the least possible delay the rifles will be resighted. The question of handiness is one which I have discussed with the Noble Lord in Debate.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Am I to understand that the rifle which the Territorial Force have got is superior to that of foreign nations?
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir; but if we take the view of the Leader of the Opposition it is better, because it has a lower trajectory. I must leave the Noble Lord to settle that matter with the Leader of the Opposition.

COAL STRIKE.

  RAILWAY TRAFFIC (HUNTERS' SHOW).
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of the very reasonable reluctance, and in some cases the refusal, of railway companies to pull horse boxes during the continuance of the coal strike, and if he can make arrangements with the companies to bring to and from the Hunters Improvement Society's Show, the horses from which the premium stallions will be selected next week, any interference with which would detrimentally affect the coming horse breeding season?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Directly I heard that there was some chance of an interference with traffic, I put myself in communication with the various railway companies, and I have received the following telegraphic replies:—
  The Great Northern Company say:— "Are in a position to accept horses booked to London for show, and can make arrangements for return journey."
  The London and South Western Company say:—"Notwithstanding our coal difficulties, we shall make best possible arrangements to convey horses to and from show next week by ordinary trains."
  The London, Brighton, and South Coast Company say:—"Failing close of strike, services will be further curtailed next week. If you will let me know stations from which horses will be sent, will see whether anything can be done to meet your wishes."
  When other replies come in I will communicate them to the Press.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister to make a statement as to the business to be taken next week, and also, if possible, to inform us, what the business will be up to Easter?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I must limit myself to-day to stating the business we propose to take next week.
On Monday we shall take the Report of the Civil Service Vote on Account.
Tuesday we shall give further consideration to the Army Votes on the paper, as arranged yesterday.
Wednesday we shall take the Metropolitan Police Rate Bill, and the Report of the Supplementary Estimates.
As to Thursday, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to put a question to me again on Monday about the business for that day.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can say definitely whether the Welsh Disestablishment Bill will or will not be introduced before Easter?
The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say definitely, but I hope it will be possible.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication when the Navy Estimates will be taken?
The PRIME MINISTER: I purposely held that over for the moment.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, on making a further statement on Monday, he will give the House some indication as to when the Budget will be introduced?
The PRIME MINISTER: I hope before Easter.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that that was definitely stated before, but what I wish to know is whether he can give some indication as to the date when it will be introduced?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am told—but I must not be held as saying definitely—that it will probably be introduced on 2nd April.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to the day when the House will reassemble after Easter?
The PRIME MINISTER: I would not like to do so at this moment, but my own view is that we ought to make a very short adjournment at Easter, in accordance with

557
the practice of recent years, and that we should make a longer adjournment at Whitsuntide.
Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not intend to give the House facilities before next Thursday at the earliest for the discussion of the coal crisis?
The PRIME MINISTER: It depends, of course, on what exigencies arise.
Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask if these exigencies have not yet arisen?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad to say I do not think they have.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Captain Philip Kirkland Glazebrook, for the Borough of Manchester (South Division).

BILLS PRESENTED.
  EDUCATION (GIRLS) BILL.
  "To give better educational facilities to women." Presented by Mr. SNOWDEN; supported by Mr. Atherley-Jones and Mr. Theodore Taylor; to be read a second time upon Friday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]
  CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN) BILL.
  "To throw open additional posts in the Civil Service to Women." Presented by Mr. SNOWDEN; supported by Mr. Atherley-Jones and Mr. Theodore Taylor; to be read a second time upon Friday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (MARRIED WOMEN) BILL.
  "To give the wife claim for maintenance." Presented by Mr. SNOWDEN; supported by Mr. Atherley-Jones and Mr. Theodore Taylor; to be read a second time upon Friday, 26th April, and to be printed [Bill 72.]

SUPPLY.— [1st Allotted Day.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

SUPPLY.— [1st Allotted Day.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1912–13.
  (VOTE ON ACCOUNT.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £30,889,000,
  558
  be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, namely:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  Class IV.

  Board of Education

  5,250,000

  Class I.

  Royal Palaces

  34,000

  Osborne

  6,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  55,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  20,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  35,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  40,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  30,000

  Revenue Buildings

  210,000

  Labour Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain

  100,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  320,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  85,000

  Harbours under the Board of Trade

  20,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  11,000

  Rates on Government Property

  400,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  100,000

  Railways, Ireland

  6,000

  Class II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  House of Lords Offices

  14,000

  House of Commons

  85,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  55,000

  Home Office

  90,000

  Foreign Office

  30,000

  Colonial Office

  21,000

  Privy Council Office

  5,000

  Board of Trade

  135,000

  Mercantile Marine Services

  45,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  3

  Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

  120,000

  Charity Commission

  14,000

  Government Chemist

  10,000

  Civil Service Commission

  22,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  26,500

  Friendly Societies Registry

  5,000

  Local Government Board

  115,000

  £

  Lunacy Commission

  8,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  7

  National Debt Office

  5,000

  Public Record Office

  10,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  5

  Registrar General's Office

  25,000

  Stationery and Printing

  500,000

  Woods, Forests, etc., Office of

  9,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  50,000

  Secret Service

  27,000

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland, Office of

  7,500

  Board of Agriculture

  110,000

  Fishery Board

  8,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,500

  Registrar General's Office

  2,500

  Local Government Board

  8,500

  Ireland:—

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  2,500

  Chief Secretary's Offices and Subordinate Departments

  11,000

  Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction

  80,000

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  800

  Congested Districts Board

  63,650

  Local Government Board

  45,000

  Public Record Office

  2,600

  Public Works Office

  20,000

  Registrar General's Office

  9,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  20,000

  Class III.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Law Charges

  40,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  27,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  146,000

  Land Registry

  13,000

  Public Trustee

  3

  County Courts

  2

  Police, England and Wales

  70,000

  Prisons, England and the Colonies

  400,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  130,000

  Criminal Lunatic Asylums

  32,000

  Scotland:—

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  35,000

  Scottish Land Court

  6,000

  Register House, Edinburgh

  18,000

  Prisons

  42,000

  Ireland:—

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  30,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

  46,000

  £

  Land Commission

  230,000

  County Court Officers, etc.

  40,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police

  60,000

  Royal Irish Constabulary

  630,000

  Prisons

  45,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  65,000

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  4,000

  Class IV.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  British Museum

  90,000

  National Gallery

  7,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  3,000

  Wallace Collection

  3,500

  Scientific Investigation, etc.

  40,000

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  100,000

  Scotland:—

  Public Education

  950,000

  National Galleries

  2,500

  Ireland:—

  Public Education

  965,000

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  400

  National Gallery

  2,000

  Science and Art

  25,000

  Universities and Colleges, Ireland

  60,000

  Class V.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services

  285,000

  Colonial Services

  290,000

  Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

  19,000

  Cyprus (Grant-in-Aid)

  49,000

  Class VI.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  360,000

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

  1,100

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  16,000

  Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiencies

  —

  Old Age Pensions

  4,800,000

  Class VII.

  Temporary Commissions

  15,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  4,730

  Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  —

  Ireland Development Grant

  184,000

  Government Hospitality

  5,000

  Class VIII.

  £

  National Health Insurance Committee

  11,000

  National Health Insurance Commission (England)

  35,000

  National Health Insurance Commission (Wales)

  7,300

  National Health Insurance Commission (Scotland)

  7,500

  National Health Insurance Commission (Ireland)

  9,900

  Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance

  140,000

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  Customs and Excise

  900,000

  Inland Revenue

  850,000

  Post Office

  10,000,000

  Total for Civil Services and Revenue Departments

  £30,889,000"

  [Note.—The sum taken represents a provision for between four and five months' expenditure.]

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move, "That Item Class IV, Vote 1 (Board of Education) be reduced by £100."
  I wish at the outset to explain that the Motion is, of course, put down, not from any personal hostility to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pease), but merely in order to call attention to the administration of the Education Department. As far as the right hon. Gentleman himself is concerned, I think that he is rather better than the average Minister of Education. He is certainly better than the Home Secretary (Mr. McKenna) was, and a great deal better than the present President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Runciman). The point that I wish to bring before the attention of the Committee is, in the first place, the administration of the secondary schools. I do not propose to say very much about that because I understand that hon. Friends who intend to follow in the Debate and take a great interest in the matter will deal with it. The point is entirely a simple one. The Government by their regulations have provided that denominational secondary schools shall be put under considerable disability unless they consent to undenominationalise themselves. That is the purpose of their regulations. Since the schools, generally speaking, are schools governed by trustees, they cannot carry out these regulations without a modification of their trust. Accordingly—and this is the real heinousness, to my
  562
  mind, of the action of the Government—the Government give an indication in the regulations that any application to them in their judicial capacity, as succeeding the Charity Commissioners, for a modification of the scheme in order to enable the schools to comply with the Government's, own regulations should be granted. That is, to my mind, a scandalous proceeding. It is, in effect, a connection of the judicial and administrative functions of the Department, and shows how wise some of us were to protest against any judicial function being granted to the Department.
  I do not intend to refer to the actual details of what has been done under those regulations. They have, in fact, operated very harshly in a great number of cases, and have produced results which cannot be defended in any quarter of the House. The matter to which I desire especially to call attention is a subject which I am afraid has often been brought before the House and is very vital in character, the administration of the Education Act in Wales. The personal aspect of it compels me to refer once again to the Swansea case. I am not going to weary the Committee with an account of the details of that squalid dispute, but the Committee will remember the broad lines. The local education authority at Swansea used their legal powers for the purpose of religious persecution. They constantly oppressed this school, not because it was inefficient educationally, or because it failed to comply with the Act in any way, but merely because the religious teaching in the school was not sympathetic with that of the majority of the local education authority. The persecution took many forms. One of them was to underpay the teachers, a particularly low and discreditable form of persecution. When the Act first came into operation there was a certain difference between the salaries of the teachers; in the provided and the non-provided school. No one complains that that was not immediately remedied. But, instead or remedying it, the education authority took an early opportunity to increase the pay of the teachers of the provided schools and refused to increase the pay of the teachers of the non-provided schools.
  4.0 P.M.
  The result was that the teachers in these schools very naturally protested, and the discipline and the education of the schools suffered seriously. At last the Government were compelled, after many protests from this side of the House, to send down a very distinguished lawyer, whom they

  563
  afterwards made a distinguished judge, under the name of Mr. Justice Hamilton, to hold an inquiry into the matter. The Committee will remember quite well that the result of the inquiry by Mr. Justice Hamilton was entirely in favour of the managers and entirely against the education authority. The Government apparently either misunderstood or wilfully disregarded that report, and decided that they would take no steps against the education authority, and, in answer to the appeal which the managers had made, they stated that they did not propose to interfere at all or remedy the injustice of which the managers complained. Thereupon, necessarily in order to protect the teachers and to protect themselves, the managers took proceedings in the Courts of Law. They went to the Court of King's Bench and obtained a mandamus against the Education Department to consider the matter, and, in effect, to give a decision the very reverse of what they had previously given. This was the unanimous decision of three judges. The Government were not satisfied. They insisted on going to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, which again consisted of three judges, again unanimously decided against the Government. The Government, still not content, thought that they would try their fortune in the House of Lords, and the House of Lords, consisting of five judges, again unanimously decided against the Government. That really does mean oppression of the subject. The Government has enormous resources behind it; it has the whole of the taxes of the country to draw upon, and, after having first given a grossly unjust decision, as I think nobody will deny it was in the teeth of the report, they not only resisted the application to the Court in the first instance, but dragged them to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords—they put the gentleman with whom they had to deal to such an expense that it may be quite certain that had they to deal with a man of less resource, of less public spirit, he would have been tired out before he had got to the end of the litigation. That was the calculation undoubtedly of some of the officials—I do not say of the right hon. Gentleman, for he was not then present at the Board—but that was the calculation of some of the advisers who are at present still in the employment of the Education Department.
  564
  I say that is a gross and scandalous oppression of the subject, and the least that can be done is to indemnify that gentleman or the managers for the costs to which they have been put. For the costs during the period before the inquiry the gentleman concerned got absolutely nothing. The official sent down to make an inquiry has no jurisdiction to give costs at all, and the gentleman therefore had to pay all those costs. No doubt he got a certain amount of taxed costs in respect of the proceedings in the three Courts, but anybody familiar with legal proceedings knows that costs recoverable as taxed costs in no sense are an indemnity. The result is that a sum of £2,000 has been imposed as the cost of defending the rights of this gentleman against the Government.
  I say it would not be a right thing in the circumstances that he should be required to pay the whole of the £2,000 out of his own pocket. It is a particularly hard case, because, though no doubt there have been some subscriptions, the people concerned have had to find the money largely out of their own pockets. They have found no less a sum than £24,000 to comply with Government requirements in putting every school in order. Unquestionably those requirements were of the harshest possible description, but even assuming they were legitimate, under the circumstances, I submit that the right course for the Government to take is to say that this gentleman should not be fined £2,000, but should receive payment of his costs in full out of the finances of the country. It was not only a matter of personal pique this gentleman was fighting; he was fighting to establish a very important principle, and he did establish it. The principle was that there should be under the Act of 1902 no differentiation in payment of salaries to teachers in public elementary schools on religious or political grounds. That is a principle which, I believe, must commend itself to every single person in this House. No one can really say that the teachers should suffer, and, after all, if we have any lingering belief in religious liberty and authority we must desire, that those who are teaching one set of religious opinions shall be no worse off than those who are teaching another set. Under these circumstances that principle was definitely established. It was laid down in the clearest possible terms by the Court of Appeal, and in rather less clear terms, but with sufficient clearness in the House of Lords,

  565
  and it is now as much the law of the land as if it were actually part and parcel of any Statute. Under these circumstances, what has been the administration of the Education Department with reference to other Welsh schools?
  In a number of other Welsh schools, Abertillery, Merthyr, and in the schools of Glamorganshire and Cardiganshire, and, I dare say in a number of other schools of which I have no knowledge, it has been the practice of the local education authority deliberately to differentiate between the salaries paid in provided and non-provided schools on religious grounds. It is not done in individual schools on some special ground as to inefficiency or anything of that sort; it is done on religious grounds, and those dissenters, those political dissenters, those who cause the religious difficulty, are not ashamed to deprive the unhappy teacher, some poor man or woman, of salary in order to gratify their religious spite. I will quote the case of Aberystwith National School, in Cardiff. This is a Church of England School, and in April, 1910, it was inspected. I will merely read the Report in order to show that it is an entirely good school.
  The Government inspector reported:—
  "This school is exceedingly well organised, and the headmaster is well supported by his staff in maintaining its high standard of efficiency. …. The attention paid by the headmaster to neatness and method in the work of the school, and the personal interest and supervision he exercises in the care of the rooms and premises, demand cordial recognition. The buildings were thoroughly renovated and improved about a year ago, and new dual desks have been provided. The work of this school is carried on with much steadiness, and all the teachers are very earnest and hard-working, while all the children are very nicely behaved and seem happy with their lessons."
  That is a thoroughly favourable report on the school, and particularly on the work of the headmaster, but the teachers have been fined £20 or £35 a year, because they teach in a non-Provided school. I do not conceal from the House that on the suggestion of the National Union of Teachers they wrote a definite complaint to the Board of Education. The Secretary wrote:—
  "I am instructed by the manager of the above school (Aberystwith) to put before you the following facts, and to ask what the determination of the Board has provided under the Education Act."
  This is an appeal from the local education authority to the Board of Education, The letter continued:—
  "We do not consider that the above school has been conducted as a public elementary school in accordance with the conditions expressly required to be fulfilled by the Education Act. The following are our main reasons:—
  "(1) Because the local education authority discriminate against the headmaster by paying him a
  566
  lower salary than that paid under the scale to a teacher in a provided or council school, and thereby impairs the efficiency of the school.
  "(2) Because the local education authority refuse to allow the usual increments on the teacher's salary for length of service."
  And then they go on to say generally that this is a breach of their duty, and they formally appeal to the Board of Education. That was sent on 30th October last.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Will the Noble Lord say what salaries were paid to the managers before they were taken over?
  Lord R. CECIL: I am not able to give that information; no doubt it can be obtained. It is many years ago now. These schools were taken over some seven years ago.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: The reason why I ask is that the Noble Lord said the teachers had been "deprived" of salary.
  Lord R. CECIL: By "deprived" I mean that the teachers were actually paid a different rate from teachers who were in the school seven years ago.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: No.
  Lord R. CECIL: The hon. Member apparently knows something about the subject, and he will be able to defend those for whom he appears. They appealed to the Board of Education, and they received a post card acknowledging it the next day, and from that day to this no further answer has been received by the managers. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education told us that on 5th February last the local education authority sent a letter to the managers of the school. From 31st October, when a post card was sent acknowledging the receipt of the letter, to 5th February we now know from the right hon. Gentleman that nothing whatever was done by the Government to comply with the appeal made to them formally under the Act by the managers. Meanwhile the local education authority held a meeting, reported in a newspaper called the "Cambrian News." This is what is reported to have occurred:—
  "The committee had under consideration the application to the managers of Aberayron. Aberystwith, Cardigan, Llandygwydd, Aberbank, Llanwenog, and Llangoedmore church schools, for increased salaries for the head teachers It being understood that in the case of Llanwenog, the religious instruction given was of an undenominational character—"
  I call the attention of the hon. Member to this phrase: "It being understood that in the case of this school the religious

  567
  instruction given was of an undenominational character—"
  "the salary of the head teacher was increased from £95 to £105 per annum, to be operative so long as the instruction remained free from any sectarian or denominational bias. With reference to the other application, it was decided to inform the managers that the committee would be in a better position to consider the application if all the religious instruction of a sectarian or denominational character were omitted."
  On the 5th February, a formal letter was written to the Secretary of the Aberystwyth Church of England school in these terms:—
  "With reference to the application of the managers for increased salaries for the head teachers of the Aberystwith Church of England school, I am directed to inform the managers that the Education committee would be in a better position to consider the application, if all religious instruction of a sectarian or denominational character were excluded from the curriculum of the school. I am to ask whether the managers are able to give any assurance on this point."
  We know that the matter has been under consideration from the 30th October to the present time, and we have the letter of the 5th February, which gives the grounds of the action taken, and the conclusion is perfectly plain that there was a refusal to raise the ordinary scale of salary for purely sectarian and denominational reasons. There is no denial of that. The hon. Member who was good enough to interrupt me just now agrees with me in that proposition. I know it is sometimes said that the reason why these local authorities will not pay the non-provided school teachers properly is because the authority has not got control of them; they demand public control. But that is not said here; there is nothing at all about that. It is of course an absolute absurdity when it is said; as far as secular education is concerned it is an absolute absurdity. The control of a non-provided school as of a provided school as far as secular education goes is the same. You can dismiss a teacher on secular grounds, and, as long as it is not on religious grounds, they can deal with the one in every respect as they can deal with the other. What would have happened if such a thing had occurred in England? There are many Nonconformist schools in this country where the majority is just as much and just as firmly Church of England in the county councils as the majority is Nonconformist in Wales. What would be thought and what would be said of an English Church of England county council (which treated the teachers of a Wesleyan school in the way in which the teachers are treated in these schools in Wales? I see by the Order
  568
  Paper that we shall have to discuss an Education Bill to-morrow, and I have very little doubt that, appeals will be made to us to trust these education authorities and their sense of justice. How can appeals of that kind be made when cases of this kind are occurring? But far more serious than the action of the local education authorities is the attitude of the Department. The local education authority, composed it may be of ignorant and narrow-minded bigots, may occasionally make mistakes of this kind and do injustice of this description, which is very deplorable, but which is only to be expected from human nature, but we expect the Department of the Government to have no sympathy with law-breaking. The present Government have at this moment a very serious state of things in more directions than one to consider as to the upholding of law and the maintaining of order. How can they expect to have authority to do that if they are themselves parties to law-breaking? The whole teaching of this Government and of the Liberal party for many years past has been that it is not of any great importance whether you keep the law or break it; they encourage matters of this kind; they encourage-vaccination resisters, hon. Members from Ireland, and a number of other things.
  Mr. KEATING: Ulster?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not care about Ulster. I have nothing to do with Ulster. I am speaking of what the Government opposite do. They are the Government of the day; they are responsible for public order and the maintenance of the law. I say that if the Government hope to have authority in dealing with the other questions which are before them, they must enforce the law equally and fairly in Wales in these education matters. I ask the right, hon. Gentleman to give a very distinct undertaking to this Committee that he will compel those authorities to do their duty, and he has got ample power under the Acts as he knows, and to compel them to pay the salaries of the teachers in non-provided schools at the same rates as the teachers in the provided schools, and to comply in all respects with the judgment given by the Courts of Law in the Swansea case.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment. In doing so may I say, by way of preface, that I am doing so at the

  569
  urgent request of the supporters of denominational instruction of all parties, or, at any rate, at the request of supporters of that principle who represent the interests of Gentlemen opposite as much as they represent the interests of the party that sits on this side. I have been urged over and over again by those connected both with the Church of England and the great Catholic bodies in Salford and Lancashire generally to bring this question of the unfair treatment of the denominational schools of all kinds to the notice of the House at the earliest possible date. In fact, hardly a day passes, I think, but I receive communications of some kind urging me to do so, and very often from those who are opposed to me in other political matters, but who are anxious that I should bring this matter before the House. We have already heard the gravamen of our case against the Government. Our case is shortly this: that the Government have not treated the great educational interests of the country with even-handed justice. They have deliberately warped the administration of the Education Act in favour of one section of the community, and that a section which happens to comprise the noisiest of their own supporters. That has caused irritation over the country to an extent of which I think hon. Gentlemen opposite have at present no conception. Some of the events that have taken place recently in Manchester may convince the Gentlemen opposite that irritation does exist. At any rate, I can assure them that it does exist very freely in Lancashire, and that it exists amongst their own supporters. With regard to elementary education, I do not propose to say anything, as the case has already been very fully put on that point.
  With regard to the other portions of the educational sphere, the training colleges, the inspectorate, the secondary schools, there is the same irritation. With regard to the denominational training colleges there is some sort of modus vivendi. The late President of the Board assured us the arrangement was working well, namely, that those training colleges have been required to keep 50 per cent, of their places open to those who were Nonconformists. I fail to see that any justification can be found for the action of the Government, from the fact that very little use has been made of those places that were thrown open. Next a word about a matter which stirred this House very much some months ago, and that is the Holmes circular as to inspectors. I do not want to go into the
  570
  question at any length, but in my view there is room in the large army of inspectors of education for inspectors of both types—the practical type trained in the schools, and the type of those who have had possibly the more theoretic education of the university. We in the North have had special attention drawn to us in that unfortunate circular. Manchester and Salford were selected as being the particular black sheep in respect of the point to which the circular drew attention. As the result of that the Manchester Education Committee, presided over by Sir Thomas Shann, and comprising supporters of hon. Gentlemen opposite, came to two important resolutions. One was that an educational council, consisting both of representatives of the local educational authority and also of the Board of Education, should be summoned to deal with the administration, or, at any rate, the principles of administration in the future. The second resolution was that the Government should grant an inquiry as to the whole subject of education administration for the past few years. That was a very weighty resolution, backed up by the authority of that great Manchester educational body, but as far as I know no answer has been returned to it as yet.
  I should like to say a word or two about the question of secondary education. It is extremely difficult to ascertain exactly what the number of secondary schools is, and what exactly is the number of secondary schools that are administered on what may be called Church or denominational trusts. A question was asked of the President of the Board of Education a day or two ago, and, if you will forgive me for saying so, the answer which he gave was judicious but not very informative. I ventured to ask him a question to-day directed to the same point, but he told me he would require some time in order to answer it, and therefore we must put it off for a few days. This thing is clear with regard to the numbers—that there are some 841 secondary schools in the country earning Government Grants on the Grant List, and there are about eighty-seven also giving secondary education which are not on the Grant List. We are only concerned for the purposes of this discussion with the 841 schools on the Grant List. I have the Blue Book here if anyone doubts the number. Of those Grant-earning schools, of course some are council or provided schools, and some are connected with denominations or are held on

  571
  trust. It is very significant, as the result of the pressure which has been put on the schools by the regulations, that while within the last three or four years the number of provided or council schools receiving the secondary education Grant has increased by nearly a hundred (eighty-three is the exact figure), the schools which, so far as can be traced, are definitely connected with denominations have not increased in number, and in the case of the Roman Catholic schools have actually diminished by one since those secondary school regulations came into force.
  What are those secondary school regulations about which we hear so much, and how is it that they press unfairly on denominational secondary schools and colleges? Those secondary school regulations were introduced in 1907. Up to that time no Government had dared to administer public funds so as to give an advantage to an undenominational school or college which they did not give also, with even-handed justice, to the denominational schools. In 1907, stimulated possibly by certain events which took place with regard to elementary education, and possibly as a result of pique when the Education Bill was rejected, these regulations were produced. There are three of them of which we complain and complain bitterly. There is Article 5, which says that in any denominational school founded on trust, and whose trust deed deliberately and with the intention of the donors, whose money founded the schools, requires denominational instruction to be given, that in such cases no Government Grant shall be given to such schools if denominational instruction is given otherwise than at the express or written request of the parent. That seems to be rather, to use a colloquial phrase, a tall order in the case of a school whose trust deed expressly requires such instruction; of this requirement the parents must be aware when they send their children to the schools. The next Article of which we complain is number twenty-three, which says that when teachers are appointed or trustees are named to an institution of that kind, and when it is expressly provided in the trust deed that questions shall be asked of the teachers as to whether they are qualified to teach religious instruction, and questions are to be asked of the trustees or governors whether they adhere to the creed or denomination of the Church of England, that then under that Article no
  572
  Government Grant shall be given if such questions are asked.
  Article 24 goes even further, and says that in future no Government Grant is to be given to secondary schools, unless the majority of the governing staff (and this flatly in the face of the trust deed) are to be selected or appointed by the local authority. No wonder that the denominational authorities object; no wonder that they aver that you are, in fact, tearing up the trust deeds. As if that were not bad enough, we have had within the last year or two another turn of the screw. In 1907 even the Government advisers realised that it was impossible to destroy this large number of secondary schools all at once, and so they put in a clause of temporary waiver, which came to this, that, with the consent of the local authority, the sword which was about to fall on the secondary schools might be suspended for a period. We have notice now that this waiver will no longer obtain, and that the secondary school regulations are to be enforced in all their brutality. It was only last Session that the then President of the Board of Education took credit to himself that in forty-two cases out of forty-nine in connection with the Catholic schools those conditions had been waived. They are to be waived no longer, and the result is that all supporters of denominational secondary schools, be they Church of England or Catholic, are determined to draw attention to this state of affairs, and, if possible, to stop it. May I read to the House a statement put before the Roman Catholic Congress at Newcastle by the Archbishop? He used very temperate words, and I do not wish to use any others. He said:—
  "I have honestly endeavoured to ascertain the truth and to arrive at a modus vi endi on this point."
  That is, the secondary school regulations.
  "I am obliged to conclude that the large sums of money now voted for the purposes of secondary education have, for the future, been rendered by the Board of Education absolutely useless as far as the Catholic community is concerned."
  Then come words which I would ask the hon. Gentlemen opposite to note:—
  "The favouritism shown to undenominational teaching in the case of elementary schools, has been increased and intensified in these new regulations affecting secondary schools. Once more do I plead for fair play and no favour, where education is concerned Recognise and do not attempt to ignore the religious differences which render impossible any absolute uniformity in education in England. These differences, while they make uniformity a foolish quest, in no way prevent the heartiest and most loyal co-operation in promoting the educational progress of the country. And it should be the constant aim of the Minister of Education to promote that co-operation, and not to give to one party in the country a position of unrivalled

  573
  privilege, while conceding to the other no more than the scantiest toleration. In your name, and in that of the whole Catholic body in England, I renew our emphatic protest against the existing financial regulations for secondary schools."
  Similarly the Catholic Federation have passed resolutions drawing attention to the regulations, and concluding thus:—
  "We respectfully request you to use every means in your power in the interests of common justice to obtain the withdrawal of the same regulations, or, at least, to secure that the waiver of them shall be granted in the case of all efficient Catholic and other denominational secondary schools, whether already existing or deemed in the future to be necessary."
  What, on broad grounds, are the objections to these regulations? First of all, I suppose we shall be told that there is some justification for them either on principle or in the practice of the Department. Clearly there is no justification whatever by statute. In fact, such statutory authority as there is is directly the other way. In the Elementary Education Act, 1870, passed by the party opposite, Section 97 carefully provides that so far as the State Grant for elementary education is concerned there shall be no discrimination of this kind. In the Act of 1902 Section 4 provides that there shall be no discrimination as far as secondary education is concerned in the case of the aid from local authorities. Unfortunately there is a gap in the legislation. There is no provision at all in the Elementary Education Act, 1870, or in the Act of 1902 forbidding the Government to make a distinction in this case of grants for secondary education. I assume the trainers of the Act of 1902 thought that no Government would be capable of the kind of action of which the Board of Education have been guilty in this regard. A Bill has been framed, and I hope to introduce it at an early date, to stop up this gap, and I trust it will receive the consideration of Members on both sides of the House.
  My next point is that the Board of Education have had handed over to them the powers of the Charity Commission so far as educational charities are concerned, and they are using those powers alongside with their ordinary administrative powers to compel schools to come in and have their trust deeds altered. They say to them, "Here are the regulations; take them or leave them." That means that in the case of nine schools out of ten, if the £5 Grant per child is withdrawn, there must be a deficit on the school. Fifty-nine schools are at present defying the Government. What exactly is their position, whether they are receiving the Grant or not, I do not know; but they have not
  574
  complied with the conditions. Pressure is undoubtedly being put on denominational schools to hand in their trust deeds to be altered to suit the predilections of the Government, and then they are told they will get their Grants according to the regulations. We say that that is a most improper position for the Government to take up. Some of us have had experience of bringing pressure to bear upon the Government in respect of their educational administration in. other places besides the House of Commons, and our attempts have been successful. I am not at all certain that if efforts were made in this case to bring the matter before the Courts, the Courts would not feel themselves bound to check this action, on the part of the Board of Education. However, that may be, it is a kind of action of which no Government Department ought to be capable. This attack on the secondary schools is a deliberate and most insidious attempt to kill denominational religious education altogether: for this reason. You cannot carry on denominational religious education unless you have teachers fit, conscientious, instructed, and willing to give the education. If you destroy the secondary schools in which denominational religious education is given, you destroy the training ground for such teachers. That means that you stop the flow of teachers, and therefore you stop denominational religious instruction itself.
  I ask hon. Members opposite whether, even at this eleventh hour, they will not take into consideration a reversal of this policy. Why can they not come in and join with us hand in hand in this great and difficult work of education? After all, there are in the country two systems. Why cannot the party opposite frankly accept those two systems? Why can they not accept our principle, which is simply one of equal treatment? We do not, demand for ourselves anything that we are not prepared to concede to them We should be fools if we asked for more, and we should be cowards if we were content with less. Reference is sometimes made outside the House to the peril of an attack by some foreign Power. There is one attack going on every day and all the time, namely, the attack of instructed and intelligent foreign competition. Why cannot hon. Members opposite join with us in fostering this work of education by accepting gladly the enthusiasm which denominationalists

  575
  can bring to this work, and which must be for the benefit of the educational progress of the country at large. But if our appeal is refused we on this side will not give in. We have made on behalf of this system of ours real sacrifices, sacrifices running into millions of money, and which, after all, signify a little more than the temporary sequestration of the family tea-pot. We are on this side pledged to this policy, and we will not surrender. The Prime Minister and the party opposite may bully us, as they have bullied us in the past. Dignitaries of the Church may fail us, as they have sometimes failed us in the past, but we will not give up the fight on that account. If there is one lesson that has been taught as the result of recent conflicts in this country, it is that Englishmen are slow to express their feelings of just anger and indignation, but that when Englishmen are in earnest it is practically impossible for any Government or for any party to smother them. That is the conclusion of the whole matter. That is the feeling we have on this side of the House in regard to this great question of secondary education, and it is in that spirit that I have addressed my remarks to the Committee.
  Mr. E. WOOD: I confess that the President of the Board of Education has some of my sympathy in being called upon to answer the charge brought against him by my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil). When the right hon. Gentleman was landed in his present position, many of us thought there must be some other reason than the mere desire of his predecessor to acquire some knowledge of agriculture. I think we are having the reason more or less outlined this afternoon, and that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the President of the Board of Agriculture, in leaving the Board of Education, has left him an awkward legacy with which to deal on entering into office. I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the events dealt with by my Noble Friend. He referred to two or three cases on the lines of the Swansea case. I do not wish the President to think that those are the only cases upon which we rest our charge. We have several other cases, all of equal substance, and resting on more or less the same grounds. I wish to call attention to one or two of those. I understand that the education authority of Glamorganshire is equally in fault, and that five schools are affected in the same way there.
  576
  In at least one case the managers are making it up in part to the teachers. Other teachers are paid the minimum salaries of teachers in provided schools, but do not get the annual increments. In Denbighshire, in the Church school at Brymbo, one teacher is paid £5 a year less than a teacher in a corresponding council school who happens to be her younger sister, and therefore with less experience. Another case is in a school at Llanbradach, near Cardiff. On 21st June, 1911, the managers wrote to the Board, formally bringing to their notice the fact that the force of certificated teachers at the school were paid at a lower rate of salary than similar teachers in provided schools. On 1st December they wrote again. They received only post cards in acknowledgment of these letters. On 9th January they wrote, saying:—
  "We cannot understand this long delay. Meanwhile our teachers are leaving us for posts in provided schools."
  Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will see that this is no academic question, but one that affects not only the personal fortunes of the teachers themselves, but also the prosperity of education in the non-provided schools, which, in many cases, are the only means of education in the districts concerned. So much for those instances which I believe are thoroughly well founded as to the differentiation in question.
  I come to that part of England which has also been known to exercise the predilection to which I have referred—namely, the West Riding of Yorkshire. I have every possible respect for the York-shireman. It is a matter of regret to me when I see my own county, so to speak, falling away from the right path. I am glad, however, to know that within, I think, the last month or so even the West Riding has established a scale of salaries, and all teachers alike are to be on that scale. Surely where the West Riding leads Wales need not be ashamed to follow! I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, in any further communication that he has with these local authorities will bring before their notice, with, I hope, desirable results, the example to which I have directed his attention. There are four or five specific points that ought to be cleared up. Possibly when the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply he will clear them up. The first is: what does the Board of Education intend to do if the local

  577
  authorities that have been mentioned continue the differentiation in salaries after their council meetings? We have heard that the council meeting of Cardiganshire Is on 25th April, and that of Glamorganshire on 14th March. I should like to have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will be prepared to take action if these councils by any chance decide in an adverse way on the points that we have asked about.
  In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman informed us a few days ago that on 5th February, 1912, he brought before the notice of these two local authorities the complaints of the managers that have been received in the one case in September and October of last year, and in the second case of May and June, 1911. I should like very much to know what the Board of Education were doing in the interval of nine months. The right hon. Gentleman informed us, in his own confession, that the inquiry he sent to the local authorities in February was the first official inquiry that the Board had made. I think that is a point on which we are fairly entitled to ask for information. What is the truth, too, of the facts about the Menai Bridge school? He answered us the other day that he received a communication in September, 1911, and communicated with the local authority on 13th February of this year. There again several months have passed during which, I presume, the Education Board did nothing. All this time the teachers in these schools have been paid the lower salary. If the local education authorities decide that the rate of salary must be made up will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the teachers get the salaries made up as from the time that they should have had the full rate of salary? The Noble Lord referred to the case of Abertillery. In that case—I do not know whether my Noble Friend mentioned this or not—the Education Committee informed the Board on 24th February that they had resolved to pay up the scale as from 1st April, 1912. The complaint in that school was an old complaint dating from May of last year, because on that date the correspondent of the managers wrote a letter in which he said:—
  "The local authorities still differentiate between some of the teachers of this school, and the teachers in the council schools."
  Having got their advance as from 1st April, 1912, the right hon. Gentleman will see that they will be at least a year out of extra salary. That is only one case of
  578
  many in which a very real hardship has been inflicted upon what my Noble Friend rightly described as one of the most deserving classes of the community, one giving their best services; and whose fault it certainly is not that they are called upon to serve in Church schools rather than in Provided schools. I associate myself with the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman who sits beside me. We will be discussing an Education Bill again to-morrow. I believe anybody who cares about any possible settlement of this question must think that the only chance of settling it is for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on each side of the House to, as far as they possibly can, appreciate one another's point of view and be prepared to meet in mutual give-and-take. My hon. Friend said, "We are prepared to give you what ever we ask you to give us." The first thing that we ask you to give is that yon should recognise that we have as much right to our opinions and to wish the children in these schools to be taught those opinions as hon. Gentlemen opposite have to hold different opinions and desire to have them taught. In discussing this Bill to-morrow in a reasonable spirit it will be an aid if the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government and his Friends behind him, is able to assure us this afternoon that the complaints that we bring are likely to receive careful, and I hope impartial, consideration.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: There is certainly a very great deal in some of the complaints which have been urged by hon. Members on the other side. It is the fact that a number of teachers in Wales have, as it were, had to bear the brunt of a propaganda with which I am in entire agreement. I refer to the propaganda for securing that where public money is spent there shall be the completest public control. That there may be no mistake about that, let me say that while the National Union of Teachers did certainly advise its members in respect of the deductions that they had suffered in certain schools, the National Union of Teachers stands for complete public control of all grades of education, and for the complete abolition of denominational creed tests on teachers in the public service. At the same time they do aver that to utilise people who have absolutely no remedy, or very little, as a means for changing public opinion is a wrong way entirely. You bring unnecessary suffering on two classes of people. Firstly, and most important, you

  579
  bring suffering upon the children. You may have while this unfortunate dispute continues a whole generation of teachers, and a whole generation of children, and the course of the latter in the schools is stultified because the teachers are unsettled in their tenure and in the treatment that they receive from the local authority, and there is an inducement to them, because of the unrest, to leave these schools for other schools where they will have a more settled tenure and more favourable conditions of service. The total result is that the children suffer because the teachers are not able to give of their best in the daily teaching. Apart from this, there is, I frankly avow it in this House, the difficulty of the teachers themselves. Their certificates are of a similar character. The work they do is on entirely the same lines as that done in council schools. Yet because, unfortunately, they have been engaged in non-provided schools they have to suffer a reduction in their salaries which I think they ought not to suffer. The appeal which has been made from the opposite side of the House will be re-echoed by many hon. Members on this side. That is, that the Welsh councils will take other means for securing what I myself aver to be their just aim—full control of their schools—and may utilise some other machinery than making the teachers in the non-provided schools suffer, so rendering the children less efficient as they proceed through the various stages of their school life. If I might join in an appeal to hon. Members opposite it would be to plead with what I might call the recalcitrant county councils of Wales to get their remedy by constitutional means; to attempt to change the opinion of those who are at present opposed to them, and to get Members in this House to place upon the Statute Book a proper settlement of this education difficulty.
  It may be that the answer to that will be that "every one of our Members from Wales, with a few exceptions, has been returned with that object in view, that hon. Members from Wales have already expressed their views, and that now it should be for the Members of the House of Commons to secure the remedy." That is a very good answer. I suppose there are associated with those Members a majority of Members on this side of the House who support them in contending that a national system of education is only possible with full popular control, and the
  580
  removal from a great public service of denominational creed tests. Therefore, while I appeal to the county councils, I also appeal to the Government, that they should not unduly delay their remedy for righting the wrong which the Act of 1902 inflicted on this country. The Act of 1902 gave us a great reform. Let me make this point about it: The Act of 1902 certainly gave us almost all forms of education under one local authority. To that extent it was admirable. But it carried a wrong of which complaints are made from every side—the wrong of allowing non-elective managers, to the extent of a majority of four to two, on the board of management of non-provided schools to control the appointment of the head teacher.
  There is a legitimate grievance there, a grievance which ought to be righted in the interests of the public, as well as in the interests of the teachers, and in the interests of the most important partner in the education compact—that is, the child. May I appeal to the Government to give us an Education Act which once for all will remove the teaching profession from having to satisfy creed tests before they can secure professional preferment to the extent of nearly 16,000 appointments. In, this country there is a creed test applied to applicants. The consequence is that individuals are precluded from making application who, as a matter of fact, on every educational ground and on the ground of experience, of teaching capacity, are entitled and qualified to take charge of each one of these departments.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is going beyond the limit, and other Members may wish to follow. We are not entitled to discuss legislation.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I was just dealing with the point which had been raised, I understood, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford. I submit to your ruling, and will conclude by asking Members—and especially the Government—to recall what I have said in this regard, and with one word of appeal to the county councils to take other means than those they now adopt to secure what is a legitimate end.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I want to deal only with the question of administration, and to address one or two specific questions to the Minister of Education. The one desire so far as educationists are concerned is impartiality of administration in the

  581
  Board of Education at Whitehall. That is an essential condition. I am not going back to what I may call the old bad days of the Swansea case. There could not be a more sweeping condemnation than what was expressed by the judges, and it ultimately came to this dilemma, that either the officials of a great Department at Whitehall were absolutely ignorant of the law which they had been administering or they were blind to facts on which every reasonable man could have only come to one conclusion. Historically when this matter is dealt with, then the administration of the Education Board at that time will stand condemned for having administered the Act in the way it was not intended to be, as shown in the Swansea case. I admit the present Minister of Education is new as regards the Education Department, and therefore I want to put to him certain specific questions hoping that his answers will show that the Board intend to carry out impartially the administration entrusted to them. I want to put one or two cases: the first is with regard to Aberystwith. On the 5th February a letter was written by Mr. Jenkin Jay, clerk to the local education authority, in the following words:—
  "With reference to the application of the managers to increase the salaries of head teachers in the Aberystwith schools, I am directed to inform the managers that the education committee will be in a better position to consider the application if all religious instruction of a sectarian or denominational character were excluded from the curriculum of the school. I am to ask whether the managers are able to give any assurance on that point."
  I put this specific question to the Education Minister: Is it not the law at the present time that schools are to be treated equally as regards the salary of the teachers whether they are denominational or undenominational; is it not wholly improper, and neither in accordance with the Education Act or in accordance with the first principle of the Swansea decision, that the local education authority should say, "We will not consider the pay of the teacher of a denominational school until the managers give an undertaking that no denominational teaching shall be given"? According to my view, that is wholly illegal and a wholly improper position, and what I want distinctly to ask the Minister of Education is what his attitude will be if any such matter of that nature is brought to his attention. I know the matter has been brought to his attention by letters from the National Union of Teachers.
  I am not, of course, going to follow the speech we have just heard, because it is
  582
  not necessary for my purpose. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that everyone interested in education and all the teachers protest against all this improper attempt to differentiate salary, because, whatever we think as regards reform of educational law, at the present time it is the undoubted law that you are to have equality of treatment, whether the schools are denominational or not, the reason being that the funds come from the taxpayers and the ratepayers, some denominational and some not, and that we want to administer the law fairly. There is another question I want to ask, and it is in regard to Llanbradach School. It has been brought to the notice of the Board of Eduction that in that school certain salaries have been paid in other years. The denominational teachers are penalised because they are teaching in denominational schools. It was not brought to their notice until after the Swansea case, but after the Swansea case the Board of Education must have been fully aware that such discrimination was improper and illegal. What happened? First, after a period of time, a printed post card was sent from the Board of Education; then after six months no other answer except a printed post card came. Meanwhile the illegality is going on and the teacher is being penalised. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when an admitted illegality is brought to the notice of the Board, merely a formal answer in the way of a printed post card is sent, whereas the proper answer would be, "We intend, this illegality having been brought to our notice, to do our best to remedy it." Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now, after something like nine months of consideration, what attitude the Board of Education intend to adopt? I think these questions are quite fair. I do not wish to make any attack upon the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Education, but I think that if there is one matter more important than another it is absolutely essential in the interests of education itself that all parties to this educational controversy should feel confidence in the impartiality of the Board of Education at Whitehall. Without that it seems to me any further progress is impossible.
  The next questions I want to ask have reference to secondary schools and training colleges. I want specific answers in these matters. In dealing with secondary schools the Board of Education now have the power under the Charitable Trusts

  583
  Act and the Endowed Schools Act. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman, will know from his knowledge of these matters these Acts are framed on different lines. The Charitable Trusts Act forbid absolutely any interference with the denominational trust. The Endowed Schools Acts are only passed from year to year, and the provisions there are that nothing should be done inconsistent with the views of the original founder of the trust. It is not the same as the Trust Act, and I admit there is more freedom and liberty. Now, when schemes come before the Board of Education under either of these Acts, the Board of Education are successors in these matters to the Court of Chancery and the Charitable Commissioners, and they act in a judicial manner. My complaint is this: According to my information at the present time, and according to two Returns which were given in answer to my application a short time ago, 957 secondary schools have been dealt with. That is the exact number with which I have been supplied. In addition to these 957 schools dealt with under the regulations there is a waiver of the regulations in certain cases, but there never has been a waiver of what is known as Article 5. At any rate, it was so when the information was supplied to me, and it is Article 5 which practically turns denominational into undenominational schools. As far as I can make out—I may be wrong, as it is difficult to get exact information—there have been only four or five schemes at all issued as regards secondary schools. At any rate, it is a very small number. What has been done is this: I want to read the actual words, they are in Paragraph 15 of the Preferatory Memorandum of the regulations as regards secondary schools which deals with applications being made to the Board of Education. It says:—
  "In such cases the Board will be prepared to regard the schools as having complied with the conditions and to be eligible to the Grant for the year"
  (the year 1907–8)
  "if the governors of the schools have taken all steps in their power to obtain the necessary alteration, although the necessary procedure may not have been complied with that year."
  Does not that come to this, that the Board of Education, having adopted a judicial position as regards each of these schemes, actually sends out a general regulation, and before they consider whether the suggestions made are right or not the mere applications themselves will be taken
  584
  as sufficient to undenominationalise them. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that that is an entire giving up of the judicial functions and responsibilities which have been thrown upon the Board of Education. Not only has that been done, but what has been the result? It is perfectly true, as was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman who seconded this reduction, that what has happened has really resulted in, not exactly a form of bribery, but a form of penalty. What the Board paid to these schools was this: "Unless you come in under our regulations we will not give you any Grant, and knowing that it is necessary to have a Grant to carry on secondary schools that means we will not allow you to carry on secondary schools unless they are undenominational in character." Does the Minister for Education think that fair? Suppose the principle, as it undoubtedly is the principle of the Charitable Trusts Act and the Endowed Schools Act and the Acts of 1870 and 1902, is that in administering Grants you are to put out of sight the religious controversy altogether, and that you are to consider the Grant from the educational point of view, and in no way show a denominational bias or an undenominational bias, then on what principle can the right hon. Gentleman justify this Grant as a penalty in order to give an advantage to undenominational schools. That is the question, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to administer his office impartially I beg him to tell me whether he thinks that is really impartial, and, if not, that these regulations will be altered, as they ought, so that a school, whether denominational or not, can have exactly the same freedom at the hands of the Education Board at Whitehall. I need not deal with Clause 4 of the Act of 1902 and the old Section of the Act of 1870; this was undoubtedly the principle. Get the Board of Education and the local authority, as far as you can, free from this denominational or, as it is sometimes called, sectarian controversy; hold the balance fair, and then, on educational ground, do the best you can for the teachers and the children and all persons interested.
  I want to ask the Minister for Education a question in reference to these training colleges. He is well aware that when the training college regulations were issued there was a very important deputation sent to the Board of Education, pointing out that to comply with these regulations would amount to a breach of trust. The opinion of a most eminent lawyer, the

  585
  late Attorney-General, was brought to the notice of the Board of Education. Is it fair to ask the Church training colleges to come under regulations which, if they comply with them, necessitate a breach of the trust. In order that I may show how far that was carried I have here the answer which was given by the Board of Education to the colleges, and it contains this statement:—
  "It is open to the trustees to apply to the Board of Education for a scheme with ii view to amending the terms of their deed in such a manner as will enable them to give free access to all students who are otherwise suitable without regard to their religions opinions or the imposition of religions tests."
  By what power could the Board of Education have altered the trust? Can the right hon. Gentleman justify what is the real meaning of this action, namely, that when you are dealing with Grants, given for a long time for the purpose of these colleges, you are compelled to alter the whole basis on which your training colleges were founded in order to make them undenominational instead of denominational? Is that impartial action as between the two? I cannot to-day go into questions necessitating an alteration of the law, but the importance of what I am saying is that it is administration, and to seek to alter the law by partial administration is really a disgrace to any great public office. I sincerely hope that whatever our complaints have been in the past we may have a new era in the future, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that when we are dealing with matters of legislation we are dealing with controversial questions, and when we are dealing with matters of administration we ought to have impartiality outside those controversies altogether. It would be an evil day if the public of this country felt that they could not trust the heads of our great Departments to give us absolutely impartial administration outside party considerations. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has understood the questions I have put to him. I only put those specific questions because by his answer to them I hope we shall be assured that we shall have a true impartiality in the future as against what has been scandalous partiality, at any rate as regards some of the administration of the past.
  Mr. KING: I came down to the House this afternoon expecting to hear a most vigorous and even violent attack delivered on the head of the poor President of the Board of Education, but I am agreeably surprised to find that the speeches
  586
  delivered from the other side have all been certainly most moderate in tone.
  Sir F. EANBURY: They always are.
  Mr. KING: The speeches which I have listened to have not brought chapter and verse in regard to the delinquencies or deficiencies complained of, but they have been pitching into the county council. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] At any rate when you have made an appeal it has been an appeal ad misericordiam. I will quote the words used by the hon. Member for Salford, who said:—
  "Can yon not join us amicably and co-operate with us in fostering and furthering this great work of education?"
  That is an appeal to give a little of what you are asking for.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: Treat us on an equality.
  Mr. KING: I do not know what equality means if it does not mean giving impartiality of treatment to the council schools and to those who stand for undenominational education as well as those who are in favour of denominational education. I want, for once in a way, to take upon myself the rôle I have not often taken before of standing up for the Board of Education. I believe that the policy of the Board of Education with regard to the administration of the Act of 1902 has been fair and impartial throughout. If it has not pleased hon. Gentlemen opposite by giving them all they want, I want to assure them that it has not pleased us because when we have had a point to press, and when we wanted something stretched in our direction we have not been able to get it. I cannot say how many times I have mounted the stairs at the Board of Education office and come down a sadder but a wiser man, believing more and more in the absolute impartiality and fairness to the opponents of the right hon. Gentleman now sitting on the bench opposite. That is my position and my experience, and I ask the President of the Board of Education not to be weary in well doing, but to persist in the policy he has taken up, and carry it through whether we press him from one side or the other.
  I intend to give one or two facts to show that if the Board of Education has acted impartially on the one side it has also acted impartially on the other side. What is really the principle of the Act of 1902 as between the local education authority

  587
  and the Board of Education? It is that so long as certain sections of the Act are observed and certain recognised lines are carried out as, for instance, the efficient maintenance of the school, you allow the local authority a very free hand in various directions, such as the appointment of teachers, the amount of salaries paid, the curriculum, and in many other respects. Where the Board of Education has acted on the line of allowing recognised freedom of action to Liberal and undenominational education authorities it has also acted on the same principle with regard to the Conservative denominational reactionary education authorities. I know they have been anxious to speed the pace of the reactionary bodies, and they have been anxious to restrain the ardour of some progressive and undenominational bodies, but, nevertheless, the Board has maintained a strict impartiality in allowing the recognised freedom to local educational authorities. I want to give the right hon. Gentleman credit for this policy and I wish to ask him to persist on the same lines.
  We have had this afternoon one or two cases mentioned as to the very hard circumstances under which denominational managers and teachers find themselves. I want to point out in what a severe and unjust position we undenominationalists who believe in popular education also find ourselves, and I will call the attention of the House to a case which I have lately brought before the notice of the Board of Education in this House. I have also called the attention of the bishop of the diocese to it, and I have also had volunteered to me the opinion of the diocesan inspector on this school. This concerns a Church school in my own Constituency. I may say at the start that it is really a one-manager school, although legally there must be six managers, and this arises because the vicar of the parish is an utterly impossible man. Previously he assaulted one of his teachers, and was fined in the Police Court for committing that assault. On one occasion the parishioners got hold of the key of the school, and for six weeks they shut him out of his school, which he calls his own. All the respectable managers have left him, and he has to pick up a manager wherever he can; but really he is the one manager of this school. It is greatly to the credit of the head teacher, whose case I allude to, that he has been eight years suffering under management like that No previous head teacher has
  588
  been there for more than two years, and you have now got an absolutely model teacher who has been able to retain his position for eight years in that school, and I think that is a great testimonial to his patience, integrity, and character. This teacher, however, happens to be a Liberal, and when he was asked to take the position of secretary to the Conservative association then his chance of success was at an end. Some ground had to be found as a means by which this man might be turned out and cast adrift. Charges were brought against him repeatedly and they were withdrawn.
  At last complaints were urged against him and sent to the county council, and the council sent down three members to inquire into the charges. This teacher was declared by the committee of inquiry appointed by the county council to be absolutely guiltless of the charges. One of the charges was in relation to a question I asked in this House about the children being turned out at dinner-time, a fact which is quite true, but in regard to which I never received any information at all from this teacher. That is actually a charge which was brought against this man. Now the teacher is compelled to go because there has been friction, but that friction has all been on one side. I could prove this by letters from the bishop of the diocese. This man has to go, and he is cast out, an elderly man, without any chance of getting another school, and that man's life is ruined, his career is blighted, because of the wicked and bullying conduct of the manager of that school. I asked the President of the Board of Education to interfere in this case, but he says he cannot do so. I know he is impartial in allowing the local education authorities to go on in their own way, and having been impartial in the case I have put before him I want him also to be impartial in cases brought forward by the other side. Let him go on allowing a free hand to the local authorities. It acts unfairly to us in one district, and hon. Gentlemen opposite may think it acts unfairly in Wales. I feel the language I have used in reference to this case of grass persecution and injustice is not one bit too strong. I have shown as conclusively as I can that the action taken by the Board of Education is one of strict impartiality. It allows the control in all these matters which the Tory Act placed in the hands of the local education authorities to remain there.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: No.
  Mr. KING: The Noble Lord did not hear all my speech. He has only heard the end of it.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I was merely expressing my grave dissent from the hon. Gentleman's statement as to the effect of a particular Act of Parliament, and that cannot be modified by anything the hon. Member said in the earlier part of his speech.
  Mr. KING: Well, some time or other we will go into this matter together. I feel most earnestly that the policy of the Board of Education has been fair, consistent, right, and just to the Act of Parliament which they have had to administer, and I shall therefore do everything I can to support the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have certainly never heard more remarkable testimony to the sense of fairness of a Minister than that which the hon. Gentleman has just given. He considers the administration of the President of the Board of Education must be impartial because he has refused every attempt he has himself made to him to alter that administration. I do not think it says as much for the soundness of the case which the hon. Gentleman put before the right hon. Gentleman. His speech, however, is not of so much importance as that of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone). The hon. Member for Sunderland and myself differ on almost every point, but it is somewhat remarkable that one of the representatives of the National Union of Teachers in this House should have, spoken so strongly in support of the case which we have put before the Committee this afternoon, and should have spoken, I may almost say, in condemnation of the action of the President of the Board of Education. The hon. Member told us that the teachers in the denominational schools are unsettled and are forced to leave, and that the educational condition of the children is seriously damaged. Naturally, I agree with him to that extent, but when he goes on to say that was caused by the Act of 1902, I am bound to differ from him. It must be perfectly apparent that where the Act of 1902 is adopted and carried out fairly and satisfactorily the condition of the teachers and of the children is as good as in the county council schools. The real reason why complaints have been made to the National Union of Teachers from some of those schools and why the teachers and children are in trouble is that the sight hon. Gentlemen and his predecessors
  590
  have not taken the steps which they might have taken to insist upon the county councils and the local authorities carrying out the Act of 1902 in all fairness. We appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to turn over a new leaf in the administration of the Education Department.
  I want to join in the appeal made by the Noble Lord the hon. Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) for some recompense to be made to the Swansea managers. That, I think, was the only appeal ad misericordiam made from this side of the House this afternoon. In every other respect we have merely demanded our rights, and, because we have demanded them in moderate language and have spoken as Conservatives and not as Liberal Members generally do, the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) need not complain of the lack of the strength of our case. We have put it moderately because we deem it just. If it were unsatisfactory we might have come down and made the kind of speech the hon. Member occasionally makes in this House. I am afraid that with regard to the cost incurred by the Swansea managers, we can only appeal to the President of the Education Board ad misericordiam. I quite agree the law does not compel him to refund these costs to the Swansea school managers, but there is a very strong moral claim to be made out in respect of them. It was really in consequence of the action of the Board of Education that this sum was incurred by the Swansea school managers. The decision of the Board of Education in the case has been decided by the Courts to have been so perverse as not to have been a decision at all. If it had been merely a misinterpretation of an Act of Parliament, or if it had been merely a decision of an ordinary Court of Law, where, of course, judges, like all human beings, are liable to err, and that decision had been upset, I quite agree there would have been no ground for this appeal, but here the decision was that of a Government Department, and it was so perverse as really not to be a decision at all.
  I know some of the judges did their best to let the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor down lightly, but, if the right hon. Gentleman will read the decision in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords—the decision of the Master of the Rolls, the decision of the present Lord Chancellor, a colleague of his in the Cabinet, and the decision of Lord Shaw, not long ago a Liberal Member of this House—

  591
  I think he will be forced to the conclusion that there is very good ground for saying the action of his predecessor was so perverse that it has put the school managers to all this vast expenditure, and that they have a moral claim to ask him to go, I cannot say to the friend of the denominational schools, but at any rate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for some contribution to be made towards these expenses. After all, the action of the Swansea managers has greatly helped the right hon. Gentleman in his position. It has laid down the law from which there can be no possible appeal. The law would have had to be laid down at some time or other. I think it is clear from the case that the right hon. Gentlemen who have presided at the Board of Education have themselves differed, and, if the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in 1906 had only stuck to his guns, there would have been no need to take this case to the Court at all. The President then was, I think, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Birrell), but they change with such startling rapidity under this Government. No sooner does one make a horrible hash of things at the Education Department than he is promoted to be one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.
  Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the right hon. Gentleman who is at present President of the Board of Agriculture was a longer time President of the Board of Education than anyone since Mr. W. E. Forster?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Agriculture left the Board of Education for no other reason, so far as we on this side of the House could find out, than that he was unable to get Bills through the House pleasing to the hon. Member and his Friends. When the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chief Secretary for Ireland was President of the Board of Education in 1906, the Department deliberately wrote a letter to the education authority at Cardiff requesting them to make these payments. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has that letter before him, but he will see, if that policy had been carried out, that there would have been no need for this litigation and no necessity for these costs to have been piled up. Under those circumstances, firstly, because the school managers have established the law for the benefit of everybody, and secondly,
  592
  because the Department themselves really agreed with them in 1906, I do urge that as an act of grace—I cannot put it higher—the right hon. Gentleman should make some contribution to these very heavy expenses which have been incurred. I also want to support the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Montague Barlow) with regard to the secondary school regulations. In 1007 these secondary school regulations were brought in by the second President of the Board under this Administration, and I am bound to say that, in the opinion of very many supporters of secondary denominational education, they were brought in as part of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to be a sword and not a peace offering. He distinctly told us what his policy would be. The moment the present Home Secretary (Mr. McKenna) was placed at the head of the Education Department there began a series of Departmental aggressions on the voluntary primary and secondary schools and training colleges, from which we have suffered for nearly the last five years.
  These secondary school regulations were part and parcel of that system of Departmental aggression upon the voluntary school system. The Bill of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland having failed in 1906, when there was every opportunity, for the Liberal party had got a majority in the House as they have not to-day opposed to denominational education, the present Home Secretary set to work on this policy of aggression. There had been no complaints for fifty years prior to that with regard to the allocation of Grants to secondary schools. I cannot help thinking the hon. Member for Somerset, who is the only Member on the opposite side of the House who has spoken this afternoon in support of the Government, cannot have realised that Grants to primary elementary or secondary schools are made not in respect of religious education at all, but in respect of secular education, and, so long^ as the secular education is good and efficient, and so long as it is approved by the Government inspectors, the position which we take up, which the Irish Members have always supported, and which the majority of the House to-day takes up, is that the denominational schools, whether elementary or secondary, are just as much entitled to a share of the Government Grant as the provided schools under the county councils. It is no good, except as a mere temporary measure, trying to reverse the Act of 1902 by Departmental

  593
  methods. The Act of 1902 is, I know, objected to by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. Let them bring in a Bill and reverse it if they can. Let them go to the country, and get the country to reverse it if they can. But do not let the President of the Board of Education try to alter the Act by mere Departmental action.
  Though hon. Gentlemen opposite might have some right to alter the Act by Departmental action in 1907, when they had a majority opposed to denominational education, they clearly have no right to continue that policy now. The Irish party are entirely with us, or they were a very few months ago, and certainly the English Roman Catholics are entirely with us in insisting upon Departmental fair play in the right hon. Gentleman's office for the secondary schools as well as for the elementary schools, though they may be under the stigma of denominationalism. I do not know whether the Home Rule scheme is going to cause hon. Members from Ireland to slide away from that position, but I do not think it will. I still believe, if there should during the next two months be a real crisis on this question, although we hope to get a more favourable answer from the present President, hon. Members from Ireland would come to the help of denominational education, and, though they may support the Government on many matters, I do not think they would support the right hon. Gentleman if he continued the policy of his predecessors in regard to denominational education.
  Generally speaking, we want to ask the right hon. Gentleman for a loyal acceptance of the position as laid down in the Swansea case. I remember speaking here a few months ago when the last President of the Board of Education was in office, and saying what I thought was my last word on the Swansea case. I then made an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us a frank and full undertaking, as head of the Department, that the covert attacks that had been sanctioned by him upon denominational schools should cease, and that he would really accept the law as laid down by the High Courts of the land in the case, and use his utmost en-devours to see that the law was carried out. The Under-Secretary replied to my speech, but made no reference whatever to this point. Perhaps he was unable to do so. He answered various other points, but he ignored that appeal. I want the right hon. Gentleman who now holds the office
  594
  to give me an assurance that the policy of his Department shall not be the policy which was known as the Welsh revolt. The Board has been dominated for some years past by a policy very nearly akin to the policy known as the "Welsh revolt."
  It will be remembered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech at Brighton in 1903, advocated a policy of delay—a policy which the Cardigan and other county councils are carrying out today. The right hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, deliberately urged that the Act of 1902 should be made impossible in administrative process by a species of conduct which cannot be too strongly deprecated and condemned in this House—that the county councils should make the Act unworkable by constant delay. That is the very system that the county councils are carrying out to-day in the case of Cardiganshire and other parts of Wales. When complaints are made, they are shelved. The right hon. Gentleman told us, in answer to a question last week, that he could not summon meetings of the county council. That is true. But the tone of the letters of his Department to voluntary school managers when he wants an answer and a decision is very different. He writes demanding an answer within a given number of days, and if managers are to be treated like that, surely it is perfectly possible for him to write to the county councils, which have chairmen, clerks, and emergency committees, and say, "You must let me have your answer within a given time." I ask for an undertaking that he will not allow them to carry out the principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme, to put education questions as the last Act on the Agenda, so that it may be said, "Trains-are just going, and there is no time to deal with the questions; therefore they must stand over."
  That was the speech in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that there was such a thing as the spirit of an Act of Parliament. He asked, "Where can you find a spirit of an Act of Parliament?" I am going to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who is now head of the Department to find the spirit of the Act of 1902, and to conduct his Department in the spirit as well as in the letter of that Act. It is perfectly possible for him to do so. I want the right hon. Gentleman to lay it down on the floor of this House to-day that it is no longer going to be the effort of the Board of Education to alter

  595
  the Act of 1902 by administrative means. I would like to commend to the right hon. Gentleman the words of Mr. Justice Channell, who, in a certain education case, said that there was one tiling certainly which neither the defendant (the county council) nor the Board of Education could do, and that was to say that, because they did not like the law as it stood, they would give directions that would frustrate this object. It is quite possible, of course, to give directions to frustrate the object of an Act of Parliament, but it is clearly illegal to do so. I appealed to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. I now appeal to him to give us a clear and distinct promise on this point. We have been moderate this afternoon in putting our case before him, and all I ask him now is that there shall be nothing done to show favouritism to those who desire to alter the Act of 1902, and that, until that Act is altered, if ever it should be, the Board of Education will administer it fully, fairly, and frankly as between denominational and undenominational schools.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I am about to switch off this discussion with regard to the unfair treatment of voluntary schools to a subject which, at the present time, is of immense importance to those who are administering secular education in this country. I refer to the seriously increasing shortage of entrants to the teaching profession, and the resulting deficiency of uncertificated teachers, who, whatever we may think about the desirability of the higher training of uncertificated teachers, are still a sine quâ non as regards the bulk of the counties which have to administer the Act of 1902. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the Committee to what has been happening during the last five years. In the educational year 1906–7 there were 11,018 entering the teaching profession. In the following year there were 10,352. In the year 1909–9, 8,718; and in 1909–10,7,115. Last year, so far as we can ascertain, the number dropped to under 5,500. The supply of teachers has steadily shrunk during the last few years. On the other hand, the demand has steadily increased, owing, as the Committee is aware, to what was at one time called Circular 709, but which is now incorporated in the Code, and which has the effect of reducing the numbers in the classes which certain grades of teachers are qualified to instruct.
  596
  I will give an instance of what is happening from my own experience in the county of Gloucester. I am a member of the local education authority of that county. At the present moment, owing to the lack of uncertificated teachers, there are seventy certificated teachers receiving the salaries of uncertificated teachers. We are employing altogether 560 persons as uncertificated teachers, including those to whom I have just referred. About sixty uncertificated teachers are annually required in the county to repair the normal waste. In 1914, when the supplementary teachers will disappear under the existing regulations, about sixty more of such teachers will be required to replace the supplementaries who will no longer receive recognition. At the present moment in my county we are not producing sufficient to meet this wastage, and this increased demand; we have been producing lately no more than twenty uncertificated teachers every year, but, in the current year, we shall not produce more than ten, although, at the present time, we are taking all those who present themselves as teachers. I am aware of course that the Board of Education have, for the last few years, been encouraging the bursarship system with a view of securing more highly qualified teachers than we have had in our elementary schools in the past. We do not in any way deprecate the importance of better training for elementary school teachers, but it necessarily follows from the kind of training and the encouragement given, that these intending bursars will become hereafter not uncertificated teachers but trained certificated teachers.
  6.0 P.M.
  This bursary system is, in fact, an important factor in increasing the difficulty of the non-supply of uncertificated teachers. Uncertificated teachers are in parts of the country most distant from London rapidly becoming unobtainable, with the result that schools are for certain periods of the year understaffed and running very serious risk of losing their Government Grant. I have already said it is, in my opinion, a most excellent principle to employ only certificated teachers (and that appears to be the policy which is promoted by the Board of Education) as long as we can afford to pay them adequate salaries. But it is common knowledge that at the present time local education authorities are quite at the end of their tether, so far as their financial resources are concerned. They cannot

  597
  afford to pay these salaries, and, in the meantime therefore, some sort of assistance is required from the Board of Education and from the Treasury, to meet the very difficult and, as I think, impossible position into which these authorities are rapidly drifting. May I suggest the causes of this serious under supply of teachers in our elementary schools? At first there was undoubtedly a scare raised by the National Union of Teachers, a few years ago, as to a supposed over-supply, and therefore possible unemployment of teachers. If I may say so I think there was at that time some cause for the complaint of the National Union of Teachers, and it was apparently largely due to the fact that at one time only in the year there is a considerable output from the training colleges, amounting to from five to six thousand teachers, who cannot at once be absorbed after they leave such colleges, and have to wait until such time as the demand comes from the various schools throughout the country. I think it would be a very great advantage—and the County Councils Association strongly holds this view—to so arrange the courses of the training colleges that there should be three different periods at which the output of teachers shall take place, so that the absorption may more easily and readily follow, without serious disappointment or the long waiting which now occurs to many intending certificated teachers. Another cause, which I am sure we do not regret, is the abandonment of unsatisfactory methods which have obtained in the past of recruiting our elementary school teachers. There is no doubt that another cause is the raising of the qualifying examination for teachers, at any rate, in the higher branches of the profession. In addition to that, according to the present system which is insisted upon by the Board, this bursarship system necessarily involves a more prolonged course of training and at greater expense, at any rate as regards maintenance, during those years after a student leaves the elementary schools and before that student becomes eligible to be appointed as a teacher in a school. I do not know what may be the case in London and the home counties, but certainly in the more distant counties it is almost impossible to find parents who can afford to pay the necessary expenses of their children during that period after they leave the elementary schools and up to the time when they have passed through their
  598
  bursarship course and are eligible to become teachers. In addition to that there is no doubt that the increased possibilities of earning high wages in other walks of life, particularly under municipal authorities, have very largely increased during recent years, and therefore there is not the same inducement to young people to adopt the teaching profession. In addition to that the attendance at the secondary school is now in most cases insisted upon for a period of three years prior to the bursarship, and this involves a cost which most parents are unable to face, at any rate in the country districts. All this is aggravated by Circular 709, to which reference has already been made.
  This inadequacy of teachers was prophesied by the Board themselves in their Annual Report both in 1907 and 1909, but the Board apparently has done nothing whatever to prevent this difficulty arising or to indicate to local authorities how best they can cope with the difficulty when it does arise. It is true they have been the means of multiplying training colleges by offering Grants for building purposes, but this has only had the effect of increasing the higher grade teachers at the cost of those who at the present time are more in demand amongst the local education authorities. The conditions prevailing in London are perpetually put before us as a sufficient reason for the Board to decline to listen to the protest which is coming up from the country districts. London is in a totally different position, as are also some of the home counties, from those which are more distant and which do not enjoy the same privileges. In these matters you cannot apply the same system to a compact population, where there is a high rateable value and where there is a good supply of easily accessible secondary schools. In the more distant counties, particularly in those which are mainly agricultural, the population is scattered, the rateable value is often very low per head of the population, and the secondary schools are either conspicuous by their absence or very few in number. If I may take this opportunity of saying so, I think the time is coming when the Board will have to base its Grant, if efficiency of education is going to be secured in those districts where good conditions do not prevail, on the conditions to which I have referred, in order that something like efficiency on the part of adequately equipped teachers should take place to the same extent all over the country.

  599
  I desire to ask the President of the Board what he is prepared to do with regard to the serious shortage of teachers. What the County Councils Association have already brought to his notice, and what I should like to emphasise now, is that the local education authorities should, for a time at any rate, be given a breathing space before the whole of the supplementary teachers disappear from our schools, and also that some means should be provided to enable the old pupil-teacher system to be for a time revived with the help of additional Grants to be given for such teaching beyond what are allowed at present. These Grants amount to £2 only, which is wholly inadequate for the purpose, and the County Councils Association are asking, and I think reasonably asking, that these Grants should be raised from £2 to £5. This will involve as a temporary expedient the amending of Article 2S (A) in the Regulations for the Preliminary Education of Elementary School Teachers, so as to give the local education authority unfettered discretion to provide for the instruction of pupil teachers in the elementary schools. In the second place, it will involve an amendment of Article 28 (E) of the same regulations by substituting a Grant of £5 for £2. It will be necessary to amend paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 (D) of the Code in order to permit the employment for a further period of supplementary teachers in schools for older scholars where the average attendance exceeds 100. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that on 31st July, 1914, all these supplementary teachers will cease to be recognised. We ask, as a temporary expedient, that such recognition should continue in the case of all those supplementary teachers who have proved themselves efficient and valuable in the schools in which they are at present serving. I know that this is a dull subject to bring before the Committee, but it is a subject on which the country local education authorities feel very strongly at the present time, and they are sensible of the fact that unless the Board of Education is prepared, perhaps with the help of the Treasury, to meet their requirements, the whole of their present system is bound to break down within the course of the next two years.
  I do not know whether the President has it in his mind to insist upon nothing but certificated teachers being appointed in our elementary schools. This would involve in the county of Gloucester a sum of
  600
  £33,000, in addition to the amount already paid in teachers' salaries. That is a sum which I need hardly say the ratepayers are wholly unable to face at the present time. I should like to suggest as a matter worthy of consideration by the Board—bearing in mind the pressure they are perpetually putting upon, local education authorities to level up the standard of work in the elementary schools by the reduction of the classes and by the employment of more highly qualified teachers—that they should alter their system of making Grants by making the Grant the amount required for the payment of teachers salaries, and leaving such other expenses as the local education authorities have to face—and they are quite numerous enough in all conscience—to be met out of the rates. It would be entirely in the interests of the teachers, because nothing is more unsatisfactory at the present time than to have to refuse to certificated teachers the salary which their grade entitles them to, and nothing is more unsatisfactory to us who sit upon these authorities than to be in perpetual conflict with the National Union of Teachers in regard to matters upon which we are in entire sympathy with their views, but we have not the means to meet them. Nothing would more stimulate local education authorities in the direction of progress than to put a stop once and for all to this process of putting costly pressure on local education authorities, contrary to the wishes of those who send their members to represent them on these authorities, to spend money as the result of alterations in the code, or as the result of Bills passed through this House, over which the ratepayers have no control whatever.
  May I, in conclusion, ask the President if he can do something to alter the curriculum of training colleges so as to enable those colleges to turn out teachers who are as well equipped for teaching in country districts as they are for teaching in urban areas. The bulk of those who go to training colleges to-day do undoubtedly come from London and other urban centres. It almost necessarily happens that the teaching profession is more largely recruited from urban localities, because the artisan and urban population undoubtedly are—if I may say so without offence to those whom I represent in this House—persons of greater mental alacrity, who have greater interest in the continuous and profitable employment of their children, and the result undoubtedly is that a larger

  601
  number of them do go into the teaching profession. One result of that is that they are trained very largely in urban methods of teaching, and they are not sufficiently qualified or given sufficient inducement to teach in the country districts those subjects which are becoming more and more important in the eyes of the country local education authorities. I refer to such subjects as domestic economy and gardening in the case of girls; and rural economy generally and especially such subjects as carpentry in the case of boys. All these subjects ought to be taught to a much greater extent in our training colleges than they are to-day, and I venture to say that if they are so taught they will do no harm to those ultimately employed in urban schools, whereas they will immensely increase the efficiency of those who have to be employed in our rural areas.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I should like to focus the main charges which have been levelled against the Government in this Debate. They are that the Board of Education has used the various powers which it possesses, partially and deliberately, in favour of religious teaching of a particular sort, and to depreciate and place at a disadvantage religious teaching of the sort of which the party in power mainly disapproves. This policy has found very few supporters on its own side. I think even the hon. Member (Mr. Goldstone) rather joined in the attack which came from this side of the House on the mode in which denominational teaching was treated by the Board. Its only defender was the hon. Member (Mr. King), and so far as I can make out he rested the case for impartiality on various unsuccessful efforts which he had made to induce the Board to do something or other which he felt at the bottom of his heart he ought not to ask the Board to do, and when he came down the stairs of the Board of Education a defeated and disappointed applicant he consoled himself by saying that, at any rate, there was one Department in the Government which could claim to be totally and entirely impartial. We do not admit that the Board of Education is impartial. We say that it has shown what I may describe as gross partiality as regards denominational religious teaching, and has shown it in three ways. We first say that the Board of Education has used public money given for general educational purposes to discourage religious teaching of a particular sort. The Board
  602
  of Education is given large sums for secondary education and for the training of teachers, and it is given them quite uncontrolled. The Board of Education has the very remarkable power of dealing with that money as it pleases, and it has chosen to deal with it so as to discourage the religious teaching given in schools and in training colleges which are associated with the Church of England. There can be no doubt about that. Grants are distinctly withheld from schools in which a particular religious teaching is given unless it is given as an exotic and as a favour by the special application of the parents.
  This treatment of public money, both in the matter of schools and in the matter of training colleges, the withholding of Grants from schools and training colleges which are not of the denominational colour which successive Presidents of the Board of Education particularly approve, is a gross misuse of public funds, and it is all the worse because local authorities are expressly forbidden to use the funds at their disposal to encourage any form of religious instruction or any formulary distinctive of any particular denomination or to make it a condition that any particular form of religious instruction shall or shall not be taught in the school or college. The Board of Education expressly limits this Grant to schools and colleges in which a particular form of religious instruction and no other is the normal religious instruction of the school or college, and there we say the Board uses public money to advance particular religious tendencies, and it uses or misuses judicial powers for the same purpose. What are the powers which the Board exercises as Charity Commissioners and as Endowed School Commissioners? These powers are strictly judicial. The powers of the Charity Commissioners were the powers of the Court of Equity, and the powers of the Court of Equity were limited to ensuring that the objects of the trust were carried out, and that the persons to whom the carrying of them out was entrusted were suitable persons to do it, and were discharging their trust properly. When these powers were transferred to the Charity Commissioners, the Charity Commissioners were strictly non-political. It is true they had a representative in this House to stand up for them against attacks which might be made, but he was not concerned in the administration of the Department, and everything was done to keep the work of the Charity Commis-

  603
  sioners as far removed as possible from party politics.
  When in 1899 the educational work of the Charity Commission was made transferable to the Board of Education anxieties were expressed lest the judicial duty should cease to be judicially exercised, and should be exercised in deference to the views of party politicians. I was a new Member at the time—I am wiser now—and I recollect being told that it was impossible to suppose that a Government Department entrusted with judicial powers would use them otherwise than judicially. How are they exercised at present? We know very well that part of the regulations for schools and training colleges, and the memorandum introductory to those regulations, intimates that if the schemes which the Board has power to make under these Acts do not admit of the school or training college adapting itself to the policy of the Board of Education, and consequently the school or college cannot receive the Grant which it would otherwise receive without conforming to the religious views of the Board of Education, the Board would be prepared to alter the scheme on the application of the authorities. That really is a power which ought to be exercised judicially, but which is exercised not judicially, but in favour of the particular sort of religious instruction which is not the religious instruction contemplated by the founders of the trust. We maintain that the exercise of judicial functions in that way is a misuse of them, and that is the second charge which we bring against the Board of Education, that it has used judicial functions in favour of party purposes and denominational aims.
  Lastly, we contend that the administrative powers of the Board of Education have not been exercised fairly as between one denomination and another. We know very well the history of the Swansea case. We know the scathing rebuke which the Court of Appeal administered to the Board of Education, and the criticisms which the House of Lords passed upon its action, but we still, in spite of all this, have admitted breaches of the law going on, connived at by the Board of Education—breaches of the law directed to the deliberate starvation of denominational schools. What has happened1! The local authorities are bound, under the Education Act of 1902, to maintain and keep efficient all schools within their area. Here are a number of
  604
  schools, admittedly efficient, which the local authority declines to maintain on the same level as the others. The Board of Education, with the Swansea case staring them in the face, neglects to attend to the repeated appeals made by the managers of these schools to have justice done to them, and to have the salaries of their teachers put on the same footing as the salaries of the teachers in the council schools. What excuse has the Board of Education? The powers which it possesses are ample. If the local authority declines to do its duty the Board of Education can remind it, more or less forcibly, by correspondence, that it must keep the schools, on the same footing, and if it persists in declining to do so the President of the Board can always have recourse to the Defaulting Authorities Act. What is the plain course open to them? To inquire into the salaries of the two sorts of teachers, and to ascertain whether the teachers in the voluntary schools are of a quality to justify the salary which the teachers in the other schools are enjoying, and there is no question, so far as I know, that they are entitled to the same scale of salary. At any rate the President has simply to inquire whether the teachers in the different schools are placed on the same footing, and, if not, whether there is any reason why they should not be placed on the same footing. The schools are equally efficient, but the salaries are different. If the President of the Board finds that there is no justification for the difference in the salaries he can simply tell the local authority that, unless they raise the salaries, he will pay the salaries and deduct the money from the Parliamentary Grant, which would otherwise go to the local education authorities. The process is perfectly simple. The threat of it is usually effective, and it leaves the Board without the smallest excuse for performing what every Court, from the Divisional Court to the highest Court in the land, has declared to be the plain duty of the Board under such circumstances as have been brought before it time after time, month after month, and week after week for months past, before and since the President entered upon the office which he now holds.
  That is, we maintain, a gross breach of administrative duty on the part of the Board. We say that the Board has misused public money in order to show partiality to one class of religious teaching as against another. We say that it has misused judicial powers to the same ends, and

  605
  that it has misused administrative powers to the same ends, and it is idle to hope that we can ever be induced to accept any Hill which is said to be of a conciliatory character, and to place the two sorts of religious teaching on the level which they ought to occupy where there, are two great parties in the country, each desirous of having a different type of religious instruction, until we are satisfied that the measure passed by this House will be fairly administered by the Board in the sense and with the intention with which it was passed by this House. It is an unfortunate thing that a Government Department should acquire a reputation for unfairness. The reputation of a Government Department is not a matter which concerns one party only. It concerns us all. There can be no doubt what is the present feeling as regards the administrative and the judicial action of the Board of Education. It has been expressed, not only by us on this side of the House but it has found expression in the highest Courts of the land, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman, who is now entering on his office, no doubt finding difficulties laid up for him by his predecessor, to endeavour to restore the reputation of the Department over which he now presides, and to enable us to feel that measures which are passed with the intention that they should be fairly administered by both parties will be so administered.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): During the Debate this afternoon it was somewhat entertaining to me to listen to the charges of unfairness brought against the present Government, when I remembered the Bill which was introduced by the Unionist Government in 1902. If ever the policy of a Government was unfair, it seemed to us, then sitting on the Opposition side of the House, that the policy of the then Government was not only unfair, but wholly unwarranted. I think I shall be able this afternoon to, at any rate, get some credit even from my political opponents for endeavouring to hold the balance as fairly as if can be held by a Minister having charge of a great national interest. Before I come to the charges which have been levelled against my Department to-night, perhaps I may be able to dispose of two questions which have been raised, and which have nothing to do with those charges. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division of Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst)
  606
  dealt with the importance of changing our curriculum in the training colleges, so that teachers might be turned out certificated and better fitted to teach agricultural subjects in agricultural communities. There is no lack of elasticity in our curriculum, and it was only, I think, a fortnight ago I met a deputation of presidents and representatives of the training colleges. I pointed out to them the importance of endeavouring to adapt the teaching in their training colleges in accordance with, the requirements of the districts in which probably teachers might eventually find places. I pointed out to them that they had plenty of elasticity for the selection of those subjects, and I pointed out to them also that the Board of Education did not desire the training colleges to teach every particular subject thoroughly, but that whilst we wanted, of course, a thorough general groundwork of knowledge on the main questions taught in schools, we were quite prepared to encourage specialisation on other subjects during the last few months of the life of a teacher in a training college.
  A question was raised also by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division, which is very important, in connection with the supply and demand of teachers. He appealed to mo to carry out what is an almost impossible task, and that is, to accurately adjust the balance between supply and demand. He admitted that in London there might be an over-supply, and yet in the county districts there might be an under-supply, and, while he dwelt upon the importance of teachers becoming certificated, he at the same time advocated a large number of uncertificated teachers. I am watching as closely as I can the statistics in connection with the supply of teachers, and I am sorry to admit that the figures show a diminishing number of candidates coming forward. Our estimate of the number of candidates who would be pupils for the preparatory classes and for bursaries last year was 10,738. This year our estimate is 8,164. It is very difficult to say why more young people are not coming forward as teachers, but, at any rate, one fact is certain, and that is that teachers are being drawn from a much larger area than heretofore. A few years ago it seemed to be only the sons and daughters of schoolmasters who were coming forward. Now we feel that the area has been considerably extended. The Board of Education are not only watching this matter very carefully and making inquiries

  607
  into the subject, but they are doing something which, I think, will help to secure for teachers greater certainty of occupation. One reason why young people have not come forward is the fact that they have felt they had not a career before them after they were trained. There was no certainty of employment, and no certainty of a good career if they entered the profession. The last figures available showing the number of teachers who found occupation relates to the year ending July, 1910. In that year of the 5,479 teachers who left the training colleges all, except 721, had found occupation in January, 1911. How many of these 721 have since found places we do not know. We really do not know the reason why a few of them have not entered the teaching profession. Possibly some of the young girls, instead of entering the teaching profession, may have married or taken to other work. There is great irregularity as to the age of teachers in leaving the profession. There is also some irregularity in what I may call the marriage market. Female teachers, after marrying as a rule, leave the profession. It is very difficult to anticipate these irregularities.
  I have already since I have been President of the Board of Education met to some extent the recommendation which the hon. Member for the Wilton Division put forward, namely, that teachers should be allowed to leave the training colleges more frequently than they have in the past in order to take up their work. I have arranged that in future teachers shall be able to leave their training colleges twice a year instead of once a year as heretofore. I believe that will help to make the supply more readily meet the demand. It may be that an increase of salaries is the one thing necessary in order to induce more candidates to come forward. The hon. Member seems to regard the Treasury as a source to which the ratepayers may go in order to procure relief. Well, the Treasury represent the public just as much as the ratepayers' representative, and the money really comes out of the people's pockets, although sometimes they do not realise it when it comes from the Treasury. We have to look after the interests of the Treasury just as much as the representatives of the local education authorities have to look after the interests of the ratepayers. But this matter is not one so much for the Treasury as for the representatives in the
  608
  various local education authorities. If they think increased salaries are going to make the profession, more popular, and enable the supply to meet the demand, I think it behoves them to pay a little more for salaries than they have hitherto done. I am hopeful that in a very short time I shall be able to announce some further amount given towards the pensions of the teachers. At the present time teachers receive, it seems to me, rather an inadequate pension, and I am anxious that the amount should be somewhat enlarged. In that way I hope we shall still further popularise the service.
  I should like now to allude to the various charges which have been made against us in connection with what is called the Swansea case. It is alleged that I have delayed in placing pressure upon the local education authorities to bring them within the four corners of the law. The complaint has also been made that large costs have been incurred by the managers, and that I have not met them in a fair manner after they have been put to considerable expense in connection with a process of law. I do not propose to go over the subject-matter of the Swansea case. That has been frequently discussed in this House in previous Sessions. Perhaps all I need say is that in the judgment of my predecessor at the Board of Education, and in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown whom he consulted, this was a case of such importance as to justify them in taking the view that the law should be made quite clear. My right hon. Friend therefore took the Swansea case from the Divisional Court to the Appeal Court, and then to the House of Lords. It is perfectly true that the House of Lords decided against the Government, but hon. and learned Members this afternoon on the other side of the House hare admitted that this was a very important decision. The hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) admitted in his speech that the law had to be made clear some time or other, and he said he was grateful, or words to that effect, that the law had now been made perfectly clear on that particular point.
  As to the question whether we should indemnify the managers for all their costs, I have been looking into the matter since I received an appeal from the managers that the Government should refund them those costs, which I may call the difference of the costs as between solicitor and clients and the taxed costs given against the Government in the

  609
  House of Lords. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the costs of the inquiry."] Yes, the costs of the inquiry also. I do not know what the costs of the inquiry were, but I cannot imagine that the managers' costs were very great in the court of inquiry. The Government costs were £250 in the court of inquiry. In the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords we have had to pay not only our own costs but the taxed costs of the managers of the voluntary schools. The total sum to be found was just £3,000. Of that amount about £1,200 are taxed costs, which have gone to the managers who brought this case against the Government. Therefore it seems to me that the amount out of pocket which the managers in the Swansea case have had to find cannot be a very large sum. In writing to me they ask for upwards of £2,000. But as our costs came to £1,800 and their taxed costs, which were paid, came to £1,200, it does not seem to me that their claim for the remainder ought to amount to more than about £600. Still, having regard to the whole facts of the case, and having looked into it to the best of my ability, I had to come to the conclusion with the if Treasury that no case could be made out for a further contribution to the litigants in that particular case.
  The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Anson) referred to what he termed the illegality that has occurred. He has a right, as the Noble Lord the other Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) has, to his opinion as to whether an illegal action has been taken by certain authorities in Wales or not. But I am informed that the question of whether these authorities have committed an illegal act or not is by no means settled, and that it is not for me on these acts to say that any actual illegality has been committed. I am not prepared to admit what were the motives which actuated the authorities in the differentiation which has taken place nor to admit that there has been any illegality. The question how far these cases which have been referred to in Wales are on all fours with the Swansea case, and how far the decision of the House of Lords applies to them, is, of course, a legal one. If in these other cases there is ascertained to be any breach of the law, the Government have not the slightest intention of evading the consequences or of conniving at a continuance of that breach, and we are just as anxious as any hon. Member on the
  610
  other side of the House to respect the law and carry it out and see that justice is done under the law. Some local education authorities in Wales have come to the conclusion, having regard to the Swansea case, that they ought to modify the rates hitherto paid to teachers in voluntary schools, and already, I am glad to say, are taking steps to remove the grievances of the teachers who have been affected by their previous practice. I have every reason to believe that the example which has been set by several of these authorities will be followed by others, and that the grievances of the teachers will be speedily removed. In that event, of course, no question in connection with the law will arise. There will be no necessity for me to hold an inquiry or to take any further legal action.
  The whole question between the Government and my critics seems to resolve itself into this, whether there has been undue delay in regard to effectively remedying the position, and whether I ought to have taken a different course from that which I have taken. I have admitted in reply to a question put to me in this House that my attention was not called to this matter until 15th December last, just the day before Parliament rose. I wrote to the legal representative of the Board of Education who, I am sorry to say, is no longer in the service of the Board, and I think that perhaps the best thing I can do is to read to the House what he says:—
  "For some long time after the delivery of the Swansea judgment we were fully occupied in endeavours to obtain a settlement of that case by payment from the Swansea Council to the managers. We did finally obtain a settlement on these lines."
  That was on 31st July.
  "So long as this question was in the balance it appeared desirable not to cause irritation by dealing with the complaints which we were receiving from Llansamlet."
  That was on 31st May.
  "Bridgend, Tondu,"
  which were on 9th June,
  "Loughor,"
  21st June,
  "and Caerphilly,"
  which was on 21st June.
  "As soon as it became apparent that the complaints were coming in systematically we took the course of banking them up in order to deal with complaints as a whole."
  Then there were some additional complaints from Cardigan and other places in September and October.
  "This and the delay caused in Swansea delayed the matter until the commencement of the Parliamentary recess."

  611
  When Parliament rose the matter was not gone into. It required a conference between the Minister of Education and the legal officer. Then he goes on to say:—
  "It was impossible for you to deal with the matter in the first weeks of your office, especially as you were hampered by the departure of Sir Robert Morant and myself."
  They left on 28th November and 1st December.
  "I do not think that anyone can reasonably say that any harm has been done by the delay. It would have been impossible, to deal with each complaint separately. It was necessary to collate the papers to see how far there was some element or principle of law common to the whole number. If we dealt with each separately the result would have been extraordinary irritation of feeling and difficulty."
  I find that without my knowledge his successor at the Board of Education on 8th December took up this matter, and probably within a day or two of the date on which this question was put to me in the House of Commons, and my attention was called to it, I should have received, in the ordinary course, official notice. On 5th February I directed that letters should be sent to these various authorities containing managers' lettters, so that I should ascertain from them what course the local education authorities intended to pursue. In the case of Merthyr Tydvil, which has been mentioned, I understand that they have decided to discontinue the differentiation, and in the case of Abertillery and of Aberdare they have also decided to discontinue differentiation. All those three authorities, under the Act of 1902, are in the county of Glamorgan, which is the county about which moat has been said this afternoon. I am satisfied, from communications received yesterday from the education committee of Glamorganshire, that each case is now being inquired into on its merits, and there is no intention to differentiate on denominational grounds. I understand that with regard to two of the schools under that authority arrangements have already been made to pay salaries to the teachers on the provided-school scale, and that these matters will all be submitted by the education committee to the county council for confirmation on the 14th of this month.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: When was this decision given?
  Mr. PEASE: On the Monday of this week, and I received a communication yesterday, that a satisfactory arrangement would be made by the county council on the 14th of this month. I am also hopeful in the other case to which attention has
  612
  been directed in the interests of the teachers, that their salaries will be brought up to the same scale, and that there will be no differentiation between one class of teacher and another. And especially on such grounds as have been suggested by the Noble Lord, grounds of religious and political differences. If there is differentiation it ought to be on the merits of the case quite apart from considerations of such a character. The other charges against me are in connection with the regulations for secondary schools. It is better that I should refer the House to the purticular regulation five, about which complaint has been made this afternoon. It states that no catechism or formulary distinctive of any religious denomination may be taught in the school except as provided by this Article, and that if the instrument under which the school is governed requires, or does not require, the giving in the school of religious instruction of any particular denomination, the governing body may provide such instruction for any pupil at the request of the parent or guardian of the pupil; then there is provision for regulations by the governing body, and the last Sub-section says that such instruction must be provided for out of funds other than Grants made by the Board of Education or a local authority. These regulations were imposed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. McKenna) when he was at the Board of Education, and they were to enable an additional Grant to be given to secondary schools exceeding the lower Grant of £2 10s., to which these particular regulations did not apply. But when the Grant was going to be increased from £2 10s. to £5, then it was proposed by the Government that this addition from public funds should not be given unless we secured religious liberty in these secondary schools.
  7.0 P.M.
  Denominational religion is still allowed to be taught in them. We are not undenominationalising them, as the Noble Lord has suggested. But what we are doing is that we are not allowing in the schools that are seeking for this higher Grant that denominational religion should be taught, unless it shall be taught at the request of the parents or guardians of the particular-children. We are anxious on educational grounds, especially for secondary schools, to avoid the evils that have arisen from the distribution of public money in the supporting of denominational education in the secondary school system. And

  613
  when additional money is forthcoming out of the public fund we believe it to be right that not only this money should be associated with public right, but also that it should be associated with public control. And in insisting upon one of these other regulations to which some Members of the Opposition take exception, we are insisting upon having among the governors a majority of the representatives of the authorities. We believe that while you have public money given it ought not to be spent merely in the interests of a particular denomination, but ought to be spent in the interests of the whole community, irrespective of all creeds and of the particular religious views which they may hold. It is for these reasons that we placed these regulations before Parliament in 1907. They were accepted then, and I am certainly not prepared at the present moment to modify them in any form. If any alteration is at any time to be made in any of them, I would say it could only be made in connection with a final settlement of the whole religious controversy. I am as anxious for a settlement of this religious question as any Member of this House. I have been impressed while I have been at the Board of Education by the extent to which this religious controversy is preventing educational progress. It is coming up constantly, as it has come up here to-day. It is prejudicial to educational progress. It decreases a great deal the zeal for education, and it prevents a great deal of that co-opertion between educational experts which would be of advantage to the country and to the children it is my duty to look after. In regard to Article 5, I do not think that there is really any hardship done. If there is a grievance all the parents have to do is to ask that their particular religion shall be taught to their children in the school. Surely, when they are asked to do this, their grievance cannot be anything like so great as it would be if this regulation were swept away, and those who objected to particular religious views should be called upon to contribute out of their own pockets for that teaching. With regard to Article 24, the large majority of the governors appointed by the public authority were only carrying out the old principle that those who pay the piper should also call the tune. One or two questions have been put to me in regard to other matters.
  614
  It has been asserted by the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Montague Barlow) that we have been unfair to Roman Catholics, and that we have interfered with charitable trusts. In connection with the charitable trusts I may say that on one occasion we declined to meet the wishes of the parties and to make the alterations of the trust which they asked for. We acted in our judicial capacity. They appealed to a Court of Law and a decision was given against us, and this very trust was changed so that one of these institutions might come under our regulations, and receive one of the Grants. In regard to the Church of England schools, I do not really think that a strong case has been made out. There has been no difficulty in meeting the regulations. I think four secondary schools out of something like 973 now receiving Government Grants, have found it necessary to alter the trusts under Article 5, and one of these, under the direction of the High Court, is the case to which I have just referred. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire moved for a Return showing in how many cases schools have had their trusts amended to meet the regulations. The returns show that there were 323 schools which had to have their trusts altered, and since that Return there have only been three others. But those schools had not to have their trusts altered to meet these particular regulations to which exception has been taken; they were altered to meet the regulations that the schools should throw open a certain number of their places to the public. From 10 per cent, to 25 per cent., according to the various circumstances and merits of each case, of free places have to be found in the secondary schools before we allow them to obtain the Grants which they require.
  There is only one case where all the scholars were compelled to be taught denominational religion, and in that case the Conscience Clause had to be inserted. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford University, and the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, thought that I had exercised my powers almost illegally, and certainly partially, in my judicial capacity. If I have exercised my powers in that way I have only followed the example of my predecessors in the Opposition. In 1902, when the Education Act was passed, the Conscience Clause was inserted to protect the public from injustice at the hands of local educational authorities, who were looking after the

  615
  interests of the ratepayers. The late Conservative Government thought it necessary to amend these trusts just in the same way as I have done, in order to introduce a Conscience Clause, so that the public shall be protected in connection with Grants paid out of the public funds. Therefore, so far as altering the trusts has been concerned, I feel that I have only followed their example. They did it in order to secure the removal of what they believed to be a religious disability. I again have altered them, judicially exercising my powers to the best of my ability, fairly between one denomination and another, between one person and another, in the interests of the public, in the interests of conscience, and in the interest of a religious liberty. So long as I am at the Board of Education I desire to use my powers judicially and fairly between all sections of the community. I believe that these regulations in operation are really fair to the community, that they protect the religious views of all classes of the community, while they do not favour in any particular direction any particular denominational view or creed which any individual may happen to possess.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I am profoundly disappointed at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He has echoed a very familiar cry, a very worn platitude in these Debates, that there is no higher interest that that of education in this country; but I would submit to him that there are still higher interests than even those of education, and they are the interests of justice and fair play. The right hon. Gentleman, who I admit in this matter has been better than his predecessor, has dealt briefly with the Swansea case. I have studied that case from the beginning—from the time when the inquiry was made by Mr. Justice Hamilton and throughout the decisions of the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords. I do not believe that anybody thinks—for it is a perfectly clear case—that there is a single difference of opinion on this subject. No fair-minded man I have ever heard speak upon it on its merits, has ever questioned that this discriminating against poor teachers in voluntary schools, giving lower salaries in provided schools, is an act of shabbiness and meanness which at once ought to be checked.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: It was done before 1902.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: Let me remind the Committee what it has cost this Gentleman, and the managers of the Swansea school, owing to the action of the Education Committee and the county council. They have been put to great expense; they have had to pay £2,000 out of their own pockets. Before that they had spent £24,000—they and their friends—in improving the schools according to the requirements of the Education Department. Why should they find this £2,000? Why should they be fined for making clear to the Department what everybody saw clearly, namely, the construction of the Act of 1902. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that this was a test case, and that the law must be made clear; and he actually expressed his gratitude for the efforts of the parties in getting the law made clear. There have been cases such as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford can remember under the Budget, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met with a difficulty in the construction of the law, and in which he has admitted that there should be a test case, the Treasury bearing the costs of that test case. What is the case here? It is precisely on all fours. It is a test case in order to clear up this matter, so that there shall be no possible doubt. It is a case in which the Government have expressed their gratitude, and a case in which the law has been made abundantly clear for all time. Having done the State that service of making the law clear, why should the managers of this school be put to the immense cost of helping the Government to understand the law? Was there ever a clearer case for indemnity to be given, not merely for expenses out of pocket, but for what it must be admitted is a reasonable charge. It is absolutely futile, as anybody who knows the circumstances will admit, for a humble party to go against the Law Officers of the Crown unless he is well advised and well assisted by eminent and distinguished counsel. These gentlemen have helped the country and the Government to understand the law, and the Government express their gratitude to them for that service rendered to them by penalising them with a fine of £2,000. I think that is really, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said last night, a hard thing. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that it was a hard thing, and let him go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and point out that iris a hard and an unjust thing. Let him point out to the Chancellor of the

  617
  Exchequer that there have been several cases in which the Government have paid the costs in similar circumstances, and let him do what is just and honourable by paying this gentleman, with his friends, his expenses. This decision, which put this matter beyond all possible doubt, was delivered in the House of Lords on 11th April of last year, but the right hon. Gentleman says that since that decision was given there is still a doubt in his mind as to what the motives of the people in Wales were for discriminating, and for nearly a year, in the case of the voluntary school teachers in Wales. May I remind him that he cannot have read the correspondence which must have passed through his office, and of which I take the sample case of Aberystwith. There I find that a Mr. Jenkin James, as secretary, informed the managers:—
  "The education committee would be in a better position to consider the application (of the elementary teachers) if all religious instruction of a sectarian or denominational character were excluded from the curriculum of the schools. I am to ask whether the managers are able to give any assurance on this point."
  That means that the local education authority are declining to pay salaries to the voluntary school teachers on the ground that they are doing what it is their duty to do, namely, to teach denominational religion.
  Mr. PEASE: The Board have never heard from the authority in regard to the Aberystwith case. The letter quoted did not come to us at all.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: It is present to the right hon. Gentleman's mind now, and I want to ask him the question which was put to him by the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood). Nine or ten months have elapsed during which this grievance has arisen and been complained of. So far as the right hon. Gentleman himself is concerned he came rather late on the scene. His business is not to defend himself; his business is to defend his Department. As he has been asked about this matter already in this Debate and has not given an answer, I may take it that the case is undefended by him in this respect, namely, that for nine months, and in one case for nearly twelve months, these questions were most distinctly raised in Wales, and have been brought to the attention of his Department, and that it is not until the month of February that any redress was given. I have here a letter as to the Aberystwith case addressed to the secre-
  618
  tary of the Board of Education, so that the right hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. It is dated 13th October, 1911 (the date is in pencil), and it is from the managers to the Secretary of the Board of Education.
  Mr. PEASE: One was a Glamorgan case, and I admit there were five cases from Glamorganshire and five from Cardiganshire, of which I suppose Aberystwith is One.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: You said you never heard of it.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: The case I was making to the Committee was that on the 13th October the Board of Education were in actual communication with the managers of the Aberystwith school, who were refusing, as I have shown by the quotation I have given, to grant what is just and legal, and what all the Courts had decided to be just and legal, to the teachers of those schools on the ground that they are performing their duty, namely, teaching denominational religion. What excuse is there for the right, hon. Gentleman or the Department, and especially the Department, that ever since April last, when this case arose, and when on the 13th October it was distinctly brought to the attention of the Department, that it is not to this day that this matter is redressed. I cannot use any other word than that a great Government Department are allowing this mean, shabby, bigotry to poor people who, doing their duty according to the law, have a perfect right to the protection which every Englishman should have, and especially to the protection of a great Department of the Government, to enforce the law which is the law of the land. It is almost pitiable to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he was banking up these complaints. I do not mean that he was, but that the Department was banking up the complaints that these people in Wales were not receiving the salaries they were entitled to by law. Why should they be banked up? They ought to have been dealt with at once, the very moment that the judgment in this case, which has put the taxpayer to such an immense cost, was delivered in April, and which made the thing clear to everybody who wanted to 'understand the matter. The very moment that judgment was delivered every single application and complaint should have been, dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman. The remedy was easy. Why was it not taken?

  619
  There is another question which was put in specific form to the right hon. Gentleman, and which has not yet been answered. It is this: now that the law has been made clear to the Department, and now that the grievance of the school teacher is undoubted, is the right hon. Gentleman, in addition to rectifying the matter in the future, going to pay the arrears of the past? That is a plain question which was put very clearly and temperately by my hon. Friend behind me. We have had no answer, and I think we ought from the Department before this Debate closes. I pass from that matter, which, I must say, reflects more profound discredit on a Government Department than almost any other I can remember. I come to a matter which I think is very important also, because it is in connection with a subject of very great controversy in which we are engaged at present—namely, as to the right of these Government Departments, and as to their fitness to exercise judicial functions. What has happened with regard to these regulations? The Act of 1902 laid down in perfectly clear terms that there was to be no discrimination in educational matters and as regards amounts that are given for educational purposes because of denominational differences. The right hon. Gentleman will remember Section 4 of the Act of 1902. In 1907 the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman issued a number of regulations with regard to secondary schools which quite gradually, but very largely would undenominationalise Church of England training school colleges. I do not dispute that those regulations were within the power of the Education Office to issue, but they were bound, in issuing them, to have regard to Section 4 of the Act of 1902, which enacted:—
  "A council in the application of money under this Part of this Act shall not require that any particular form of religious instruction or worship or any religious catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall or shall not be taught used or practised in any school. …"
  The effect of those regulations was to make it impossible for a Church of England secondary school or training college which desired a Grant by Regulation 23 to obtain that Grant. In other words, in order to obtain the Grant under that regulation the Church of England schools had to dispense with their requirement of Church of England teachers. I say that that is to
  620
  undenominationalise those colleges, and I do not think it is in dispute. At any rate, when those regulations were made it became in the highest degree important that any function which the Education Board had to exercise under them, and which was a judicial function, should be exercised in the most judicial spirit. What did they do? There was a number of Church of England colleges which could not, by reason of their trust deeds, conform to those regulations, and which could not, therefore, have the Grant. The Board of Education, who are themselves a judicial authority in this matter, representing the Charity Commissioners, in a memorandum to those colleges, suggested that they should, if at the time unable, by reason of their trust deeds, to conform with the regulations, to submit a scheme to the Board of Education, and that the Board of Education would be prepared to assist them in passing it. In other words, the judicial authority, bound to consider whether the scheme is or is not fitting and in conformity with the trust actually suggests to one of the parties, in order to earn a Grant, that the Board itself, the judicial authority, will assist in the formation of a scheme and promote it. Was anything more improper ever heard of? If one of the justices sitting on a case in petty sessions were to intimate to a party before a case was heard that he was prepared favourably to consider that case, why, of course, the decision of the justice would be absolutely invalid, and he would be very severely censured for making such a suggestion. Here is the Board of Education, the judicial authority, suggesting to the trustees that if they offer a scheme the Board of Education, the judicial authority, will help them in doing so. I submit that that is a grossly improper thing in itself, and no defence at all has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. The matter was put quite clearly by one of my hon. Friends, and I am really surprised that no attempt has been made to justify what seems to me to be a most irregular and injudicial proceeding, and one which, standing alone, would seem very largely to decide the question whether in these controversial matters the Board of Education is fit to be a judicial authority at all. That is really the case that has been made. I do not desire to press hardly upon the right hon. Gentleman; I quite recognise that he came rather late on the scene. But he has been a long time a Member of the House and knows its

  621
  traditions; therefore, I ask him that in future this shabby conduct on the part of local authorities shall be decisively and peremptorily stopped, and that we shall have no more instances to debate in which a Government Department shows any lack of zeal in putting down what is really mere bigotry.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I have listened to this Debate with the greatest possible interest, and am extremely sorry at the turn it has taken. Naturally, when one heard the right hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. A. Lyttelton) speaking of the action of local authorities in differentiating salaries as being prompted by shabby bigotry, one immediately asked whether this policy of mean and shabby bigotry was being pursued from 1902 to 1905. I am not sure whether that is so—
  Sir W. ANSON: If the hon. Member is asking whether between 1902 and 1905 the Board of Education either discriminated or connived at discrimination by local authorities as between voluntary and provided schools, I assure him that the Board of Education did nothing of the sort on its on account, and would have emphatically corrected and stopped any such discrimination by local authorities.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Then I must assume that this differentiation in the salaries of teachers in provided and non-provided schools really began after 1906. If that is the case, and I accept the statement of the hon. Member as being correct, I exonerate the party opposite at once. It may be that they were not in any way responsible for the mean and shabby bigotry. But I want to talk about a subject which I think has more to do with the education of the children, especially in poor neighbourhoods. I am afraid that when the religious controversy enters into the educational problem the children are absolutely forgotten, and we really think of creeds rather than of the efficiency of the education given to the children of the poor. Hon. Members opposite may have proved their case of partiality in certain respects, and I wish to refer to a case where I shall be obliged to suggest partiality in the administration of another part of the Department's business. The matter concerns the district of Stoke-on-Trent, which I represent in this House. For some reason or another it has been refused a Grant under the Necessitous School Areas Act, and I am particularly anxious to know the reason. I have not
  622
  been supplied with the whole of the data, and I wish to be sure as to the conditions under which these necessitous school Grants are given. I understand that one condition is that there shall be a certain proportion of children attending the elementary schools according to the population of the locality; and, secondly, that there must be a low rateable value in proportion to the population. Having seen the whole of the figures for Stoke-on-Trent, I do not believe there is any borough in the whole country with an equal population that has a lower rateable value, and I understand that it stands well in the list in regard to the number of poor children attending the elementary schools in proportion to its population. It is only necessary for a visitor to go to Hanley or Burslem and see the mile upon mile of potters' and miners' cottages to realise that it is probably one of the lowest rateable districts in the whole country. If there is any district that ought to be assisted I should imagine that this was really one of the first. I understand that another of the conditions required is that there must be already a rate of 1s. 6d. in the £ levied for educational purposes.
  Taking those conditions as being necessary to justify the education committee of Stoke-on-Trent in applying for this Grant, I believe they are well within the terms of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations of the Board. It has been suggested that there is something in the Provisional Order under which Stoke-on-Trent was constituted a county borough two or three years ago which precludes the Board from giving a Grant to Stoke in the way that it is given to other areas. Having seen the correspondence upon this subject between the Board of Education and the Education Committee, I take it that that is the final reason, because they call attention to the fact that Article 48 of the Provisional Order precludes them from making a Grant. It is therefore necessary for me—because, as the representative of the locality, I assisted in meeting the several interests—to read the Article, to give an explanation of why it was placed in the Order, and to show that it has nothing to do with the subject and does not in any way justify the Board in its refusal to assist the Committee. Article 48 of the Provisional Order of 1908 is as follows:—
  "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Order, the borough of Burslem and the borough of Longton shall continue to be separate areas for the purpose of special Grants as defined by the Board of Education, and the council of the borough shall be entitled to

  623
  receive the payment of and shall then allocate to such areas respectively any such Grants which after the commencement of this Order may be made to or in respect of the same."
  It will be seen that that refers to two of the boroughs that were included in the county scheme. They already received Grants, and what they were afraid of was that, unless some special protection was given to them in this Order, the moment they joined with the rest of the boroughs in accordance with the wishes of the Government themselves, they might be precluded from the benefit of the Grants. I expect their fear was that, either in reference to population or the proportion of children attending the schools or rateable value, the position might be altered, and they might be deprived of the Grant. It so happens, however, that, take these boroughs how you will, either separately, as they used to be, or collectively, or strike out the boroughs which previously had the Grant and deal only with the remaining portions, on either of the grounds they are entitled to the Grant just the same as any other part of the country. Yet the Grant is refused because of this Order. There is nothing in the Order to prevent the Board of Education from giving the Grant to the other part of the locality. The Order does not say that no other district is to receive the Grant, or that the ordinary law applying to other poor communities in educational matters shall be suspended so far as this district is concerned. Nothing of the sort. I will not press the matter much to-night, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he finally decides the matter, to give it his special consideration and to see whether on all grounds we are not entitled to receive equal treatment with anybody else. We do not ask for better treatment, though on the ground of the poverty of the neighbourhood, special treatment might be justified. We are not appealing for that. All we ask is that Stoke-upon-Trent should be treated just the same as anywhere else, and that this Order should not be used for the purpose of depriving us of what we should be entitled to receive had that Order never been passed. The reason the education committee is so pressing upon the subject just now is—and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham will be able to confirm this—that the scale of teachers' salaries is very low. I am bound to confess that it is lower than it ought to be, because of the poverty of the district. Attempts have been made at the present
  624
  —I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows—perhaps he will not until the strike actually occurs, and then it may be too late—that there are threats already to refuse to teach unless salaries are taken into account. The neighbourhood, however, is so poor that it is utterly impossible for us to enter into expenditure to raise the teachers salaries to the scale they ought to be, unless the Board of Education will come forward and assist us in the same way that the Board assists other people. I hope before these Estimates are finally settled that the right hon. Gentleman will give his personal attention to the matter. If he does I feel certain we shall get hotter treatment than we are getting at the hands of the permanent officials of the Department.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I desire to say a few words of comment upon the remarkable speech which we have heard from the President of the Board of Education. I make no apology to the Committee for returning, in spite of the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, to the religious aspect of education. Of all the cant that passes current in the world there is no cant more thoroughly contemptible than to pretend that religion is not the most important aspect of education. How can anyone who is gifted with a mind believe, on the one hand that religion is true, and on the other that it is unimportant? How can anyone talk about the interests of children, as the hon. Member for Stoke did, and at the same time deprecate the discussion of the religious education of children? What can be of more importance, or even remotely of such importance, as the religious instruction of children so far as the children are concerned? I really think the Committee might deprecate the reiteration of this shallowest of dogmas, this deprecation of the discussion of religious education. The right hon. Gentleman said a good deal about the treatment of the complaints made about the regulations in connection with secondary schools. What he said on that matter really sums itself up in this: that the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have put undenominational teaching, so far as they can, in a position of privilege in the secondary schools. They have not, he said, absolutely excluded denominational teaching, but they have put it in a subordinate position.
  What is so amazing is that they do not see that it is inconsistent with the principles of religious equality to deal thus

  625
  with schools whose trusts are of a denominational character. They cannot understand that it is an outrage on the conscience and the religious liberty of everyone who prefers a denominational system to an undenominational system that by the powers of the Government the denominational system should be subordinated to the undenominational system. If it were a question between Protestant and Roman Catholic the right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty in seeing how extraordinarily unfair it would be to take Roman Catholic schools and to put Protestant teaching into a position of advantage and Roman Catholic teaching in a position of subordination. Why is it he is not able to understand that we reject undenominational teaching; and that it is not our religion at all; and that there is precisely the same difference to us between denominational and undenominational teaching as between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism? What right has he to make his view, or the views of his supporters the subject by which our religious convictions are to be judged? He talks about public money being given to give religious teaching that is not approved by the taxpayer. What right has he to give our money for the sort of religious teaching which is given by the undenominational system? How is it possible that he cannot see that you must hold the balance equal between the two systems? If the Government or the Education Department are to act fairly in the matter they must give no preference, whatever to the undenominational over the denominational system. We ask for equality. We will never be satisfied unless we get it. We shall keep the educational system in a perpetual disturbance until religious equality is granted.
  The right hon. Gentleman also dealt with some burning questions in relation to the Welsh schools and the Swansea Church school. My right hon. Friend has dealt so well with this that I will not deal with it at any length, but there were some things that struck me as odd in the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. I thought it surprising that he should spend so considerable a time arguing about the amount of costs when it appeared at the end of his observations that he was not prepared to pay any of them. It does not seem of importance whether the costs are £600 or £1,000 if the Government are not prepared to pay any of them. In his speech, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman adopted

  626
  an irrelevant disposition culminating in an illogical conclusion—an attitude I deprecate in Parliament. Amongst other things the right hon. Gentleman read a testimonial as to the good behaviour of himself and his predecessor, from, as I understood it, one of their subordinates. He read out his document with much, unction. This is a practice adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, when he has been pressed, has taken refuge behind Mr. Watson. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, following that example, takes refuge behind Mr. Sinister or some permanent official of the Department. It ought to be clearly understood that the duty of a permanent official is not to give a testimonial to his Parliamentary superior, however impressive as a guarantee of good behaviour that testimonial may be. It is for the Parliamentary head of a Government Department to be the head of that Department, and to take full responsibility for what is done. These lengthy documents, I think, had better be omitted from our Debates.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that during all these long months he had been banking up the complaints which we urged. A profane Friend who sits near to me suggests that the right hon. Gentleman was banking up the complaints because he wished to see them damned. That is an observation which I would not venture to make myself. But I want the Committee to consider that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education is a judicial authority. He is the judicial authority and judge who receives complaints. In this case he received a complaint of a breach of the law. He acknowledges it with a postcard, and then he lets it bank up. He waits for another, and another, and another. Then months afterwards he makes a judicial inquiry. Whatever that may be we do not know. He never explained. He did not tell us what channel he made it through, why it had to be confidential, or what it was about. He let the matter hang these months, the confidential inquiry having had so discouraging a result. Then I understand that on Monday last the right hon. Gentleman learnt that one of the education committees had come to a better state of mind. The right hon. Gentleman regards that as a satisfactory thing. So it is. But to whom does the credit belong for that amendment in the behaviour of that Welsh education committee? Why, of course, to hon. Friends on this side of

  627
  the House who called public attention in Parliament to the matter.
  The right hon. Gentleman as a judge has sunk to such a depth, and maintains such indifference to the considerations which ordinarily weigh with judicial authorities, that all he can do is to make inquiry of the authorities! He cannot even frighten the authorities as much as do hon. Members of the Opposition by asking questions. Surely if the result of questions is so much, why did not the right hon. Gentleman bring this education authority to its senses. The right hon. Gentleman might have found a way to bring pressure upon them during the long months in which he has been engaged in meditating on the exercise of his judicial function! The President of the Board of Education has done unintentionally one good thing. I do not think in future there will be a tendency to trust the Department with judicial functions. I hope when there is a better and a wiser majority in this House that we shall have an Act taking away judicial functions from the administrative Departments. They are not fitted for it. That does not alter the case we have to make that the Department is nominally a judicial authority. We protest against the Department taking no effective steps to vindicate the law, and against such a defence as we listened to a few minutes ago. I am convinced that there is not a Member of this House, even on the other side, who does not in his heart feel that this discussion has revealed a grave administrative scandal, one that reflects great discredit—not on the right hon. Gentleman who does not wish himself to act unjustly—but on the Department of which he is the head.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I do not desire to follow the Noble Lord in the points that he has raised in this discussion, and I shall not be guilty of impertinence in commenting upon the subjects which so far have engaged the attention of the Committee. I do desire to express my views that the time allowed and the opportunities open to Members of the House to discuss the real problems of education are all too small. I desire, very briefly, to take advantage of this opportunity to attempt to obtain some information as to educational problems generally, and to make some suggestions. I cannot help but contrast the treatment which the subject of education receives in this House and the treatment with which problems relating to the Army
  628
  receive, and properly receive. In the latter case, day after day is given to the most exhaustive Debates upon minor details. With regard to education, possibly this may be the only day in the Session that it will be possible to discuss what after all is a most important subject, perhaps the most important, that this House can discuss.
  May I say with regard to the Noble Lord's speech that I think there are many on this side of the House who would agree with his statement that religion is the most important thing to consider, but would dissent from the Noble Lord's conception of religion; who would not feel that in the apparently eternal quarrel which exists between different schools of religious belief the subject of religion in its real sense is a subject of debate at all. I turn to the subject of administrative problems that I desire very briefly to bring to the notice of the House. I wish first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on at least two steps that have been taken since he began his work as President of the Board. I congratulate him first upon the fact that at length an Order in Council has been issued constituting a Teachers' Registration Council. That is a matter which some of us think has been too long delayed. We look forward to the new scheme of registration as a great step forward in the consolidation of the profession and in the promotion of its efficiency. And the other matter upon which I desire to congratulate my right hon. Friend is the appointment of the Departmental Committee to inquire into the playgrounds attached to elementary schools. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the fullest possible scope to that inquiry, raising as it does the whole question of the outdoor life of elementary school children. I think such an inquiry, if carried out on wide and broad lines, will lead to many important reforms.
  8.0 P.M.
  There are many questions upon an occasion like this that, those interested in education in this House would require detailed information upon. We should like to know, for instance, what is the attitude of the Board and what progress has been made in the development of the policy of the Bill passed last Session, which is the Children's Employment Act. We should like to know how far the establishment of juvenile employment and Advisory Committees has been carried out, and what measure of success has attended the work of those Committees especially, as I

  629
  presume they are in close co-operation with the Board of Trade. Then, for my own part, I should like further information with regard to the attitude of the Board on the question of medical treatment of elementary school children. There are many of us who feel that medical inspection of children is almost useless until it has been made possible for the medical treatment of school children to be carried out at the schools and under the control of the authorities attached to the school. We should like to know what hope there is of adequate progress being made in that direction. Then I desire, for my part, to express the hope that the advent of the right hon. Gentleman to the Board will be marked by a new spirit of experiment in the matter of educational reform. It has been borne in upon me more and more that the curriculum of the elementary schools since the establishment of national elementary education has remained in a fixed and narrow groove. If there was anything that should have been experimental and adventurous in its working it should be our system of elementary education, and I desire to press very strongly this appeal for greater experiment and a greater spirit of adventure in connection with the curriculum in elementary schools.
  May I give, in a few words, two examples to my right hon. Friend of what I mean in justification of my criticisms of the curriculum of these elementary schools? Reading is taught in all our elementary schools, and no boy leaven the elementary schools unable to read, but is it not a notorious and a very remarkable fact that few boys leave the elementary schools who have been taught through reading to seek for those rich pastures of literature and to receive into their minds all the joy and inspiration and strength coming from love of noble literature? That is one example where the narrow curriculum working in narrow grooves has failed. I take another example. Some elementally teaching in art is now given in our elementary schools, but has that teaching of art in the elementary schools ever been related to the teaching of crafts and to the development of sound canons of taste and judgment in our national life; or is it, again, not notorious that the teaching of the elementary schools has entirely failed in having any real result in the great majority of cases? I am well aware that the Board has carried out some inquiry into art teaching in the elementary schools, and I should have been very glad indeed on an occasion like this to have some indication of the nature of
  630
  the results of this inquiry and the influence it is having upon the Board of Education.
  I pass now to matters connected with the secondary education. There has been, during the last few years, and we all rejoice at it, a great development in our system of secondary education, and certainly a far greater spirit of experiment has been shown in secondary education to that shown in so many cases in the world of elementary education. But the development of secondary education raises a question, to my mind, of the most vital importance. It raises the whole question of the relation between secondary education and elementary education. I should like to hear from the President what is the attitude of the Board as an inspiring force in all educational matters in respect of this relationship. I will give one instance of what I mean. I am one of those who do not think we ought to see as a permanent feature of our national life an inferior system of education. I trust we shall not see an inferior kind of elementary education for the children of the poor and an efficient kind of education for the children of the rich. Owing to the enormous development of secondary education that has taken place this question becomes of great importance. The Board, for instance, sanctions—I believe I am correct—with regard to secondary schools under their own control the admission of young children at the ages of nine or ten or even lower. Side by side with the secondary schools receiving those young children you have elementary schools sending a few chosen boys to the secondary schools at the ages of thirteen or fourteen. I am not criticising these matters, I am stating these facts, because it shows that the system in which one secondary school is receiving children at the age of eight and nine from the elementary schools, and a few boys of the age of thirteen or fourteen is a system in which the parts are not properly related one to the other. I submit that is a matter that should be discussed in this House, and I should be glad of any statement of policy on a matter of this kind. It is more important, because I think I am right in saying that the nation will not always allow an inferior system of education for the children of the poor. They will not allow overcrowded classrooms in elementary schools and small classes and a proper and a high standard in the secondary schools. It is too great a distinction in the method of educating different sections of the people to be elevated for ever and ever into a principle.

  631
  There were numerous discussions on questions in this House some time ago in respect to what is known as the Holmes' Circular. If the discussion of that circular led any Member of this House or of the general public to believe that Mr. Holmes was not a great educationist, and had not sincerely at heart the reform of elementary education, it would be a very great mistake, and one to be deeply deplored. Mr. Holmes has other claims upon the consideration of all interested in educational reform, and I should like to have some expression of opinion from the Board of Education respecting the suggestions contained in one of the greatest books upon education recently published—I refer to Mr. Holmes' book, "What Is and What Might Be." If I needed any justification for the criticisms I have ventured to make in repect of the curriculum of the elementary schools, I should have found that justification in Mr. Holmes' interesting pages, and I venture to say no one can read his book, with its picture of the mechanical methods with which we are still so content in so many thousands of our elementary schools, and consider, on the other hand, the possibility he unfolds to the nation by wiser and greater methods without being profoundly impressed with the great opportunities for reform that the President of the Board of Education possesses. There is a great example of what is possible in educational reform which is now the subject of study in many centres of learning. There is a school now being carried on in Rome which is being visited from all parts of the world. There is demonstrated what is possible by putting aside the mechanical methods so common in elementary schools in many countries, and substituting instead a method which draws forth the individuality in children and allows it to have full and natural play under healthy and natural conditions. I should be interested to know whether the Board of Education has inspected that school and has a report upon it, and what action the President intends to take in order that the advantages of that system may be demonstrated here in our own country. I must apologise to the Committee for having spoken so long. I hope I may be excused in view of the great importance of the subject and of the few opportunities we get to discuss it.
  And, it being Quarter-past Eight, and there being Private Business set down by
  632
  direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, fur-their proceeding was postponed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (LAMBETH BRIDGE) BILL.—(BY ORDER.)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. ESSEX: I beg leave to move as an Amendment to omit the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months,"
I do so in order to see whether we can elicit some further information from the promoters of this measure. This bridge is one of a secondary importance, but I think I am justified in calling the attention of the House to the scheme, because it is not altogether unconnected with the amenities of the building in which we are gathered together. This new bridge, whatever it may be like, will fix for many long years to come the view from the Terrace of this House, and will complete a splendid parallelogram. I take exception to this scheme, because I do not think it is possible to get a bridge worthy of the name for £240,000, which is the price estimated for this structure. That is the sum which has been laid down as adequate for this bridge, including all the expenses connected with the approaches thereto. I object to it because I do not feel easy about the gradient. The gradient of the present bridge is by no means an easy one, and I do not see how in view of the necessary head room this bridge will, upon the lines proposed in this Bill, possibly be other than a bridge with a very steep gradient. I am told that the gradient proposed by the London County Council will be as steep as that of South-wark Bridge. [An HON. MEMBER: "Steeper."] Well, I want to keep within the limits. Everybody knows that South-wark Bridge has been proved to be a failure by the very fact that its steepness prohibits much traffic, and that has been so fully recognised by the City fathers that it is not long since we had a proposal from them to entirely reconstruct that bridge also.
Somebody will probably say that there are difficulties in the way of making a bridge at this particular point unless the condition of a steep gradient is admitted.

633
I quite see the difficulty, but knowing, as we all do, how exceeding fortunate London is in regard to the staff of the county council permanent officials, which includes architects, engineers, and others, I cannot help feeling that if the plans had been of a more adequate nature and more of a truly imperial character, those officials might have been trusted to put down a bridge with a better gradient, and one in all respects worthy of the site on which they seek to erect this structure. No bridge within the area of London ought to be so narrow as this is proposed. It is altogether too narrow, not merely from the point of view of dignity, but also from the point of view of convenience. If you are only going to have a bridge of a width not much more than is necessary for the ever-increasing traffic of London needs, and which has to accommodate foot passengers, why not let it remain as it is at the present time. I lay it down as a maxim that we ought to permit no new London bridge to be erected which will not make full provision for the after-passage of tramcars across it, and this bridge can never permit that. The difficulty arises as to gradient. If in the near future you require anything in the way of an electrified system over this new bridge, as is now the case over Westminster Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge, you cannot have it under the present scheme, and your troubles will be greatly increased.
It has been said by the promoters of this Bill that the approaches and roads leading to Lambeth Bridge are unimportant and narrow, and that the bridge itself will be wider than any of those streets contributing traffic to it. That may be perfectly true as it applies at the present moment, but will London be content for long with the small amount of tram service we have at present into the centre of London? You have here now a splendid opportunity for the erection of a bridge and for the widening of some unimportant thoroughfares which will give an easy access to Westminster from the southern parts without congesting the traffic at those points where it is particularly heavy. Something ought to be done to relieve the miserable congestion of traffic just outside Vauxhall Station. The hon. Member who represents the division in which that junction is placed will be able to give the fullest figures pointing out how serious the deadlock is at that point. Then I wish to refer to the term of seven years which the pro-
634
moters propose to take for the completion of the bridge. I think, for a great Metropolitan improvement, that is a needlessly long time, and when you come here for powers to erect a bridge like this I do not think you need anything like that period. You may take powers to take over whatever property you want, and you may more rapidly make the improvements on the land concurrently with the construction of the work across the water. I feel that the time has come when we should deal with our London bridges, which are and must always be the great outstanding feature of beauty or ugliness, in London on a nobler scale. You cannot get a bridge worthy of London's river for £240,000, more especially when that figure includes approaches and the necessary widenings and gradients. If you exercise these powers of altering gradients on the land approaches you will be bound to place still more in a hole that delightful historic pile known as Lambeth Palace and Lambeth Church. Anybody familiar with that block of buildings will remember that at the present moment, without attempting to adjust the already steep approach to Lambeth Bridge, there is a downhill run from the foot of the bridge to the entrance to Lambeth Palace. If you lift the tramway level, the old palace will sink still lower, and to that extent will be placed at a still greater disadvantage.
There is this, however, to be said about it. We are spending, I believe, one and a-half millions in improving the westward side of the gardens of this Palace. The proposal is to carry a magnificent embankment right to the foot of Lambeth Bridge, and to make the whole place more worthy of the splendid buildings grouped thereabout. Will this £240,000 structure be a worthy terminal of that splendid scheme I should like to know. That is one of the objects I have in view in raising my demur. What have the Office of Works to say to this proposal? Do they consider it is an adequate finish to their great scheme? Personally, I should like the whole matter submitted for a little while longer to the people of London. Whether they stand on Westminster Bridge or on the Embankment on the other side, or on our own Terrace, or from whatever point they regard the great open space between Westminster and Lambeth, I should like them to consider whether the time has not come for us to take the whole of these questions under a broad comprehensive survey, and to make up our minds, instead of having a temporary metal arch spanning in rude

635
simplicity this river of ours, to have a bridge for which we shall not have to apologise to any intelligent stranger who may come and accept of our hospitality. There is no position in which a bridge can be put anywhere near this House of greater importance than this. I therefore very warmly urge upon this House, not the destruction of a fair and adequate proposal to bridge the Thames at Lambeth, which is so urgently necessary, but that we should address ourselves to this matter, and make ourselves and the public—even a Londoner cares more for his town than he is sometimes credited with doing-more familiar with this proposal; and then reassure the too faint hearts, as I fear, which preside over our destinies at Spring Gardens that London wants these things done well; does not approve of a niggardly cheeseparing policy in regard to them, or an unwillingness to treat them from a lofty conception of civic beauty and delight, as well as of mere convenience, and will not forgive anybody whose only regard is a paltry saving of the rates.
Mr. W. CROOKS: I rise to second the Amendment, and I wish to add my plea to that of the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat to the representatives of the county council opposite not at this hour of the day to attempt to belittle London. Everyone knows what an awful dismal failure Southwark Bridge is. Yet we are asked to sanction the building of a bridge at Lambeth with a gradient four inches worse than that of Southwark Bridge. There is no objection to spending the money, but one has a right to expect that hon. Gentlemen who stood up in this House and denounced the disfigurement that would accrue from the passing of the trams over Westminster Bridge would turn their eyes in the other direction and ask what sort of monstrosity it is proposed to put up there. Surely if a bridge is to be built at all, it should be something of which London could be proud and not ashamed. Unless the accommodation required can be given it would be better by far to save up a little more money till the council can afford to give the accommodation. The old bridge was condemned long ago, and it was a common observation, "You will have to forbid a cockroach going across or it will be coming down." The council has run a risk by allowing traffic over the bridge, but, if it is necessary to have a bridge, let us have a bridge and not a makeshift.
636
One never invites a friend to this great city without showing him the glories of the Houses of Parliament. Then one looks at the hospital, and we are never tired of belauding the glories of Lambeth Palace. Now hon. Gentlemen opposite are going to belittle the whole thing by sticking up an inadequate bridge. It may be said it is a beautiful bridge. We can easily get a beautiful toy, but we want something useful as well as beautiful. We do not want a makeshift merely to carry out the promises of hon. Gentlemen to do things better and cheaper. They may do them cheaper, but it would be cheap and nasty. I can imagine an intelligent Colonial going round this part of London where all the honour and glory of the British Empire is centred and saying, "I suppose this bridge must have been built a century ago, before London was like what it is now." "Oh, no," one would reply, "it is quite a modern bridge." Then he would say, "There must be modern lunacy about, or it would never have been done like this." I am anxious there should be better communication across the river, but if the bridge is not wanted thereat all pull the old one down and make a tunnel. Do not put up something of which we shall all be ashamed. I do not want to take any further part in this Debate except to vote against the Bill. There are plenty of reasons why we should not have this bridge just yet. The council itself has half a million's worth of property which will be depreciated instead of improved. Everyone desires that the value of the council's property should be improved. It is the old story. We all love beauty, but it is a little hard to pay for it.
Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member for Woolwich assumes that the proposed bridge is going to be very ugly, but he gave us no ground whatever for his supposition, and, as the county council proposes to spend £20,000 on its decoration, as against only £22,000 spent on the larger bridge at Vauxhall, I think we want something more than wild statements to justify the belief it is going to be ugly. Perhaps the hon. Member imagines steel bridges are always ugly, but one of the architectural features of the Seine in Paris is Alexandra III. Bridge, which is also a steel arch bridge, and against which no one can say anything either in regard to its convenience or its architectural effect.
Mr. CROOKS: We are talking about its size.
Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think the hon. Member can deny he spoke about beauty.
Mr. CROOKS: I said you might have a beautiful toy, but we want a useful bridge.
Mr. GUINNESS: I will come to that. The hon. Member also stated the gradient of this bridge was to be 4 deg. worse than the gradient of Southwark Bridge. He is making a mistake. I have here an article which appeared in the "Daily News," "London in Danger," and the gradient of Southwark Bridge is given as 1 in 18. The gradient of the new bridge is to vary from 1 in 20 to 1 in 30. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Essex) imagines that the proposed gradient will put Lambeth Palace in a hole. He has got hold of the wrong end of the stick, because the proposed gradient would be far more advantageous to the appearance of Lambeth Palace than a shallower gradient. If you have a shallow gradient, you will have to begin your approaches further back, and, if you begin your approaches further back you will put Lambeth Palace into a hole. That is one of the chief reasons actuating the promoters of this Bill in proposing the present gradient; in fact, the gradient on the other side of the river would cost £150,000, and in these days of mechanical transport, especially in view of the fact that trams in London negotiate gradients of one in ten, I think it will be seen that a gradient of from 1 in 20 to 1 in 30 is not excessive. The hon. Member who moved the postponement of this Bill objected to it on the typical Progressive ground, that; there was not enough expense. As a matter of fact, even the Progressive London County Council could not face the expense of putting up the bridge as originally proposed. I have no doubt the hon. Member for Woolwich was a member of the London County Council when a proposal came up in 1902 to rebuild the bridge at a cost of £772,000. Even the Progressive county council could not swallow such a scheme as that, and the result was that nothing was done.
The matter came up again in 1910; it was again proposed to build a steel-arch bridge at a cost of £500,000, but it was felt that the expense of that bridge was too great, in view of the probable amount of traffic in the near future. But it should be remembered that these steel-arch
638
bridges can always be widened, and, in the case of one well-known London bridge, we have seen it successfully widened during the last few years. The expenditure on the bridge is to be spread over sixty years. But the mover of the Resolution objected, to that. Surely he cannot object to a saving of £280,000, as compared with the scheme of 1910. If you capitalise the £280,000 in twenty-five years with compound-interest you will find the saving is altogether £600,000. I think it can be proved there is not the slightest chance of a wider bridge than thirty-two feet being required in the next twenty-five years, and if you put up the narrower bridge now you will have £600,000 savings to play with. I think there is a strong probability that even at the end of that time you will not require a wider roadway. This saving of £600,000 in the next twenty-five years is on the bridge alone. It does not allow a farthing for what you will have to pay for widening, and if you are going to put up a wider bridge you must have a wider street, and instead of £600,000 you will have to account for a very much larger sum. There are only two bridges in the county, Westminster and Vauxhall, which are wider than this proposed new bridge. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Black-friars?"] That is a city bridge. The hon. Member for Stafford objected to the bridge on the ground that it might be desirable to take trams over. I understand that the Highways Committee of the London County Council are satisfied that there is no probability for many years to come of a desire to take the trams over. In any case it can be done, but if you have a suspension bridge it cannot. The county council have been guided very largely, in choosing this particular type of construction at an extra cost by the necessity to provide for an unlimited weight going over the bridge, and, if you want to take the trams over, you can quite easily widen it. If hon. Members opposite do not choose to pass this Bill they may not have any bridge at all. The London County Council is largely interested in property on the north side of the river, and also in the neighbourhood in general, and if this Bill does not go through there is no power to compel the county council to bring forward a more expensive scheme. I am certain the ratepayers of London are not prepared to accept a proposal to spend more than double the money, when, as far as traffic goes, it is quite easy to prove that the present proposal is ample. Careful inquiries have been made into the matter of traffic,

639
and it is estimated that about 3,000 vehicles would use the new bridge in the twelve busiest hours of the day. Allowing for the comparative width of the bridge and for an equivalent traffic to that going over Westminster Bridge, you would need 6,958 vehicles, so that before you get as much traffic going over the new bridge as over Westminster Bridge the probable traffic must be doubled. It is not likely that the population is going to double itself in the next thirty years, and I believe it is far wiser to be content with the proposed bridge and save up your money to widen it if occasion arises, and when you have decided that the traffic requires it.
Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS: I was sorry to hear the threat that if this Bill is rejected there will be no new bridge for Lambeth. As a Member for Lambeth for many years I am very interested in the question, and I am anxious we should have this new bridge. I would ask the House to seriously consider, however, whether it is worth while to have a bridge in a limited way. I do not think that those in charge of the Bill have seriously considered the matter from this point of view. I have it on very high authority that the proposed gradient is definitely to be 1 in 20. I do not know what the hon. Member meant by from 1 in 20 to 1 in 30. A gradient of 1 in 20 is quite unsuitable to the heavy traffic of a metropolitan bridge. Although horse traction is going out to a large extent it will never disappear altogether, and no one who watches horses with heavy loads behind them trying to struggle up steep gradients, such as those at Vauxhall and Westminster, can doubt that a gradient of 1 in 20 is too steep. The Vauxhall gradient is 1 in 30, and, moreover, a gradient of 1 in 20 is the maximum gradient allowed by Parliament for main roads over railway bridges in the provinces. Southwark Bridge was referred to. That bridge is 1 in 24, and yet it is shunned by all heavy traffic. Scarcely any goes over it; in fact, last year Parliament granted permission to rebuild that bridge mainly because of its steep gradient. Now we are asked to build a bridge steeper still in Greater London; in fact, in the very heart of London. As to the width of 48 feet between the parapets, I believe it was a rule of the late Bridges Committee of the London County Council that no bridge across the Thames should be less than 80 feet wide, although a special exception was made in
640
the case of Lambeth, the plans of which were prepared for a 60-feet bridge, which is quite narrow enough. The present Vauxhall Bridge is eighty feet, Black-friars is 105 feet, and the present Southwark Bridge is forty-two feet, which is found to be far too narrow, yet it is proposed at this time of day, with ever-increasing traffic, to build a new bridge right in the centre of London only six feet wider than Southwark Bridge. The time lost every day in London to tradespeople and to business people is something enormous through the way in which horses are held up by the congestion of traffic. Many of the roads and bridges are totally inadequate to meet the requirements of the present day, and what is required to-day is quite out of the question to-morrow. Take the case of Vauxhall Cross. I remember Vauxhall Cross about thirty years ago, when you could go across it as leisurely as you liked, and there was no need to be afraid of being run down. Go there to-day and you find that it is one of the busiest parts of London. Old Vauxhall Bridge, over which I went very many times as a lad, was quite wide enough for the traffic of that day. There were very many people who thought that Vauxhall Bridge need not have been built, but now Vauxhall Bridge and Vauxhall Cross form one of the most congested parts of London. London Bridge was widened, and it cost a lot of money. Old Blackfriars Bridge was comparatively a modern structure, yet in a few years it was found not to be wide enough, and now it has been widened by thirty feet at an enormous cost, and yet it is proposed to build this bridge at Lambeth twenty-nine feet less than old Blackfriars Bridge.
You have to consider the traffic from the south of London, which increases year by year. Westminster and Vauxhall bridges are about a mile apart. There is plenty of room to have a good, wide, approachable bridge at Lambeth, which is desirable because the traffic from Bermondsey and the Surrey Docks must come through the comparatively narrow roadway of Lower and Upper Kennington Lane, and must come along by Westminster Bridge Road. Every Member here knows the congestion of traffic that occurs every two or three minutes on Westminster Bridge. This congestion is ever increasing on the Surrey side. I think it will be much better to build a bridge of moderate width and with such a gradient that it will allow these poor horses to travel over it with

641
ease. If it is not an easy gradient Lambeth Bridge will be avoided just as much as Southwark Bridge is to-day. There is no difficulty about the matter. I understand that some time ago arrangements were made with Doulton and Company by which the gradient on the south side could be made one in thirty at little or no extra cost. I know there is a distillery on the corner of Horseferry Road, but I believe that has only a short lease of twelve or thirteen years, and it could be bought at a reasonable cost. I remember some months ago, when the new St. Paul's Bridge was discussed, I raised a laugh in this House by saying, "What is an extra couple of millions?" In this case it is not a question of millions, but only of a few thousand pounds. Would it not be far more satisfactory to have a bridge which is a credit to London, and to give London a bridge which will greatly relieve the present congestion of traffic and open up a new highway? Who knows but what Horseferry Road may yet become a great, wide London road? The hon. Member (Mr. Guinness) referred to the great cost, but we might recoup it by the palatial and stately warehouses which may yet be put up in the Horseferry Road. I hope the London bounty Council will accept our proposals so as to meet the ever-growing needs of the traffic of our great Metropolis.
Mr. FRED HALL: I cannot help thinking that hon. Members who have already addressed the House have not made themselves conversant with the bridge the London County Council really propose to construct. I was rather surprised at what the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) said with regard to tinkering with the metal bridge and the cheese-paring policy of the Council. That is not the question at all. The County Council have considered this matter with regard to the traffic requirements at this spot. The present bridge has been in existence for fifty years. Two and a half years ago it was deemed necessary, on the recommendation of the chief engineer, to close that bridge for vehicular traffic. Since that time the county council have given the most careful consideration—looking forward for forty or fifty years—as to what would be the requirements of that part of London. The question of Vauxhall Bridge has been referred to. I think hon. Members, if they will cast their minds back for one moment, will see that the position of Vauxhall Bridge is totally different from
642
that of Lambeth Bridge. Lambeth Bridge comes out on to the side of Horseferry Road into what I would venture to call a network of small properties. Surely, in these circumstances, there cannot be any necessity for constructing a bridge of such width as is necessary on a main arterial road. Then there is the suggestion with regard to tramways. I hold in my hand a document from the chief officer of tramways in London, and I think hon. Members know full well that that officer has always been desirous of pushing tramways wherever he considers them necessary. Under these circumstances I am certain that they will be particularly interested in the report in which the chief officer states:—
"I have given further careful consideration, and I do not see any reason to modify the opinion I have previously expressed that tramways will not be required over the Lambeth Bridge."
9.0 P.M.
That is a most important matter, because the officers of the county council have never given their reports until they have considered the matter in its whole bearings. Supposing, for instance, it should eventually be necessary to construct tramways over this new bridge, anyone would imagine that it would not be possible to do so. Do hon. Members know what width is required for the construction of a tramway? A road of 32 ft. 6 in.—that is for a double line, allowing for the statutory limit of 9 ft. 6 in. on either side. I suppose I shall be told it is not proposed to have 32 ft. 6 in. I perfectly agree. We shall have 32 ft. It would not be necessary to have 32 ft. 6 in. because there is not that limit on the bridges that we have in an ordinary carriage way, because it is admitted by all experts that a bridge of this width is to all intents and purposes, for vehicular traffic, the same as a road of 65 ft. to 70 ft., simply because the traffic does not stop on the side, but is always moving. I have a report which states that the width of the road in High Street, Kensington, will be 60 ft., and others reports state that a 48 ft. bridge is equivalent to a street 65 ft. or 70 ft. wide. It is stated that we are not spending enough money. Surely all that is necessary is for us to spend the money that is necessary for the requirements of the works we are desirous of constructing. The cost of the bridge is to be £240,000. It is complained that we are not constructing a bridge to cost £500,000. The difference between them is £260,000, which, with compound interest in twenty-five years, would amount to £600,000. Surely

643
with the reports we have in hand, judging by the ordinary outlook, we shall not under any circumstances require a bridge wider than this for the next forty years, and I cannot help thinking it will be a much better asset in twenty-five years time to find the £600,000 in hand instead of a bridge constructed in such a manner as to be detrimental to the requirements of that time. The hon. Member (Mr. Stephen Collins) led the House, I am sure unintentionally, to believe that it was to have a gradient of 1 in 20. It is nothing of the sort.
Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS: I was referring to the approaches.
Mr. HALL: I grant that for a small distance on each side of the bridge the gradient is to be 1 in 20, but it is only for a very short distance.
Mr. ESSEX: That governs it.
Mr. HALL: It goes from that to 1 in 30, and from that to 1 in 72. The county council is not desirous of constructing a bridge which will not be useful for all purposes. I cannot help thinking that many Members were under the impression that the bridge was to be constructed with a gradient which would render it of no utility whatever. The engineer of the London County Council is not in the habit of lending his name to the construction of any tinkering matters whatever. We have it from the officers themselves that the bridge will serve all the services which are required. Therefore I hope the House will endorse the wishes of the London County Council. I think it would have been a great deal better if the hon. Member (Mr. Essex) had been fully seized of the details of this bridge before he stated that it was not up to the requirements. I hope, under the circumstances, after my hon. Friends have given further particulars with reference to the matter, that the hon. Member will be so satisfied that the requirements of London are being well looked after that he will support the wishes of the London County Council.
Mr. DAWES: I rise to support the Amendment that the Bill be read this day six months. I must utter a mild protest against the hon. Member (Mr. Guinness) bringing in City bridges when it suits his purpose and ignoring them altogether
644
when it does not suit his purpose. Also I think the hon. Member referred to Southwark Bridge as having a gradient of 1 in 18.
Mr. GUINNESS: I referred to Southwark Bridge because it was quoted by the hon. Member (Mr. Crooks).
Mr. DAWES: I agree. I was also interested to know that the hon. Member took as his authority the "Daily News." I do not know whether he always accepts the "Daily News" as his authority on these occasions. He also told us that if we did not have this bridge we should have no bridge at all. That must surely be intelligently anticipating the verdict of the electors of London next March. It was not very pronounced at the last election, and it may change again. This bridge is intended as a relief bridge for Vauxhall and Westminster, and the whole question is whether it is going to be such a relief bridge as will be of the slightest use. What you want obviously is a bridge which will give relief to the heavy traffic in that neighbourhood. A. bridge like Southwark Bridge, which has a gradient of 1 in 24, is not used at all for any heavy traffic if it can be avoided. I happen to live in that quarter, and I am continually crossing this bridge, and I can tell the House that it is of no use as a relief bridge. Apparently the only argument put forward in support of this proposal now before the House is that £20,000 is going to be spent on putting up a beautiful structure. We would rather not have the money spent unless it is to be done in providing a bridge with a proper gradient. I should have thought that the hon. Member opposite would have been the very last to suggest that it was a prudent or proper thing to build a bridge in the way proposed when you know that you may have to increase its dimensions later on at enormous expense. I sincerely hope the House will reject the Bill and insist on having a proper bridge or no bridge at all.
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I had hoped that one or two other Members who represent the London County Council would have spoken in this House with a degree of authority which has not been claimed by previous speakers, and with a wealth of information on certain points with respect to which, I think, it is their duty to invite the House to share. I ask the permission of the House to say a word or two on this particular proposal. If I may

645
say so, I would advise the members of the county council, whatever may come of the discussion to-night, and whether this Bill is rejected or gets a Second Reading and afterwards goes to a Committee upstairs, to bear in mind that there are two other stages besides the Second Reading in relation to a Bill of this kind. If they are well advised, they ought not to run the risk of losing a Bill for a new bridge, leaving out the question of width or gradients, by not showing a disposition to put themselves in accord with the reasonable suggestions and requests made by the various speakers who with great force and moderation have addressed themselves to this particular subject. I have a right which the House will cheerfully recognise to speak on this matter because for the last twenty-two years, either as a member of the county council or in the office which I now hold, without party feeling, I have done my best to assist the county council, the Water Board, and other public bodies when the public interests warranted me in so doing.
It is because I was for many years a member of the bridges committee of the county council that I know the details of this question, and I wish to put to the House one or two reasons why we should look at this matter from a wider point of view than previous speakers who have addressed the House. This bridge, whether 48 ft. or 84 ft. wide, is in a position where the House of Commons has a right to be consulted. This bridge is within the precincts of Parliament, it is within the curtilage of the ancient Abbey of Westminster, and it is within the bailiewick of Lambeth Palace. This is something more than a local or even a metropolitan matter, and I ask the House to look at it from that point of view. There is a better argument than that. Some ten or twelve years ago a proposal was made by a syndicate to build a large block of flats between the end of the House of Lords garden and Lambeth Bridge. That was proposed by men of great authority and financial standing, and to the credit of the House of Commons, which knew the local facts, the Bill was thrown out. Why did the House throw out the Bill? I had, with the hon. Member for Westminster, a share in the work of securing that desirable end. The House of Commons wisely thought that if there was to be any improvement in that part of Westminster within the shadow of the House itself it ought to be an improvement more consistent with the noble site and more com-
646
patible with the dignity of the precincts of this House. They decided not to allow the spending of quite a million of money by a syndicate on a block of flats which would stand between the wind and the Lords' nobility. That proposal was brushed aside. Why do I mention that in connection with the problem? I do so because something was then done that commits the House to a better bridge than that proposed in this Bill. The House of Commons stood out against the proposal I have been speaking of, and they decided, in conjunction with the county council of that day, to have no wharves or warehouses between the House of Lords garden and Lambeth Bridge.
Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEindicated dissent.
Mr. BURNS: The Noble Lord was not in the House at the time, and he should be sure about the facts. The result of the throwing out of the scheme by the House of Commons was that the London County Council and the Westminster Borough Council, in co-operation with the Office of Works—all combined and working together in proper proportions—decided to strip the front of the river of wharves, warehouses, and slums, with the result that we shall see unfolded perhaps the noblest view of the Houses of Parliament. There will be a 70 ft. avenue, with an extended garden running from the Victoria Tower to the bridge itself.
Lord A. THYNNE: At the sole cost of the municipal authority?
Mr. BURNS: I never suggested otherwise. My answer to the interruption, which is irrelevant, is this: A county council generous enough to plan a scheme of such nobility ought not to have it marred by its successors with a cheap and nasty bridge. An avenue 70 ft. wide and a new Lambeth Bridge is a scheme worthy of London, worthy of Westminster, creditable to the county council, and creditable to Parliament. What has happened in this matter? In 1894 the county council decided that when Lambeth Bridge was to be rebuilt the new structure should be 80 ft. wide, and not 48 ft. At a later date they altered the 80ft. to 60ft., because Vauxhall Bridge had been built. Now, only for reasons of economy [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."]. I agree, but there is false economy which is sometimes rash extravagance when you take a long view. For reasons of economy only, the

647
80 ft. and 60 ft. are to become 48 ft., and the gradient of 1 in 30, which was proposed with regard to the 80 ft. and the 60 ft., is to become 1 in 20, on both sides for a short distance. Everybody knows that the strength of a chain is its weakest link, and if you have a 1 in 20 gradient on each side it is practically prohibitive to wagons drawn by horses, which must feel, probably at the weakest moment, the pinch of the heavy gradient.
I do think that we ought to look at this even from another point of view. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, with much ingenuity, said that this bridge will be wider than several of the bridges within the county of London. I see hon. Members on both sides of the House who have motor cars. Will anyone who goes over Putney Bridge, which is about the same width as this new bridge, say that, handsome as Putney Bridge is, the Metropolitan Board of Works did not make a profound mistake when they made that beautiful stone bridge only 42 ft. in width? I will go to other abridges of which I know something, and my instances are not pontes asinorem. Take Putney Bridge. You have tramways going over it, plus motor 'buses. Everybody knows, especially those who motor, that Putney Bridge ought to have been double the width it is. It is the same with Albert Bridge, which hot only has the disadvantage of being a Suspension bridge, but is narrow; and 'Chelsea Bridge, which has the same disadvantages. And when we see the noblest, narrowest bridge that probably is in the world, namely Waterloo Bridge, of which Canova, the sculptor, said that it was worth coming from Rome to see only one arch of it—I am wrestling with provincial Members who need to be educated in the traditions of London—anyone will admit that if the engineer of that noble bridge could have foreseen the growth of vehicular traffic, above all, of steam and petrol traffic, he would have realised that that bridge would have been ten times more advantageous to the community, beautiful as it is, if it had been double or even three times its present width. But there are better reasons, which I hope will be endorsed by at least one hon. Gentleman in front of me. We find the City Corporation at least moving with the spirit of the times. They found London Bridge not wide enough, and they widened the roadway a little and the pathways a
648
great deal, and to the credit of the City Corporation, to which I had the credit of being the spokesman of the county council, and with a generosity that does the city every credit, they spent nearly £250,000 in adding nearly 30 ft. to what was a very wide bridge, namely Black-friars Bridge. They did that because they said that the convenience and exigencies of London's trade and the claims of vehicular traffic demanded that it should be 105ft. wide. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tramways."] Some hon. Gentlemen seem to be obsessed by tramways. Let us look at it from the point of view of Gentlemen who prefer motor 'buses to tramways, for reasons which we will not go into, but which, to quote Lord Dundreary, no fellow can understand. If there is a reason why a bridge should be wide, it is because motor 'buses go over it. Hon. Members know that tramways are confined to a fixed route, and if the bridge is reasonably wide, they know where they are. But as regards motor 'buses, you do not know where they are, and to those who are interested in motor 'buses, if a 60 ft. bridge is necessary for tramways, an 80 ft. bridge is still more desirable for motor 'buses. The hon. Members who are traction sticks-in-the-mud, who want trackless trolleys instead of tramways, and who are always gushing about motor 'buses and of the advantages of the new forms of traction to which they are pinning themselves in contrast to what they term the discredit of the conduit trams should remember that such traffic requires a wider bridge and a greater platform for the movement of traffic than even tramways that are confined to fixed lines. What is the argument in favour of a narrow bridge The hon. Member, the Chairman of the Highways Committee, from whom I had expected better advice, said that Lambeth Bridge is wide enough. But is it? Then why did the city widen Blackfriars Bridge?
Mr. RAWLINSON: Tramways.
Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member knows as well as I, that if this bridge is erected there will be motor 'buses running over it, not only on the day but the very afternoon on which it is opened. They use Battersea Bridge and Putney Bridge, which are narrow, and every hon. Member who knows anything about traction will know that the moment this bridge is opened that enterprising gentleman, Mr. Tilling will have a line of motor 'buses over the bridge from St. George's Circus

649
down Horseferry Road, which is 40 ft. wide. I measured it this morning on my way here. I did it in the ordinary discharge of my duty to the public which the hon. Member shares with me in serving his constituents. He knows full well that if the narrow bridge is erected motor 'buses will come over it. The reasons for widening Blackfriars Bridge are reasons why this bridge should be wider than it is. The hon. Member in defending the High ways Committee, said that this bridge would be 32 ft. in the roadway. He knows that that is a very narrow shave for two lines of tramways with the statutory distance on each side. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds spoke of Paris and referred to the last bridge in the world to support his case. He spoke of the simple, beautiful Pont d'Alexandre III. That bridge is not only of one span and a beautiful bridge, but it is so very very wide that it is twice the width of the new Lambeth Bridge. When I find hon. Members talking without their book, and referring to a bridge like this which is nearer 90 ft. than 80—
Mr. GUINNESS: That is not so.
Mr. BURNS: I was over it last time I was in Paris. But then I had a clearer vision probably than the hon. Member. Hon. Members who have spoken have forgotten one feature of this bridge and its chief necessity. They have forgotten the Royal parks. Why do I mention the Royal parks? For the reason that there is no bridge between Blackfriars and Vauxhall except Westminster over which heavy timber traffic and heavy commercial and industrial traffic can go. Nearly all the timber needed in the West of London has to come from the Surrey Commercial Docks. It has to go over Blackfriars Bridge, which is a waste of energy, or it has to go over Westminster Bridge and turn sharp off by the House of Commons if it is going to George Street or down Victoria Street, or to Abingdon Street. We think that just as the traffic of Westminster became too congested, and is in-increasing now, so that the Vauxhall Bridge was necessary to relieve Westminster, so now that Vauxhall is becoming even more congested in regard to traffic than Westminster is now, we suggest, those of us who know London, that you should have another bridge, with a line of road from St. George's Circus to Lambeth Palace. It would only be necessary to remove a very narrow strip of slum property, and you would get a road, on

650
the south side from Lambeth Palace right to St. George's Circus—a road, wide as the Commercial and Mile End Roads in the East End. Both Vauxhall and Westminster in this way would be enormously relieved. Timber traffic and so forth, going west by the Royal parks and Buckingham palace would have an alternative route created by Victoria Street to Westminster and by the Vauxhall Bridge Road.
I have mentioned the Royal parks and Buckingham Palace, because from the eastern side of the Green Park, from the Admiralty Arch, from the Admiralty Arch at Charing Cross, from the Ritz Hotel, and right away from St. George's Hospital you have practically a mile and a quarter square of area. By the regulations applying to the Royal parks—St. James' and the Green Park—that area is denied to heavy traffic. The proportion in which you are denied accommodation for heavy traffic over that wide area I suggest should be the measure of your desire for an alternative route over Lambeth Bridge as a means of getting building material to West London much quicker than it can be obtained at present. My last word is this: For twenty years the county council and Parliament have striven to improve the amenities of this House. Nearly a million of money has been spent in order to achieve that result. If this bridge is built with a width of 48 ft. or 32 ft. only in the roadway, you will spend money in vain. You will get the minimum of comfort and convenience, and you will not get out of your £240,000 you are going to spend the convenience for traffic you expect to obtain. I had hoped that hon. Members of the county council would have said something to meet the reasonable criticism conveyed in the fair and moderate speeches that have been made. Is there one of those hon. Members who will stand up here and say, "We are prepared to defer to what we think are the reasonable suggestions and criticisms and do our best to meet them"? The Noble Lord opposite will probably take the hint. If we had this bridge with a width of 48 ft. or 32 ft., abutments could be put in ready for a bridge of the width of Vauxhall or Westminster. I would suggest that for two reasons. The first is economy. If you put in abutments that will permit of an 84-ft. or a 90-ft. bridge when traffic ultimately increases to render that necessary, you will save money. It is a great mistake to spend £240,000 on abutments 55 ft. long to carry a 48-ft. bridge. You may think it is cheap now, but in five

651
or ten years when it has to be widened, it will be found that it is not cheap. It must never be forgotten that in driving piles in the strata of the River Thames, you so shake and damage the previous foundation that any economy you may hope to effect by your present proposal will be thrown away.
I hope that point will be considered, and that you are prepared to consider upstairs in Committee whether this bridge could not be made wider than it is, and whether abutments ought not to be put in which will permit of a cheap extension of the width when the circumstances warrant. Otherwise with a bridge with 1 in 20 gradient, you would defeat your object of relieving Vauxhall and Westminster Bridges. If the Bill goes to Committee I should advise you to deal with the enemy in the gate whilst they are reasonable. Do not put a bridge at Lambeth that will not allow of trams or omnibuses. If you do, I am sure that within two or three years all the money which, by your present scheme, you hope to save will not only not be saved, but you will be subjected to additional expense when you want your bridge widened. We do not want a cheap and nasty plan, and if you stick to your 48ft. roadway, with 1 in 20 gradient, you win find that it will be necessary to widen the bridge within the next few years. I appeal to the Noble Lord opposite to imitate the splendid economy and prescience of the City Corporation, who in these matters have worked hand-in-hand with the London County Council in widening London Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge. I am sorry that the City has not been able to agree with the London County Council as to St. Paul's Bridge, but it does not lie in the mouths of members of the county council, who fought the City Corporation against the site of St. Paul's Bridge, and who are now arguing with them as to the tramcars coming across it—it does not rest with those gentlemen, right under the shadow of Parliament, to put up a bridge with only 32ft. or 48ft. of roadway. Let it be remembered that there are three more stages to this Bill, the Committee, Report, and Third Reading, and if hon. Members will take my advice, given without any party feeling at all, but simply from love of London, I would ask them to deal with the one or two practical and wise criticisms which have been directed
652
upon this bridge, and try to grapple with, this matter in a generous spirit, worthy of the city which we all love and try to serve.
Lord A. THYNNE: There have been two very remarkable features about this Debate, and not the least remarkable was the very forcible speech which we have just listened to from the right hon. Gentleman, a speech which displays not only great knowledge of the local requirements of London, but considerable vehemence in the form in which it was made. At the same time I challenge any hon. Member opposite whether, judging by what fell from the right hon. Gentleman's lips, it is his intention to oppose or support the Second Reading of the Bill. It is a very important thing for those of us who are interested in this Bill to know whether we have got the official blessing of the Local Government Board, or whether we have not. There was another very remarkable feature about this Debate. One would have thought, with the number of Members representing London constituencies on the opposite side, that if this Bill was as bad and pernicious as some try to make out it is that they would have found some Member representing a constituency more closely interested in London matters to move its rejection than the hon. Member for Stafford.
Mr. ESSEX: I said I un a Londoner by birth.
Lord A. THYNNE: The only deduction I can draw from that, action on the part of those who are opposed to this Bill is that they know that although this Bill cannot satisfy everybody in its details, yet in its main outlines it is a Bill which the people in Lambeth and the people in Westminster and those people who are interested in through traffic do consider, a great benefit to the through traffic of London. I could not help regretting that both at the beginning and towards the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that he thought fit to utter what we can only regard as a threat in regard to this Bill. I do submit, and I think I can draw the argument from the right hon. Gentleman's own speech, that it is—
Mr. BURNS: I am sorry to interrupt the Noble Lord, but if my speech made him. doubtful as to which way I was going to vote, then that is incompatible with his last suggestion, that I made a threat which told what I was going to do.
Lord A. THYNNE: Not at all. If the right hon. Gentleman will only allow me to develop my argument he will see the force of my contention. I do submit, and I think one passage I can allude to in the right hon. Gentleman's speech will show, that this House, certainly on Second Reading, is not a good tribunal to judge questions of detail often involving highly technical engineering details. I will quote in this connection the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion with regard to the length of the abutments. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we should be wise in the interests of this Bill, and in regard to the possibility in the future of widening this bridge, to give a promise now without any further consideration, without taking out any quantities, or without any measures or calculations, that I should stand up here now, without considering the desirability of choosing the alternative of widening by cantilever and other engineering devices, and give an undertaking that I am prepared to lengthen the abutments of the bridge in order that it may be widened in the future in a particular manner. I submit that that is a question which ought to be threshed out before Committee upstairs, and that it is not a question which this House, sitting as it is on the Second Reading of this Bill, is in any way qualified to consider or to discuss. What does the right hon. Gentleman do? He insinuates that if we do not give way on certain points which have been raised by Friends of his on his side of the House that we shall be faced by a Government Department against us to block its future progress at future stages. That I distinctly understood from the right hon. Gentleman. It is the only inference I could draw from the warning of the grave peril that was in front of me unless I gave way. The right hon. Gentleman declaimed, at some length, about the right of the House of Commons to be consulted, more especially on this particular bridge, because it is in proximity to your Terrace. That might be an argument for the House of Commons to contribute towards the Bill, but so far as the municipal authorities of London are concerned, and so far as the London County Council is concerned, they do not consider that they have got any greater obligation to put up a handsome and beautiful bridge because it will be seen from the Terrace of the House of Commons than they do if they were putting up a bridge down the eastern reaches of the River Thames to be viewed by the people there. If the right hon.
654
Gentleman is so anxious that we should have a bridge to give pleasure to be a pleasant bridge to look at from the Terrace, surely he will offer us some contribution.
There are four main points which I will ask the House to consider. The first point is whether or not this bridge is or is not worthy of the site on which it is going to be placed. Personally, and I think everybody who has ever considered this question, would infinitely prefer to put up a stone bridge rather than an iron bridge, but there are certain engineering difficulties, and there is that very consideration about Lambeth Palace that was advanced by the hon. Member for Stafford, and there is the agreement with Doulton's that was advanced by the hon. Member for Lambeth. There are certain considerations of that sort which, in addition to the enormous cost for property involved by the erection of a stone bridge, makes that alternative absolutely impossible. If my memory serves me accurately, I think the London County Council were absolutely unanimous on that point that it was impossible to put up a stone bridge on that site. The second question is whether or not this bridge is adequate to the traffic it will have to carry. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman in regard to that very remarkable argument in relation to the timber trade of London that this bridge will in no sense be connected with the through thoroughfare or main roads of London.
I think that the hon. Member opposite who showed the clearest perception of the situation was the hon. Member for one of the Southern Divisions who stated quite rightly that this bridge is a relief bridge to Westminster and to Vauxhall, purely and simply a relief bridge. If hon. Members will carry the map of London in their minds for a moment they will see that the traffic crossing Lambeth Bridge when it is moving north must eventually come out into the same road as if over Vauxhall Bridge, either on the Vauxhall Bridge Road or higher up on the Grosvenor Road Gardens. You cannot, owing to the existence of Buckingham Palace and the Royal parks have an independent through route north from Lambeth Bridge. I would remind hon. Members that the object of a bridge across the River Thames is not merely to connect the northern shore of the Thames with the southern, but that it is to connect the great population living on the north of the Thames with the great population living on the south of the

655
Thames. To do that you must keep before your mind the natural through routes of traffic which join the centre of the northern population and the centre of the southern commercial districts. It is absolutely no use, so far as general traffic is concerned, to throw a bridge across the Thames which simply and solely connects one bank with the other. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about Horseferry Road and motor 'buses. Everybody who knows anything about the conditions inside the City of Westminster knows perfectly well that if Horseferry Road is to be made a through thoroughfare into Victoria Street you will have to have a very extensive and costly scheme of widening in addition to this bridge.
The third point with which I wish to deal is the width of the bridge. The present Lambeth Bridge has been closed for several years to heavy traffic and to any vehicular traffic moving at more than walking pace. It was found necessary to take that step in 1905 as the bridge was in an unsound condition. So far as we are able to judge—and we went into the matter very thoroughly—no inconvenience has been caused to the residents in either Lambeth or Westminster. To go a step farther, since 1910 the bridge has been closed altogether to vehicular traffic of all sorts. The argument I deduce from that is that the only way in having this bridge is for it to act as a relief bridge to Westminster and Vauxhall Bridges. An hon. Member asked, Why build this bridge at all? I frankly confess that I would rather spend this £220,000, if I had a free hand in the matter, to build a bridge higher up the river, nearer the constituency which the right hon. Gentleman represents. I believe that a bridge is far more urgently needed to connect Clapham Junction railway station with the populous district on the north of the river than the bridge now suggested at Lambeth. But, after all, we have a statutory obligation in this matter. We should have to come to Parliament for permission to close this bridge if we wished to do it, and I think we should find in this House, as we have found on the county council, considerable reluctance to close without reconstructing any existing bridge. We want to multiply rather than diminish in number the means of communication between north and south. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I wish to make this point very emphatically. The bridge we are proposing
656
is in width and every other respect designed to carry tramways. I do not want there to be any mistake on that, point. We were told by the Committee and the authorities responsible for developing the tramways system of London that, owing to the considerations which I have already enumerated with regard to Horseferry Road, and the difficulty of getting north, there was no likelihood at all of their wishing to build a tramway across this bridge, not merely in the near future, but, so far as they could see, for some considerable time to come. In spite of that assurance on the part of the tramway authority, those who are responsible for the design of this bridge made it a structure suitable and in width adequate for the construction of a tramway should the London County Council ever wish to put one there.
I come now to what I believe is the only serious argument in this matter, namely, the question of the gradient. If the right hon. Gentleman had really been able to make out that the ruling gradient of this bridge was 1 in 19, I think the House might well have hesitated about passing the Bill. But that gradient is only for a distance of 100 feet, and is due to the necessity of providing sufficient clearance under the arches, at high water, to meet the requirements of the Port authority, in regard to the arches near the banks on either side. The general gradient of the bridge is 1 in 30, and for a considerable distance it is 1 in 72. There was a time not long ago when the question of gradients was undoubtedly very important indeed. When the right hon. Gentleman wished to emphasise his point he quoted the old argument about the unfortunate horse that had to draw a heavy cart. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that with the progress of invention and the development of mechanical transport in London the question of gradient becomes of diminishing importance as year follows year. What we want with the development of mechanical transport is not so much the easier gradient as the ampler width of street. On this bridge we have the ample width of street and, so far as the ruling gradient is concerned, we have an easy gradient even for horse traffic. In the ordinary course of travelling through London, it is no uncommon thing to have a gradient a great deal worse than the ruling gradient of this bridge. In Villiers Street there is a gradient of 1 in 17. In Pentonville Road and Bedford Street there is a gradient of 1 in 21. In Trafalgar Square

657
itself, the pride of London, you have a gradient of 1 in 22. On the southern side of Albert Bridge the gradient is 1 in 22. In St. James Street, which the right hon. Gentleman treats with so much respect, you have a gradient of 1 in 24. These are streets constantly used by ordinary vehicular horse traffic. When you come to the question of mechanical transport I need only instance the tramway subway at Southampton Row, where you have a gradient of 1 in 10. On High-gate Hill, up and down which heavy double-deck tramcars go, the gradient is 1 in 10. In South London, on Dog Kennel Hill, there is a gradient of 1 in 11, while on the Military Road in Woolwich it is 1 in 15. So that the gradient that we are proposing is not only a common and easy gradient for mechanical transport, but it is in no sense a difficult gradient for horse traffic. The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite are pressing us to build a very much wider bridge and one with a far better gradient. They have talked about the bridge being cheap and nasty. The right hon. Gentleman does not know whether it is cheap and nasty or not. He has not seen the design. He would not give facilities for Members of this House to see the design.
Mr. BURNS: What does the hon. Member mean?
Lord A. THYNNE: I suggested, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that a design of the bridge should be exhibited in the House so that Members might see its architectural features. But I was told that was contrary to precedent. I think that that was a great misfortune, because many Members this evening believe that we propose to put up an architecturally, unsightly, and artistically unworthy bridge. As a matter of fact, the architectural design is a very fine one; generally the design is a worthy one. The sole cause of the quarrel—let us make this perfectly clear—centres round the question of width and of gradient, and has nothing whatever to do with appearance. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman has no business to use such a term as "cheap and nasty," which is calculated to convey a false impression.
A point I wish to make, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit it himself, is that you can only improve a gradient and increase a width at a very considerable cost. The line was taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and by, I think, some other hon. Members opposite,
658
that we were saving £10,000 here and £10,000 there. Let me remind hon. Members that the approaches to the Tower Bridge ran into three-quarters of a million. When you come to buy land to improve your approaches to bridges of this character you have to spend very large sums of money indeed. I do not recommend limiting the cost of this bridge to £240,000 because I do not wish to spend money on improvements in London. That is not my motive. It is not in order to-keep the rate down, as the right hon. Gentleman thinks. The object which we have in limiting the cost of this bridge to £240,000 is because we believe that so far as bridges and improvements generally are concerned the West End of London has had its full share. If we are going to-spend a very large sum of money on an improvement of this category we ought to spend it in other parts of London, where there is an equal, if not greater, need. Let hon. Members opposite recognise once for all that the purse and the pocket of the ratepayer is limited. If you are going to force the county council, as the right hon. Gentleman has threatened, to spend upwards of half a million of money in a bridge at the West End of London where it is not needed for traffic purposes, you will be curtailing to that extent the amount of money which will be available to spend in more necessitous parts of London where improvements are far more urgently needed.
Mr. LAMB: I enter into this Debate in no spirit of hostility to the Highways Committee of the London County Council. As a member of the Bridges Committee of the City Corporation I sympathise with the right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are finding it somewhat difficult to persuade hon. Members here as to the desirability of carrying the Second Reading of this Bill. So far from any declaration of hostility, I want to confine my speech to an appeal. I came into this House with an open mind, and anxious, if possible, to be able to support the Second Reading so that the Bill might go upstairs and there receive the improvements that I, for one, think are needed. But the Noble Lord who has just sat down has tried to anticipate the Division by asking what we on this side were going to do. For my part I was waiting to hear what he was prepared to do before deciding how I should give my vote. I believe that the question of gradient, as referred to by the Noble Lord, has not helped us to come

659
to a decision in any way whatever. Reference has been made to the gradient of the Southwark Bridge. The Noble Lord must know that we on the Bridges Committee of the City Corporation have had that matter in hand for years, and while it is quite true that the gradient there to which comparison has been made in arguing for this new gradient at Lambeth is 1 in 24, the Noble Lord forgets that the City Corporation has only just recently got a Bill through this House for the very purpose of reducing that gradient to 1 in 40.
10.0 P.M.
Yet the London County Council comes to Parliament now seeking permission to build this bridge at a gradient even worse in some parts than that of Southwark Bridge in its worst parts. It is no answer to say that in some parts of the new bridge the gradient will be less. That argument would not appeal to a poor horse taking the heavier gradient to know that it is coming to a lighter one—from 1 in 80 to 1 in 70. I appeal to those who represent the London County Council tonight to learn by the experience of the City Corporation, and to give us some assurance before the Second Reading is taken that something will be done to meet the undoubted objection not only felt on this side of the House but in all quarters. As to the width, I submit the Noble Lord has not answered our contention. He talks about the matter of expense. He says it can be done later. That is no answer to the point. On the Blackfriars Bridge we have had an immense expenditure to alter the width from 75 to 105. When the London County Council first came forward and the Bill was introduced, the width was dropped to sixty, then to forty-eight. The gradient, which was 1 in 30, is down to one in 20. I agree with the point the Noble Lord made that a stone bridge is not probably practical in this case, but that is no reason why, because a steel bridge is needed, he should not give us some guarantee as to the reduction of the gradient, and the necessary widening of the approaches and of the bridge itself. The Noble Lord speaks about absence of tramways at present. But the motor 'buses will undoubtedly use this bridge, and that probably from the very first day of its opening. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dulwich were interested in motors and were sending them by a more circuitous route, if a new bridge were opened that would give him a better artery would he not use that
660
new bridge? We have no guarantee that the motor 'buses will not use the bridge; but we ought to take time by the forelock, and see that this bridge is made of width, enough for all practical purposes.
One other point about motor traffic. I believe that to a very large extent the garages, both for taxi-cabs and motor 'buses, are on the south side, and they come to the north side in order to get the greater portion of their traffic. The Noble Lord said that the present Lambeth Bridge had been closed for some seven years, and he used that as an argument to show that the present suggested narrow bridge would be sufficient. I would point out to him that in the case of the Tower Bridge that there was no bridge there at all, and the same argument, might have been used. We found as soon as the Tower Bridge was opened it was of inestimable value to the South of London, and in relieving London Bridge itself. The other point made by the Noble Lord is not worth pressing. The Noble Lord suggested that there could not be any really serious opposition to this Bill since the hon. Member who moved its rejection represented a provincial constituency. I do not wish to press the point, but I would remind him that he does not himself sit for a London seat. The hon. Gentleman who spoke before him represents Bury St. Edmunds, and can scarcely claim to be a London Member. We have a right to speak when the capital of the Empire is concerned. We speak in no hostility to the scheme. We want to see further bridge facilities across, the River Thames, but we do appeal to the London County Council not to reduce the width of this suggested bridge, but to increase it; not to make the gradient more difficult, but easier. I hope that someone will get up at the eleventh hour and give us some assurance that in Committee upstairs this point will be met, in its two sections, both as to gradient and width, I believe they would find the result of the forthcoming Division would be different from what it is bound to be unless we get some assurance they will take these two serious points into consideration.
Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made something of a point on the question of the gradients. My Noble Friend behind me said that now that we had all this mechanical traction the real question of horse traffic raised by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local

661
Government Board did not apply, but I would like to point out that, as a matter of fact, the greater proportion of the heavy slow traffic in London to-day is done with horses. It may be that the great railway companies and large cartage companies are behind the times and ought to have mechanical traffic, but the fact remains that they do not. The greater part of the heavy slow traffic is done with horses, and, consequently, heavy gradients are detrimental to that traffic. I do not think there can be any doubt about that, and I admit the hon. Gentleman has made a point there. But it is a point that should be made in Committee and not in this House. In Committee evidence can be given as to whether or not it is possible to reduce the gradient. I know nothing about the engineering difficulties of the scheme, and therefore I do not say whether or not that is possible, but in the Committee upstairs all that could be gone into and if it should happen that the hon. Gentleman opposite did not agree with the finding of the Committee he could always move Amendments on Report stage, or he could move the rejection of the Bill upon Third Reading. Therefore, that one particular point, although I admit it is an important point, is a Committee point, and I do not think it is a good argument against the Second Reading of this Bill.
I was extremely glad to listen once more to the fervid eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, but I do not think he advanced a single argument, with the exception of the one in favour of the reduction of the gradient against the scheme brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman said the new bridge would be viewed from the precincts of this House. Why should not this House set an example in economy, and if it is a fact, as no doubt it is, that the bridge would be viewed from this House, let hon. Members put a limit to the indulgence of their sight, and allow something to be put up which perhaps, though not so very beautiful is equally useful, and thereby save some little money to both taxpayers and ratepayers who are called upon to make great sacrifices.
It is no argument to say that this House ought to encourage great and costly buildings in order that they may have a good view. That, is a strange argument to be advanced by hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who, I thought, always came down here to do good work for the nation, and not merely to enjoy the views of handsome buildings
662
from the Terrace or elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the county council ought to be generous enough to inaugurate a great scheme. Generous with what? With their own money, or that of the ratepayers? Why should they dissipate the money of somebody else. Their duty is to economise the money of the ratepayers, and not to encourage great schemes for which the ratepayer will have to put his hand in his pocket. The ratepayer has to put his hand in his pocket a great deal too oft for these wonderful schemes. The right hon. Gentleman said that any one who drives in a motor-car will will see that Putney Bridge is too narrow. The right hon. Gentleman, the champion of the democracy, talks about hon. Members who own motor-cars, and he thinks that the hard-working people are to contribute out of their hard earnings in order that bridges may be provided for luxurious people, members of the idle rich, so that they may travel in fur coats in motorcars, and smoke long cigars. The whirligig of time brings strange events. For the right hon. Gentleman to come forward and advocate a scheme of expenditure in order that people might have a comfortable drive in motor-cars is beyond anything I can conceive possible.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about motor omnibuses and tramcars. He looked at me, but I can assure him I have no interests in motor omnibuses. I have not got a motor-car, and I have not got a fur coat. I drive one horse in these hard times, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it is far easier to drive along a narrow road frequented by motor omnibuses than along a narrow road with tram-cars. Anyone who has experience of driving will agree that that is the case. A motor omnibus will give way a little; the tramcar cannot give way at all. You may have 20 ft. on the near side fully occupied by your one-horse vehicle and a tramcar, and 20 ft. on the other side unoccupied. If you have a motor omnibus it gives way 2 ft. or so, and you are all right. That is well known to anyone who drives a horse, but, of course, if you ride in a luxurious motor-car you do not know any of these things. I am not so fortunate as the right hon. Gentleman, and I have to regard these matters when I proceed, in my humble way, through the streets of this great Metropolis. The right hon. Gentleman said Blackfriars Bridge was widened with the assistance of the London County Council

663
in order to lay down their trains upon it. The hon. Member opposite is a member of the bridges committee, and he will correct me if I am wrong when I say my impression is that the Corporation received no assistance in the widening of London Bridge from the county council. It was only in the widening of Blackfriars Bridge, which was undertaken, not on account of the ordinary traffic, but in order to run the tram traffic.
Mr. LAMB: That is so.
Sir F. BANBURY: The real question is, is it necessary to have a very wide bridge between Westminster and Vauxhall Bridge. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] The Member says "Yes." I should have said "No." I have been in the habit of walking over Westminster Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge. In the days when I had the honour of representing Peckham I often went over Vauxhall Bridge, and I have seen no great congestion. I went over Vauxhall Bridge and Westminster Bridge last week, and did not see any great congestion. So far as my local knowledge goes, I think when one goes over the new bridge one will enter Horseferry Road, which has no outlet, and then you have to come back to the thoroughfare, which is at the end either of Westminster Bridge or of Vauxhall Bridge. I must say that I think the county council are to be commended for bringing forward this scheme, which is not going to waste a large sum of money, and which, as far as one can judge, is a measure which is worth a Second Beading. If hon. and right, hon. Gentlemen oppose this Bill, as I hope they will not, after listening to the very forcible arguments which I have advanced, I shall vote against this Amendment.
Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIES: If the gradient of this new bridge is what has been suggested the scheme proposed will be sufficient, because it will not induce much traffic to come over it, and to spend £240,000 on a bridge like that would be a waste of money. The way proposed is not an economical method of constructing a bridge of this kind, and I hope if this measure is accorded a Second Reading the county council will consider the gradient, and also the fact that the bridge is not wide enough. With regard to Putney Bridge, I think it would have been an immense boon if it had been made 20 ft. wider. I hope we shall get
664
a promise from someone representing the county council that these points will be considered upstairs, but if no such undertaking is given I shall vote against this Bill.
Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Upon similar occasions to this I have often had the pleasure of expressing the views of the Westminster City Council on matters affecting the City, but I do not do so on, this occasion because I have not received any authority to express their views on this subject. I am sorry to find myself in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because I acknowledge the great services he has rendered or wished to render to the aesthetic improvement of London, and I always look upon him with a certain fondness on account of the fight we made together against the whole of this site being ruined. The bridge is to go across the river from the Embankment, which we prevented being spoiled upon that occasion. I really think this is a Bill which might go upstairs. There is every reason for the matter being decided, because until it is decided the very important work of dealing with that part of the Embankment cannot be satisfactorily undertaken. If you postpone the decision to have a bridge or the decision as to what sort of bridge you are going to have, you will postpone the whole work of that Embankment, which, has so long been needed. I have listened very carefully to the Debate, and I have heard two fallacies perpetrated on the other side of the House. The one by the right hon. Gentleman is his old fallacy, which has been thoroughly exposed by my hon. Friend the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), that a fixed line of tramways is less obstructive to traffic than the motor omnibus. Everyone knows that a fixed line of tramway is one of the greatest obstructions you can have to traffic. Anyone who has driven in London knows that the fact that the tramcar cannot do anything in the way of give and take makes it one of the worst obstructions you can have. You will find the motor 'bus can give and take exactly like the old horse carriage, and you will get far more traffic on a road occupied by motor 'buses than on a road which has tramways on it. The other fallacy was uttered by the hon. Member who spoke last. He said the gradient would be an obstacle in the case of this bridge, and that it made no difference to the horse how soon a

665
steep gradient is lightened. The real fact of the matter is that the gradient of 1 in 20, which is not in itself at all steep, is only 100 ft. in length on this bridge. We all know a horse can make an effort and get over a short bit of gradient, which he could not maintain if that gradient is prolonged; in this case it passes at once into the lighter gradient of 1 in 30. I do not think the question of the gradient is a serious objection as far as we have heard it described, but, at any rate, I do urge the extreme unreasonableness of the claim put forward by the hon. Member, and I think also by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Noble Lord should here and now give an undertaking to amend this Bill in a way that would necessitate different kinds of alteration, mechanical, engineering, and as to cost, because the gradient affects greatly, as I understand, the cost of the approaches, and that those matters should not be left to the proper tribunal, the Committee upstairs. If the Committee conform to the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, this matter will be settled. But this is not the place to settle details of this sort, and you would most seriously injure the interests of London if you postponed the scheme for this bridge. As to other considerations, I confess I am in favour of as beautiful a bridge as possible. It is a great loss that we have not had before us a picture of this bridge in order that we may judge of the design. It is not the width of the bridge that constitutes its beauty, but the design; particularly from the point of view mentioned by hon. Members opposite, from the Terrace of this House. We shall not look up the bridge and see its width, we—and most other people—will only see it in profile. The mere question of width has little to do with æthetic considerations in this matter.
Mr. PETO: As one not representing a London constituency, but having had something to do with the construction of
similar works, I had hoped to hear from the hon. Member for Rochester that he was taking into consideration the objections to this Bill. When I received this morning from the London County Council a notification in justification of their proposal, I came to the conclusion that the arguments in support of the scheme were suggestive that there was something inherently rotten in it. But I certainly feel with the hon. Member for Westminster that there is good ground for sending this Bill upstairs. There may be fundamental questions which the House itself ought to consider on the Second Reading, but there are also questions of constructional detail which should be considered elsewhere, and therefore I hold there is a strong case against absolutely opposing the Second Reading. Although I do not hold a very good case has been made out for the very moderate expenditure now proposed, I still think we ought to give this Bill a Second Reading. After all, this is not likely to be a main line artery for London traffic so long as we have Westminster Bridge on the one side and Vauxhall on the other. If this is always to be an auxiliary bridge, only narrowly divided from one on either side of it, I think there is a very strong argument for limiting the expenditure so far as possible, because there is no doubt that you cannot spend money all over the Thames and practically make it solid with bridges from one end to the other. In the absence of any guidance from those Members who know infinitely more about the subject than I do, I think it is the obvious duty of hon. Members to do as I shall, vote for the Second Reading in order that we may consider the matter further at a later date.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 180.

Division No. 32.]

AYES.

[10.34 p.m.

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Clyde, J. Avon

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Courthope, George Loyd

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Bigland, Alfred

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Ashley, W. W.

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffiths

Cralk, Sir Henry

Baird, J. L.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Dalrymple, Viscount

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

Burdett-Coutts, William

Duke, Henry Edward

Balcarres, Lord

Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

Fell, Arthur

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Campion, W. R.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Barnston, H.

Cator, John

Forster, Henry William

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

Cautley, H. S.

Gardner, Ernest

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

Cave, George

Glazebrook, Capt P. K.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Goldman, C. S.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Goldsmith, Frank

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Guinness, Hon. W. E.

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Stanier, Beville

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Stewart, Gershom

Hardie, J. Keir

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Sykes, Marx (Hull, Central)

Helme, Norval Watson

Nield, Herbert

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Hogge, James Myles

Perkins, Walter F.

Touche, George Alexander

Hohler, G. F.

Peto, Basil Edward

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Watt, Henry A.

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Pringle, William M. R.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Ingleby, Holcombe

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

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

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Joynson-Hicks, William

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Knight, Captain E. A.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Wolmer, Viscount

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Larmor, Sir J.

Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Yate, Col. C. E.

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

Sanders, Robert A.

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

Sanderson, Lancelot

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fred Hall (Dulwich) and Lord Alexander Thynne.

Mackinder, Hallord J.

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Macmaster, Donald

Spear, Sir John Ward

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Adamson, William

Gulland, John William

Needham, Christopher T.

Addison, Dr. C.

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Neilson, Francis

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

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nolan, Joseph

Agnew, Sir George William

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nuttall, Harry

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Hayward, Evan

O'Dowd, John

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Higham, John Sharp

O'Malley, William

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Hinds, John

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E, H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Bentham, G. J.

Hodge, John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Boland, John Pius

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hudson, Walter

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hughes, S. L.

Pointer, Joseph

Bryce, J. Annan

Illingworth, Percy H.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Burns, Ht. Hon. John

Johnson, W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Radford, George Heynes

Chancellor, H. G.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Clough, William

Jowett, F. W.

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Joyce, Michael

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Keating, M.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cowan, W. H.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Crawshay Williams, Eliot

Kilbride, Denis

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Crumley, Patrick

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Cullinan, John

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Davies, F. William (Eifion)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Lansbury, George

Rowlands, James

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Dawes, J. A.

Lewis, John Herbert

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

De Forest, Baron

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Doris, William

Lundon, T.

Scanlan, Thomas

Duffy, William J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sheeny, David

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lynch, A. A.

Shortt, Edward

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Simon, Sir John Allseb ook

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Macpherson, James Ian

Smyth, Thomas F.

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sutton, John E.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Manfield, Harry

Tennant, Harold John

Esslemont, George Birnie

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Farrell, James Patrick

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Martin, Joseph

Toulmin, Sir George

Field, William

Masterman, C. F. G.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Meagher, Michael

Verney, Sir Harry

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Wadsworth, John

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Menzies, Sir Walter

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Gill, A. H.

Millar, James Duncan

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Molloy, M.

Webb, H.

Glanville, H. J.

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

White, J. (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morgan, George Hay

Whitehouse, John Howard

Goldstone, Frank

Morrell, Philip

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

668

669

Wiles, Thomas

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Wilkie, Alexander

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Essex and Mr. Crooks.

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

Young, William (Perth, East)

Main Question as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.

SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SEBVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1912–13.
  (VOTE ON ACCOUNT.)
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment—[Lord Robert Cecil].
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT: I wish to say only a word with reference to the secondary school regulations, and anything I can say on that subject will only be a repetition of what has been so well said by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Barlow) and my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil). All I can do is to emphasise what has fallen from them. I can assure the President of the Board of Education that, however strong the feeling may be in other denominations with reference to these regulations, it is certainly not so strong as among my coreligionists. They feel that these regulalations are really penal upon them. I was unable to be present to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself, but I heard afterwards with great disappointment, that he held out, no hope whatever of any change in these regulations this year. I regret that extremely. I think ha had a good opportunity. We understand from what has appeared in the Press, that next year we are to be again face to face with a violent conflict on the question of education. I think if the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to change these regulations this year, there might have been some chance of starting on the campaign in a more peaceful frame of mind than we shall do. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman may feel that he will not be here to enter upon that campaign. If that is so, perhaps that is some excuse for continuing these regulations now. All I wish to do is to assure him that the Catholics of this country bitterly resent and really feel with pain that these regulations are to be continued in force.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): One or two questions have
  670
  been put in relation to the Education Department which I desire to answer, but before I do so I wish to say a word or two in regard to what was said earlier in the Debate as to the salaries paid by certain local authorities in Wales in connection with voluntary schools. The view taken by hon. Members of the position, so far as I can understand, is that the Board of Education ought directly the Swansea judgment was given to have taken action by mandamus or otherwise against the local authorities who appeared to be paying less-salaries in the voluntary schools. As far as I can make out, hon. Members opposite contend that there should have been hardly any delay or inquiry. I wish to remind the House that the Board of Education has a good many other dealings with local authorities than to quarrel with them over religion. If the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University at any time had anything to do with education, sitting on this bench, I should like to seethe result if the Board of Education should treat local authorities as if they were under his control. In dealing with local authorities, it does not do to fire off orders against them from the Board of Education. I suggest to the House that the course adopted by my right hon. Friend has been perfectly right and perfectly wise. In the first place after the judgment the Board of Education dealt with Swansea. It got that case settled. It arranged and insisted that the Swansea authority should do what the law demanded it should do. Having done that, the President then proceeded to make inquiries into the other cases, and so far from failing by this more conciliatory process than firing off mandamuses to local authorities, he rather appears to be settling the question, as evidently is happening already in the case of the Glamorgan authority. Surely that is a very much better plan than quarrelling with half a dozen authorities throughout Wales.
  After all, in this matter, we are only imitating what has been done by our predecessors. When the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Oxford University had charge of the education business in this House he had to put into operation the Act of 1902. He had some difficulty in dealing with the West Riding of Yorkshire, which, like the Welsh

  671
  counties, did not take a very conciliatory view of the Act of 1902, and did not wish to put it into operation. One of the things it did was to refuse by resolution to pay a Grant to secondary schools which gave denominational teaching. It was during his regime that they passed that resolution, and they refused to pay the Grant—I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman did not mandamus the authority. But persuasion is a far better plan than quarrelling, and he hoped that as time went on it would become gradually possible to induce the West Riding authority to take a more conciliatory view of the working of the Act. That is what my right hon. Friend is going to do with regard to these schools. He is determined to work the Act justly. He is not going to rush into quarrels with the local authorities. He is going to see whether they are acting according to the law or not, and if they are acting illegally he will take action.
  Sir W. ANSON: In dealing with the West Riding we are dealing with secondary schools over which the Board of Education have practically no power.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The fact remains that you allowed the West Riding authority to go on paying Grants to provided schools, but not paying Grants to non-provided schools, which was against the law.
  Sir W. ANSON: Secondary schools.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I am exceedingly sorry that the whole of this Debate should have been taken up with the discussion of the religious question. There was one speech which was markedly different from most of the speeches in this Debate, that of my hon. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse). He alluded to the very interesting work which the Board of Education has got to do. I cannot speak of many things to which he directed his remarks, but I should like in this rather full House, with many Members who are interested in the work of the local authorities present, to call attention to one new item on the Estimates to which he directly referred, that was the fact that this year appears on the Estimates for the first time the sum of £60,000 put down for the purpose of the medical treatment of school children. Regulations will be issued under which that sum will be spent, and I very much hope that it will result in increased
  672
  activity on the part of local authorities in carrying out what both sides of the House regard as a necessary expenditure to raise the standard of health of our children. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke referred to what he regarded as a local grievance, namely, that the Grant for necessitous areas had been refused to the borough which he represents. The Board have very carefully considered the matter, and my right hon. Friend came clearly to the decision that the Grant could not be claimed on legal grounds. Burslem and Longton were united to Stoke in 1908, Stoke not being then in the position to get the necessitous area Grant. By the Provisional Order, which united the present boroughs of Burslem and Longton to Stoke, those two boroughs get the right to continue to receive the Necessitous Areas Grant. They were still to be treated as seperate boroughs for that purpose. Under that provision last year they got £6,000 out of the Necessitous Areas Grant. The hon. Member now asks why Stoke, as a whole, cannot get a Necessitous Areas Grant? In the first place, it is impossible for us, in view of the Provisional Order, to cease to give Burslem and Longton the £6,000 which they get under the regulations. Therefore, all we might seem to be able to do would be to deal separately with the other parts of the present Stoke borough and give them separate Grants. We cannot do that under the regulations, which are agreed on by the Treasury, and provide that no local authority which is not at the present moment receiving a Grant can get it. It is therefore absolutely impossible for us to do it. Unless my hon. Friend induces the Treasury to take a different point of view, it is legally impossible for us to do what he wants. I must ask him to deal with it as a question which is rather more a Treasury one than one connected with our Department. We have heard the case thoroughly, and we have come to the definite conclusion that we cannot meet him on legal grounds.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The hon. Member forgot to answer a most important question, and it is this. If it turns out that these local education authorities have acted improperly and contrary to the law in differentiating between one class of school and another—and that has been going on, if we are right, since May of last year—and if it turns out after inquiry that they are wrong, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the teachers have the

  673
  arrears of salaries from May to the time of the enforcement of the inquiry? Otherwise, if that is not done, the fact will be that the recalcitrant local education authorities will have acted wrongly for ten or eleven months. At the inquiry into the conduct of the local education authority that authority, as in the Swansea case, of course will not go into the box or give evidence and will not call any witnesses, and the end of it will be that they will get off ten months' salary.
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: All I can say in reply to that matter is this, that I am prepared to hold inquiries if I do not receive satisfactory replies from the various county
  councils. If the result of those inquiries leads me to believe that other steps have to be taken, I will take care to see that the law is carried out. With regard to the arrears of salaries, I have nothing whatsoever to do with that. My duties end in seeing that efficient education is secured in these schools. With regard to the treatment and payment of the schoolmasters, that is a matter for the local authority.
  Question put, "That Item Class IV, Vote 1 (Board of Education) be reduced by £100."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 204.

  Division No. 33.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Baird, J. L.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Perkins, Walter F.

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

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Glazebrook, Capt. P. K.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goldman, C. S.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barnston, Harry

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Grant, J. A.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hohler, G. F.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Campion, W. R.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cator, John

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Cautley, H. S.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Cave, George

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

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

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

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

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Macmastcr, Donald

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Fell, Arthur

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord R. Cecil and Mr. Rawlinson.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Nield, Herbert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Crooks, William

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Boland, John Pius

  Crumley, Patrick

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cullinan, John

  Adamson, William

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Timothy (Louth)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

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

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Dawes, J. A.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  De Forest, Baron

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Doris, William

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Duffy, William J.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Esmonde, Dr John (Tipperary, N.)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cowan, W. H.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Field, William

  Lundon, T.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Gill, A. H.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Glanville, H. J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Manfield, Harry

  Rowlands, James

  Goldstone, Frank

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Martin, Joseph

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

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meagher, Michael

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sheehy, David

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Shortt, Edward

  Harvey, A. G. C.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Molloy, M.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Smyth, Thomas F.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morgan, George Hay

  Sutton, John E.

  Hayward, Evan

  Worrell, Philip

  Tennant, Harold John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hinds, John

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Neilson, Francis

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hodge, John

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wadsworth, John

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hudson, Walter

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wardle, George J.

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Johnson, W.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Webb, H.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Dowd, John

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Malley, William

  White, Patrick (Heath, North)

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Joyce, Michael

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Keating, M.

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

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

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

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

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Lansbury, George

  Radford, G. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote.
  Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Friday); Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
  Adjourned sit Thirteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Mining Royalties.
  Mining Royalties.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  DISTRICT COMMITTEES.
  DISTRICT COMMITTEES.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Damage by Floods, County Mayo.
  Damage by Floods, County Mayo.
  Gaelic Colleges.
  Gaelic Colleges.
  Marlborough Street Training College, Dublin.
  Marlborough Street Training College, Dublin.
  Population (Ireland).
  Population (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Public Trustee (Ireland).
  Public Trustee (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Fishing Harbour, Blackwater, County Wexford.
  Fishing Harbour, Blackwater, County Wexford.
  Dartmouth Naval College.
  Dartmouth Naval College.
  War Office Contracts.
  War Office Contracts.
  Bullet Ammunition.
  Bullet Ammunition.
  Army Peace Establishment (Officers).
  Army Peace Establishment (Officers).
  Board of Education (Junior Examiners).
  Board of Education (Junior Examiners).
  Excise Advisory Committees (India).
  Excise Advisory Committees (India).
  Wireless Telegraph Stations (India).
  Wireless Telegraph Stations (India).
  Tewkesbury (Vaccination Officer).
  Tewkesbury (Vaccination Officer).
  Cotton Manufactures (Imports and Exports).
  Cotton Manufactures (Imports and Exports).
  Unemployed (Members of Trade Unions).
  Unemployed (Members of Trade Unions).
  Metropolitan Police Fund.
  Metropolitan Police Fund.
  Telephone Service (Charges).
  Telephone Service (Charges).
  Christmas Postal Pressure.
  Christmas Postal Pressure.
  Post Office Engineers.
  Post Office Engineers.
  Afforestation.
  Afforestation.
  Merchant Shipping Act.
  Merchant Shipping Act.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on the 21st of February last that it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses.
MOVABLE DWELLINGS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for the Regulation of Movable Dwellings—Was presented by the Lord Clifford of Chudleigh; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 9.)
MARRIAGES IN JAPAN (VALIDITY) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to remove doubts as to the validity of certain Marriages solemnized in the Empire of Japan—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 10.)

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Repeal of 1 Edw. 7, c. 22, s. 157.
1. Section one hundred and fifty-seven of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, which provides that certain provisions of that Act shall not apply to men's workshops, is hereby repealed.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, I move to leave out the words "is hereby repealed," and to insert the words "shall cease to have effect on and after the first day of October nineteen hundred and twelve, but in so far as that section excludes men's workshops from the provisions of Part VII of the Act it shall cease to have effect on the passing of this Act." This Amendment is intended to modify the Bill, which, as it
334
stands, would apply to all factories where men only are employed certain provisions involving in many cases structural alterations, and it is only right that where new conditions are imposed on the carrying on of an industry a reasonable amount of time should be given to those occupying the factories to adapt themselves to the new conditions. I am glad to see that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has met this point to a great extent in the Amendment which he has placed on the Paper, and which is in these terms—
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after ("repealed") insert ("Provided that where a person was immediately before the passing of this Act exempt front such provisions as aforesaid in respect of any premises he shall not be convicted of any contravention of or failure to comply with any of those provisions which takes place before the first day of November nineteen hundred and twelve if he proves that in order to comply therewith structural alterations of those premises were necessary").
But the noble Lord's Amendment throws the burden of proof on the occupier of the premises, which I think is contrary to the ordinary rule of law and rather hard on our industries. But the real point is that the words "structural alterations" in the noble Lord's Amendment are somewhat vague. The occupier is given a statutory defence limited to his proving that structural alterations were necessary. That defence, it seems to me, would not apply to such alterations as the provision of expensive appliances for procuring internal ventilation. In that case it would rest on the occupier to show that structural alterations were really required. If the requirements of the Bill could be met by the provision of, say, very costly appliances, his defence would fall to the ground. I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether the words "structural alterations" are not somewhat vague, and whether he could not meet the point I have put forward.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("is hereby repealed") and insert ("shall cease to have effect on and after the first day of October nineteen hundred and twelve, but in so far as that section excludes men's workshops from the provisions of Part VII of the Act it shall cease to have effect on the passing of this Act")—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): The Amendment moved by the noble Earl is the outcome of a suggestion made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition when this Bill was before the House on Second Reading.

335
The noble Marquess pointed out that unless a certain amount of time were given to owners of workshops the Bill would press rather hardly upon them, and I have put down an Amendment which I think meets the case stated by the noble Marquess. I admit that the point between us is not a large one, but I prefer my Amendment to the noble Earl's, and seeing that this is a Government Bill and that there is really so little between us I would be glad if the noble Earl would allow my Amendment to go in instead of his. I do not think the point he raises about the words "structural alterations" is an important one. It seems to me clear that any occupier of a workshop would be able to demonstrate quite easily that certain time was required for making the alterations, and there would be no difficulty whatever in his proving it. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will allow my Amendment to stand as it is.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Lord in charge of the Bill has not explained why it is that he objects to the terms of my noble friend's Amendment. It is quite clear that the Government's Amendment narrows the effect of the provision very considerably. My noble friend behind me proposes that the Bill as a whole should not come into operation until after a reasonable amount of notice has been given. The Government proposal is that adequate notice should be given only in respect of alterations which can be described as structural, and not in respect of other alterations of the premises. I should have thought the simpler course was to give a reasonable number of months' notice before which the Bill as a whole would not come into operation.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: If the House prefers the noble Earl's Amendment to mine, it is, of course, for your Lordships to say so. I am in the hands of the House, though I do not think there is much difference between the two Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: As your Lordships have inserted Lord Dunmore's Amendment I do not move the Amendment standing in my name.
Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 11.)

THE GOVERNMENT'S LAND POLICY.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH rose to call attention to the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture to inquire into the position of tenant farmers, and to ask what action His Majesty's Government propose to take in relation thereto.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I desire to draw your attention to the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the late President of the Board of Agriculture. This Report has been in the hands of your Lordships for about a month. The Committee which issued this Report was composed of very distinguished individuals. There were upon the Committee members of this House and some members of the other House, all individuals whose practical knowledge and experience entitle them to express an opinion on agricultural problems, and, furthermore, the chairman of the Committee was a distinguished member of your Lordships' House—Lord Haversham. Agriculture is one of the most important industries, if not the most important industry, in this country, and knowing full well that there are a great number of noble Lords in this House who take a deep and profound interest in the welfare and prosperity of all those associated with agriculture, I felt that it would not be considered wrong on my part if I brought to your Lordships' notice at this early stage of the session this very interesting and comprehensive Report.
The Report itself is of a somewhat complicated character, partly because land tenure in itself is complicated, and, furthermore, because land tenure is complicated owing to the recent legislation which His Majesty's Government have, if I may use the phrase, inflicted upon us during the last six or seven years. We have had the Agricultural Holdings Act, we have had the Small Holdings Act, we have had the Housing and Town Planning Act brought in and passed by Mr. Burns, and last, but by no means least, we have had the land clauses in the Budget of 1909. The Report to which I am calling attention is at once very limited and also a very far-reaching document. It is limited to this extent, that the Committee were appointed to consider the position of tenant farmers. Now the position of tenant farmers has been more or less defined and consolidated by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, and the

337
Report contains some specific recommendations which would amend that Act—recommendations on which I shall have a word to say later on. The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908 consolidated what I might call the position between the permanent landlord and the permanent tenant. But the Committee were instructed to go a bit further. They were instructed to report on the questions arising out of changes in ownership, These changes the Committee found to be very numerous indeed. On Page 5 of their Report the Committee say that in the year 1911 the value of agricultural land which exchanged hands exceeded £2,000,000. This fact, of course, promptly raised in the minds of the Committee two definite, broad, comprehensive points. In the first place, the Committee asked themselves, Why had these changes taken place? and, secondly, What would be the result of them, and would, indeed, tenant farmers exist in the future any more? So we get really, in perusing this Report, into rather a paradoxical position. For while, as far as I can gather, the Committee seem generally anxious to adhere to and remain within the Reference to which they were invited to pay attention, a majority of the members of the Committee at the end of the Report recommended the transformation of tenants into owners by the aid of a State Bank. Therefore in reading the Report you will find, first, an attempt to amend the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, and at other times there is an attempt to indicate the future land policy of the country.
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to take the small points first. The Committee make four recommendations with regard to the position of tenant farmers. Those recommendations are to be found in Paragraphs 26, 27, 30, and 32. These recommendations are made on the assumption of giving longer notices to tenants in various cases; but my concern, and, indeed, so far as I can understand, the concern of the Committee itself, is in the case of the sale of land. As to this let me remind your Lordships what the Committee recommend. The Committee recommend, in the case where a tenant receives notice to quit for the purpose of sale, that the tenant should be empowered to serve a counter-notice claiming that the notice to quit shall not take effect until one year after the original notice would have expired—that is to
338
say, in all cases tenants are to have two years' notice instead of one, and that in case of a sale the tenant, by serving what, is called a counter-notice, can claim an extra two years over and above the ordinary year's notice. So, in practice, the tenant in the event of sale is to receive two years' minimum notice, and possibly, under certain conditions, a maximum of three years. The question will at once be raised by noble Lords in this House, Why should a landlord be forced to extend his notices and thus possibly see the selling value of his land considerably reduced?
For the moment I do not wish to discuss the position of the landlord. I will do that at a little later stage. Let me draw your Lordships' attention to the position of the tenant. My concern for the moment is with the tenant. Do these extended notices, as recommended in this Report, really give what the tenant himself requires? In other words, does he get what he wants? Clearly not. The Report says that what the tenants want is not change of ownership. In Paragraph 10, Page 5, the Committee say that the witnesses before them were practically unanimous in expressing the view that the tenants farming on the large estates of England and Wales desired nothing better than to remain as tenants under their present landlords. In other words, these sales of land, to the value of £2,000,000, are events which are strongly deprecated by the tenants themselves. The recommendation in this Report, instead of gratifying the wish of the tenants —that, of course, might not have been possible—simply makes tenants uncomfortable for two or three years instead of one year. So much for the position of the tenant.
What about the position of the landlord? Let us for arguments sake take an estate of 40,000 acres. The principle holds good whether the estate is 40,000, 20,000, 10,000, or 5,000 acres. Under the Finance Act of 1909–10, at the death of the owner of an estate of 40,000 acres duty has to be paid according to the market price at the time of the death of the owner. Let us assume that his estate is worth £1 an acre, and that it is valued by the Government at twenty-five years' purchase. You at once arrive at the fact that the corpus of the estate amounts to £1,000,000

339
Under the schedule of the Death Duties the owner of an estate worth £1,000,000 has to contribute to the Exchequer 15 per cent., but in addition to that there is the Succession Duty, which I believe is 2 per cent., and the Settlement Duty, which is 1 per cent., making the full contribution by this estate 18 per cent.—in other words, practically one-fifth. If the landlord himself was not insured, if he did not possess any other resources than those in land, this one-fifth of the estate has to be sold in order to meet the liabilities to the Exchequer; and, what is much more serious, one-fifth of the tenants have to be dispossessed or have to submit themselves to having their farms sold to a new landlord. The questions ask at this stage are, What will be the effect of this on the value of the land itself? Surely that is a point which we are entitled to put. Again, Who is likely to purchase this land? Are the tenants likely to purchase it? We know very well that already they have very slender resources, and the Committee in this Report continually say that it would be very unwise for tenants to take the money which they have now got in agriculture and invest it in land. The effect of that would be to reduce the sum total of the money now invested in agriculture and place it in land, and consequently the prolification of the soil would be affected. Are county councils likely to buy it? We know, for reasons which I will refer to later, that they are not.
Then I ask, Is the fact that, in the event of purchase, the prospective owner cannot take possession until two or three years after he has purchased the land an inducement to citizens to embark their capital in agricultural land It used to be the custom for tenants when taking a farm to inquire into the stability of the landlord, into his character and general administrative capacity, but I do not think tenants are any longer going to make this inquiry. They will ask, Is the landlord insured, and, if not, has he any means of paying his liabilities to the State on his decease? For, if he has not, it is clear that part of his estate will have to be sold to meet the obligations to the Government, and the tenants will at once be dispossessed and made uncomfortable. I am bound to add that the Report does nothing to remedy this state of affairs by any suggestions or any
340
proposals. I venture to say this to Lord Haversham, with the most profound respect, that if he had really had the courage to go to the root and bedrock of the matter he would have recommended that the Death Duties should be considerably diminished or abolished altogether.
LORD HAVERSHAM: That was not within the Reference to the Committee.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I bow to the noble Lord's reply. No doubt that is quite correct. But the question of the Death Duties is at the root of the difficulty. At this point the Committee open up a much wider issue. This was the consideration presented. It was said, Supposing the land is sold by one landlord to another and the tenants are given security of tenure for a period of two or three years, what about a public body? What is to happen in the event of a county council buying land? Are the tenants in that case to have an extended tenancy of two or three years or are they not? And the Committee unanimously decided that the tenants should not have an extended tenancy; but they said that instead of the extended tenancy the public body should pay the tenant proper compensation for being dispossessed of his farm. That is fully pointed out in Paragraph 38, on Page 9. This is the point I want to bring to your Lordships' notice—How is this recommendation going to affect the tenants of the public body themselves? Who is going to pay this compensation? Are the ratepayers going to pay it Certainly not. Why should they pay it? There is no moral authority or reason for imposing this liability on the ratepayers. Are the small holders themselves going to pay it? Every one knows that the small owner cannot afford to pay compensation to the tenant for being dispossessed. The compensation arrangements recommended in this Report, or as they are set out in the amending Small Holdings Act of 1910, have really helped to render inoperative the original Small Holdings Act of 1906. The policy recommended by this Committee is parallel to that which has vitiated so much the agrarian policy of the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire. The noble Marquess originally gave security of tenure to tenants against landlords, but no security to tenants against public bodies. Now the tenant is safeguarded

341
both against the landlord and against public bodies, and the burden is thrown on the back of the small holder. The noble Marquess knows perfectly well the overwhelming difficulty the small holder has to find compensation for those who leave a farm for him to go there, and, since he cannot pay, the effect of these provisions is stifling the operation of the original Act of 1906.
The various enactments of the present Government have brought about a most extraordinary confusion in the state of affairs. First of all, we have the Agricultural Holdings Act passed by the noble Marquess in 1908, to which I have alluded. I know that the noble Marquess himself is extremely proud of that Act. Personally—and I say it with profound respect—I always regarded that Act as a most disastrous piece of legislation. What does that Act permit a tenant to do? A tenant on a holding is given full right to practice any system of cropping of the arable land and to dispose of the produce of the holding without incurring any forfeiture or liability. It is true that if the farming is very bad the landlord can bring an injunction and can bring in arbitrators. What has been the effect of that Act? Perhaps the noble Marquess will not mind my telling him what the effect has been in the locality in which I live. Oxfordshire is the second county in England to demand small holdings in point of numbers, and it is the second county in England to give small holdings in point of numbers. Under the beneficent legislation of the noble Marquess the tenant is permitted to farm as he likes. What does he do frequently? He finds an arable field which is difficult to work and costs him a considerable sum of money. He thinks to himself, "I will reduce the sum total of the capital on my farm and convert this arable field into somewhat indifferent and bad grass and I will run a few sheep over it, "and he forthwith proceeds to do so. What happens? The labourers are dismissed, and what are they to do? They may drift into towns; but the towns do not want them. They may emigrate; but noble Lords opposite are not going to advocate a policy of emigration, for that would be tantamount to admitting the failure of their social policy. Therefore all he can do is to make an application to the county council for a small holding. And what happens? The county council apply for a small
342
holding in the same locality where these men live. They probably select the very field in which these men have been working as labourers; they take it away from the tenant farmer and give it to these small holders, charging them in rent 5 or 6 per cent. more than the tenant had been paying. In addition the small holder has to compensate the tenant for his bad farming, and the money has to be found out of the small holder's pocket. That is what happens as a result of this clause in the Agricultural Holdings Act.
There is really, I think, a complete confusion of ideas by this Act of 1908 introduced between the tenants and the labourers. It all comes from the Government's pernicious and vicious habit of insisting upon legislating by departments. In the first place, we had the Agricultural Holdings Act. That gave security of tenure to the tenants against the landlord. Then came the Small Holdings Act, which gave no security to the tenant against a public body. Then we had the Finance Act, which incidentally came along with its land clauses and said by the operation of those clauses that there was no room for the landlord in the general hierarchy of agriculture. Then we find the Small Holdings Act amended so as to grant compensation to tenants if dispossessed by a public body; and last, but by no means least, we find agitation to the effect that the small holders themselves are unable to pay this compensation, and a debate is raised in another place in which the question of involving the rates is discussed. The question of involving the rates is discussed for the reason that the whole basis of your agrarian policy has completely broken down. The financial basis is unsound, and the Government are driven, as a last resort, to discuss the most dangerous principle whether they can employ the rates to bolster up and make effective their bad financial administration.
May I be permitted to say one word with regard to this question of rates, because it is just possible that what occurred only two nights ago in the House of Commons may have escaped the notice of many noble Lords in this House. I deeply regret that the noble Marquess is no longer at his post as President of the Board of Agriculture. Although we did not see eye to eye with him in many

343
matters, yet we know perfectly well that he was a strong, capable, and active administrator and understood all the problems which were presented to his notice. I wish I could say the same of his successor. What did his successor admit only the other night in the House of Commons? He did not lay it down as a general principle; he did not state it as part and parcel of the policy of the Government—it was wrung out of him in a negligent unwilling manner. He said he saw no reason why, when county councils buy land, the sinking fund which the county councils have to pay to the Government for the purchase of that land should not be made a charge on the ratepayers, and he added that if county councils chose to do that, he for his part, as head of the Board of Agriculture, would instruct the Auditor-General not to surcharge those amounts. I think I have accurately stated what the President of the Board of Agriculture said the other day in the House of Commons. Let us see what the effect of this dangerous and pernicious statement would be. I am bound to point out at this point that when the noble Marquess introduced his Small Holdings Act he gave a deliberate pledge that the rates should not be employed for the purpose of administering the Act. I am sorry I have not his words at hand, but I know he made a most definite statement that on no account should the rates be employed for the purpose of making the financial arrangements of the Act successful.
But now what has happened? The Government now say that the rates may be employed for the purpose of paying the sinking fund. My Lords, it is not going to stop there if the rates are to be employed for the purpose of paying the sinking fund, why should they not be employed for the purpose of paying the compensation which the small holders have to pay to tenants who are dispossessed? As the noble Marquess knows, bad prices and a bad agricultural year frequently go together. What is to prevent the small holders going to the county council and saying, "We have had a bad year and have lost money and cannot pay. We desire you, the public body, to make good the deficiency from the rates of the county." There is a long vista of gross mal-administration ahead of us if the disastrous principle is admitted that the rates can
344
be employed to bolster up the unsound economic administration of the Government. That point I do commend to the notice of His Majesty's Ministers, and I sincerely trust that the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will use his endeavours to prevent his chief from embarking upon a policy fraught with so many dangerous consequences.
There is a sentence in this Report which I should like to refer to before I leave the subject of the Agricultural Holdings Act and the noble Marquess. It helps to pulverise that Act if that has not already been done. It occurs in the passage in which the Committee consider a scheme of State-aided purchase and lay down certain points to safeguard the State as interim landlord. Among the various provisos, the Committee lay down this: that it is essential that the land shall be farmed "in a husband-like manner." But, as I have already reminded your Lordships, under this beneficent Agricultural Holdings Act a tenant when he farms under your Lordships is entitled to farm as he likes, and the noble Marquess makes action on the part of the landlord to prevent the deterioration of the farm a most intricate, cumbrous, and troublesome business. I cannot help asking the noble Marquess this question, How are you going to reconcile the safeguards which this Committee thought necessary to be imposed if the State became an interim landlord dealing with interim tenants with the somewhat loose, and, if I may use the phrase, "sloppy" statutory enactments contained in the Agricultural Holdings Act in their relation between us as landlords and the tenants who serve under us?
We come really to this question, What have Ministers done in the six or seven years they have been in office to help and make prosperous the first industry of the country? Let me take the landlord first of all. The noble Marquess, under the Agricultural Holdings Act, has destroyed the administrative powers formerly possessed by the landlord by giving the tenant the right to farm as he likes and more or less security against any interference on the part of the landlord; and by the land clauses in the Budget of 1909–10 the landlord is slowly but surely going to be dispossessed That settles the landlord. Now as to the tenant. The tenant wishes

345
to farm and to hold under the landlord, as is clearly laid down in this Report. Your legislation is making that impossible. The Report shows this over and over again. The tenant does not want his land taken away for small holdings, and you have legislated exactly contrary to his wish. That settles the tenant. Lastly, What about the former labourer who becomes a small holder? It is quite true you have given him a small holding. Some 9,000 small holders have been created within the last three years. Well and good. But observe what you do. You force the small holder to pay compensation for acquiring his land from the dispossessed tenant, and, if he farms land which the county council have bought through money advanced by the State, to pay not only the sinking fund but the interest on the borrowed money, and, incidentally, he is invited to serve under a landlord whose administrative charges the present President of the Board of Agriculture says may amount to a maximum of 20 per cent. and to a minimum of not less than 6 per cent. I am not sure that, so far as the financial aspect of the case is concerned, the small holder is in a specially agreeable position.
LORD LUCAS: That, of course, includes repairs.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Yes, the repairs made by the county council. That is the present chaotic state of affairs, and I think we are entitled to ask what the Government intend to do to improve it. Now there are four possible policies laid down in this Report. In the first place, it is suggested that the landlord shall be retained. That is in accordance with the wishes of the tenants. Then there is a pious expression of opinion that the county council might be the landlord. As far as I can make out, that view was regarded rather benevolently. Furthermore, there was the suggestion to turn the tenants into owners by the aid of State banks. And, finally, there was a strong recommendation that the State itself should be the landlord to acquire the land and allow the tenants to farm under it. I know that many noble Lords hold various and different views as to the manner and method by which agricultural problems should be solved. The Committee seem rather to have felt that, because they showed a fine impartiality in incorporating in their Report all the different recommendations suggested to them. That
346
in itself may have been very wise and proper. But what I want to know this evening is this—What is the policy of the Government themselves? Have they a policy? If they have, will they allow that policy to be made known to noble Lords in this House? I really do think, if I may say so with due respect to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, that the time has come when the Ministry should make a full statement of their land policy. Although it will be a source of great interest to us to hear the views of the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, yet I feel in a sense that his views will be those more or less of the Department.
What we would like to hear to-night is the broad general policy which the Government propose to pursue with regard to the first industry of the country. I ask this, not because I personally feel that I am in the least entitled to do so, but I would draw the attention of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to this fact, that the Departmental Committee was appointed by one of his own colleagues. It was at the express request of the Government themselves that they were asked to report, and in this Report the Committee say that the present uncertainty is militating against agriculture. Now if a Committee which you have yourselves appointed says that as a result of your policy the present uncertainty is militating against agriculture, I do think that in all fairness to the agricultural community the noble Marquess is bound to give some expression of opinion to this House as to the future policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to this difficult and complex problem. It is in the hope that we shall be able to extract some definite statement at the hands of His Majesty's Government that I have ventured to bring to your Lordships' notice to-night the interesting and admirable Report made by the Committee over which Lord Haversham presided.
LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I venture to ask your Lordships to accord me the privilege of intervening between the able and exhaustive speech of the noble Duke opposite, which I heard with the greatest admiration, and the necessary reply of my noble friend who represents the Board of Agriculture in this House. My claim to do so is that for ten months of last year I had the honour of presiding over the

347
Committee which presented this Report. We heard evidence from every large agricultural association and club in the country and a great number of tenant farmers, valuers, solicitors, and others, and I think I cannot do better than commence by congratulating noble Lords on the opposite side of the House, who represent large properties and have numerous tenants under them, upon the universal testimony of the tenant farmers as to the excellent relations which exist between their landlords and themselves. I cannot express this better, or more concisely, than in the words of the Report itself—
"Witnesses before the Committee were practically unanimous in expressing the view that the tenants farming on the large estates of England and Wales desired nothing better than to remain as tenants under their present landlords, and, in view of the remission of rent by landlords in had seasons and the execution of repairs and improvements over and above the strictly agricultural requirements of the farms, the position of tenants under good landlords is apparently a satisfactory one."
I think we shall all endorse that. But I am afraid this very happy state of relations is within an area which is gradually, year by year and almost week by week, becoming narrower.
We had the advantage of having on our Committee Mr. Howard Frank, a member of the largest firm of auctioneers in this country especially concerned with the sale of landed estates, and he assured us that £1,500,000 worth of agricultural land was sold in 1910, and that last year the amount would be £2,000,000. I agree with the noble Duke that there is a great deal to be said for the operation of the Death Duties. I think it is quite clear that it is found necessary to part with portions of estates to find the large sums of money which are payable at a particular crisis. But the policy of Death Duties has been endorsed by both sides in politics and by Chancellors of the Exchequer of both Parties, and we cannot go back upon that. I think I ought to mention that considerable apprehension and alarm exist, not as to what has been done, but as to what is going to be done in the future. I refer to the new valuation. I think it is more that and what is to come which causes unrest among landlords and leads to the sale of estates than any Act which can be pointed to as having been injurious to the agricultural industry.
But that is not by any means the whole story. There are a great many other causes
348
which have led to landed estates going into the market. I ask your Lordships to consider what a very great change there has been in what are called the amenities of landed property. I dare say many of your Lordships have read the recently published "Life of Charles Fox," by Sir George Trevelyan, in which he shows that at that time the greater part of the Lower House was composed of landlords, and that landed property then carried with it representation in the Commons House of Parliament certainly in all the counties and in most of the boroughs, except the King's. All that has passed away, and I myself remember hearing the late Lord Salisbury say in this House, before I was a member of it, that we must all admit that the landed interest is not the powerful interest in the House of Commons that it once was. I need not remind your Lordships that in those days nobody but landed proprietors were made magistrates or deputy-lieutenants. The status which landlords had in the counties has materially altered. A still more powerful reason for the sale of estates is the existence of an immense number of other funds in which capital can be invested and a higher rate of interest obtained than in land. That is, to my mind, the greatest cause of all. No doubt these are concurrent reasons, and I do not think it would be right for the noble Duke to assume that it is fear of legislation only which has induced landlords to sell. There is also a boom in land which has induced people to part with their estates. A very creditable reluctance exists on the part of landlords to raise the rents of old tenants. They prefer to sell their estates rather than raise the rents. All these reasons, of course, have led to great unrest among the tenants, and it was with the object of endeavouring to find some means of allaying that unrest that the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, appointed this Committee.
The suggestion most popular with the tenant farmers who gave evidence before us was a system of State-aided purchase. They all thought that that would relieve matters much more than any of the smaller changes to which I will in a moment allude. The proposal we make was suggested by a member of the Committee, Sir Edward Holden, a very experienced financial authority and banker. Our proposal is that the State should advance £500,000, and that the tenants should be

349
assisted out of this, which would be managed by a Land Bank. The tenants, we suggest, should have money advanced at 4 per cent.—3¼ per cent. as interest, ½ per cent. for management, and ¼ per cent. for sinking fund. I do not know whether that will find favour with His Majesty's Government, but it found favour in the eyes of the tenant farmers. We thought it better not to adopt the policy of giving the whole sum to the tenants, and we propose that they should provide one-fifth of the purchase money, and that the State should find the remaining four-fifths.
I should like to be allowed to say one or two words with regard to the smaller changes to which the noble Duke alluded. In the first place, the most powerful alleviation next to State-aided purchase was the proposal to extend the notice to quit. I will state a concrete case so that the House can see where the shoe pinches. Supposing that a man who has a Michaelmas tenancy is given notice to quit. That notice would operate at the following Michaelmas. It happens that the sale of farms almost always takes place in June and July, and it is not possible for the tenant to know until June whether or not he will be allowed to stay on. He cannot before then negotiate with the new man, who has not yet purchased the farm. He cannot negotiate with his old landlord, because the latter does not know whether he will sell or not. The tenant, therefore, goes on until June in absolute ignorance of what his fate will be. When the farm is sold he has only two or three months until Michaelmas in which to look round and get a new farm. That is an intolerable hardship. We must remember that these men have very often created an extensive business. They may have established milk rounds, they may have got together a cheese industry and may have a number of labourers whom they desire to take with them to the next farm. But it is the most difficult thing in the world to find another farm in two months. We propose that in case of a sale the tenant may serve a counter-notice, which shall have the effect of extending his tenancy by one year—not by two years, as stated by the noble Duke. I think that is a very fair thing. We say in the Report—
"The majority of the witnesses were in favour of a longer notice to quit in all cases where the land is intended to be put up for sale, and with a view, therefore, to mitigate the injury and possible hardship inflicted at present on a tenant the Committee
350
recommend that, in cases where a tenant receives notice to quit for the purpose of sale, the tenant should be empowered to serve a counter-notice claiming that the notice to quit shall not, take effect until one year after the original notice would have expired. … The Committee think that the suggested clause would give a tenant time to negotiate with his new landlord or to make, arrangements for obtaining another farm, and would go far towards removing any grievance under which he labours at present."
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I was rather at pains over that paragraph to make out whether the minimum term was two years or three years.
LORD HAVERSHAM: The term is two, years from the first notice—that is, one year longer. But either party, the landlord or the tenant, may terminate the tenancy at any time he pleases, provided he makes an arrangement with the other. Our object was to secure by legislation that the tenant might claim by counter-notice an additional year. Then we say that where there is no time specified in the agreement two years shall be taken as the term. We think that that would have a very good effect in making tenants when they enter upon a holding claim two years at first, and that would be a great solution of the difficulty. The noble Duke spoke, I think, with some contempt of our proposal about small holdings. The effect is this, that if a landlord at the impulsion of the county council or of his own accord sells land for small holdings, then compensation is to be paid to the tenant whom he turns out. But the case is different if the land is sold at public auction. Then the county council are not to pay any compensation at all. All we propose is that the thing should be made equal, and however the land be obtained, if it is destined for small holdings, there should be compensation for the farmer who is turned out.
The Committee make another small recommendation which I think will commend itself to your Lordships. It is to alter the time at which a man may put in his claim for compensation. As the law stands at present, a man must make his claim for compensation within two months of receiving notice to quit. I put the question to a great many of the leading witnesses, valuers and estate men, and they all said they saw no reason whatever why this particular period was taken. We say—and all the witnesses agreed with us—that it would be fair that a man should

351
be allowed to put in his claim for compensation at any time within two months of the date when his tenancy expires. That is our recommendation. We did all we could to find the best possible means of assisting tenant farmers. We shall be quite satisfied if the smaller recommendations are, as a preliminary, adopted. Of course, we should be very glad indeed if the financial scheme which we propound could be adopted by the Government. That would be the most effective remedy of all; but, apart from that, I am quite sure that considerable good would be accomplished were some of the smaller recommendations contained in the Committee's Report carried into effect.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I gladly associate myself with the remarks which fell from the noble Lord opposite, because, having sat with him for some ten months on this Committee, I know that it is very largely owing to his careful management of the Committee, which was composed of people representing almost every possible view, that he has been able to get them to produce a practically unanimous Report. I also fully associate myself with his half-expressed, but, I think, almost withdrawn, expression of regret that the Government should have launched into a system of financial policy which has caused such serious evil. What he and the noble Duke have said in that direction has made more clear than the Report makes it that the sale of estates and the consequent difficulties in which tenants find themselves are due, not only to past legislation, but to a fear of legislation that may be to come, and very largely due to the operations of the Small Holdings Act under which a large tenant no longer feels himself safe in his holding. It has been the purpose of almost all Agricultural Holdings Acts passed in the interests of tenant farmers to make their position as secure as possible, and every agricultural authority will, no doubt, lay down that security of tenure is a first essential. Consequently anything that acts against that must be against agricultural interests in this country. And this Committee, appointed to look into the position of tenant farmers who are dispossessed owing to Government action, have taken fully into consideration that it is the obvious duty of Parliament to, as far as possible, restore to tenants that security which has been taken away.
352
There are some minor recommendations put forward by the Committee which are in no sense a remedy of the evils of which we have to complain, but which yet may alleviate the difficulties. The noble Lord who presided over the Committee has told the House very fully the position in which the tenant would be after giving a counter-notice to his landlord. I do not agree with the noble Duke that that will make land unsaleable or lower the value. If a man buys an estate in a large plot the last thing he wants is for the tenants to leave. He wants to enter into an estate which is fully equipped with substantial tenants. The case is slightly different when land is sold farm by farm and there is a possibility of occupying owners coming in; but, even then, I do not believe that the term of notice will really prevent a good sale taking place. It has been my fortune to sell a large number of holdings, but in no case have I given notice before sale. It has always been after sale for the purchaser to make arrangements with the tenants. The recommendation of the Committee will extend that notice to two years, and if that recommendation takes effect and is acted upon by tenants it is obvious that no land will be sold with vacant possession. Therefore nobody will expect to have vacant possession, and consequently it cannot in any degree affect the value of land. At the same time it will give a most important safeguard to the tenants themselves that they will not be turned out at a moment's notice and without having sufficient time to find another farm.
But the really important part of this Report is undoubtedly contained in the recommendation for State-aided purchase. I believe that almost every witness who came before the Committee expressed himself strongly of opinion that some form of State-aided purchase was necessary under present circumstances. It was laid down very clearly, both by witnesses and by members of the Committee, that it was essential in any scheme of State-aided purchase that it should be run without any risk to the Government who aided the purchase, and that it should be run on commercial lines and the interest of the State safeguarded in every possible way. At the same time it is obvious that the rate of interest and the sinking fund must be such as the tenant can pay without dipping into any of his capital now employed in

353
farming, his land. The Committee were agreed that it was essential that the combined rate of interest and sinking fund should not exceed the present net rent which is being paid for the land. In Sir Edward Holden's scheme, which was adopted by the Committee, it is presumed that 4 per cent. interest will be sufficient to pay interest, sinking fund, and other charges and pay off the loan within seventy-five years. They adopted, I think, the 4 per cent. rate because they were of opinion that, generally speaking, land was now selling at twenty-five years' purchase, but it is obvious that the number of years' purchase must vary according to many considerations, and I do not think it would be difficult to have a scheme whereby the sinking fund might be varied.
My view is that 4 per cent. is unnecessarily severe on the tenant. I think that in most cases the State could afford to lend at a lower rate than 4 per cent. I do not think that it is in any degree necessary that the State or the banking institution should take ½ per cent. for interest and management. As a matter of fact, the risk in a scheme of this kind is very small indeed. It is not proposed under this scheme to lend more than four-fifths of the purchase money. Consequently the security is a tolerably good one from the beginning, and by the operation of the sinking fund is improving every year; and while it may be thought, perhaps, that some charge should be made for the risk at the beginning of the period of the loan, I think it would be unfair to continue that charge for risk right through the number of years during which the loan remains. One should recollect also that, if ¼ per cent. is charged for sinking fund and will pay off the loan in seventy-five years and another ¼ per cent. is charged for risk right through that period, the tenant in effect is paying for his farm twice over.
There is, I think, a further objection possibly to the actual scheme which the Committee have adopted, and that is in the requirement to pay down one-fifth of the purchase money. I know that noble Lords opposite and members of the Government point to the fact that no tenant wants to buy in this country because they have not taken advantage of the purchase scheme under the Small Holdings Act of
354
1892. I am absolutely certain that tenants have not taken advantage of the purchase provisions of that Act on account of this very requirement which is put into Sir Edward Holden's scheme—that a percentage of the purchase money has to be paid down. It is tolerably certain that although a certain class of farmer might be able to pay down one-fifth of the purchase money those would be the farmers who could buy without assistance. I venture to criticise Sir Edward Holden's scheme in those two particulars, though I signed the Report as far as that scheme was concerned. It appeared to me that those were particulars that might be amended, and it seemed to me very essential that the Committee generally, almost every one of us being in favour of State-aided purchase, should be as unanimous as possible on that point.
There is one feature of the Report to which I take great objection and I have signed a reservation to that effect. I refer to the proposal as to State purchase. I cannot believe that any scheme of State purchase is either financially, politically, or agriculturally sound. I can imagine it possibly of advantage that the State should occasionally step in and purchase land for immediate re-sale to a tenant, but that is merely a moderation or extension of State-aided purchase. But I disapprove in the strongest possible way of the paragraph in the Report which suggests that the State should step in and buy large blocks of land and occupy them, I suppose, as an ordinary landlord. If the State buys large blocks of land there must be included in those Hocks much land which will be of an unremunerative nature; consequently a proper return cannot be got on the money expended for the purchase of that land, and a burden will be entailed on the ratepayers. We hear of the evils of absenteeism. The State itself would be a permanent absentee; its management of the estate would be by an official. And while I believe that State-aided purchase, if properly carried out, would of itself be a real remedy for the evils which we found were increasing, I cannot believe that State purchase would be of advantage. I await with anxiety to hear what view the Government themselves take of this Report, and how far they are prepared to take up the scheme of State-aided purchase which we recommend.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, in the speech in which he began this discussion upon the Report of the Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Haversham, the noble Duke opposite made a somewhat bitter attack upon the general agricultural policy of the Government, and under cover of that attack he somewhat skilfully evaded discussing the more important parts of the Report. In that I do not wish to throw any blame at him. He himself reminded me that the position of Under-Secretaries is a somewhat insignificant one.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I did not use the word "insignificant."
LORD LUCAS: No; but what he said meant very much the same thing. The noble Duke used so many adjectives in the course of his speech that if I apply the wrong one in this connection I hope he will forgive me. I do not wish to blame the noble Duke. After all, he is only following the policy of the other occupants of his own Front Bench and of the official leaders of his Party. While they have to a certain extent dallied or flirted with the general question of State-aided purchase they have never committed themselves to the policy, and I hope that this debate to-night is going to have this result, that we are going to draw from noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench opposite some definite statement as to what their intention is with regard to this very big question.
Before I proceed to deal with the points raised in the Report I would like to make one or two remarks on what the noble Duke said. I hesitate to again try and quote his adjectives, but he certainly condemned very strongly the policy of the Government with regard to its various Acts. He made an attack upon the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, but failed entirely to show what harm it had done to agriculture, which is the only test that can be applied. He quoted cases where the powers of the landlord had been curtailed, and it is quite obvious that that was the intention of the Act in certain respects. Our contention is that curtailing the powers of the landlord in certain respects, as that Act did, has not militated against or done harm to the interests of agriculture. In fact, it has had an opposite
356
effect and its general effect on agriculture has been good. Since the passing of that Act—I do not say it is due to the Act, but the Act has been a contributory cause—agriculture has been in an unusually prosperous condition. The noble Duke referred to the question whether or not it is desirable to place the sinking fund charges on the acquisition of small holdings upon the rates. He seemed to think that that was a dangerous and wasteful policy. After all, what is the position? The position is this, that the land is being acquired, and at the end of the period of eighty years when the loan is completely paid off the land will be the property of the county council. At the present moment it is being paid for by the small holder. He is, in fact, purchasing the land for the county council; and I cannot see that it is dangerous for the county council, if it chooses, to pay for the land of which it is at the end of that period to become the possessor. We do not express an opinion as to whether we think it desirable or not. That is a question which the county councils have to settle for themselves, but, if they do choose to do it, it is a policy which is neither wasteful nor can it be described as dangerous.
The noble Duke spoke of the break-up of some of the great landed estates and the sales that have taken place as a disaster, but a great many people hold an absolutely opposite view. A great part of the land that has been sold consisted of outlying portions of large estates. We know perfectly well from experience that the ownership of large outlying estates to which the owner and his agent can at the best only devote a certain portion of their time is not an ideal system of ownership. That some of those outlying estates should pass out of the hands of their present owners into the hands of other people is not necessarily a disaster. When the noble Duke tries to make out, as he did, that under present conditions nobody would wish to buy the land, I can only remind him of the good prices reached in the market, showing that the apprehensions which exist in the minds of some people are not shared by everybody and that there are plenty of people who are ready to invest their money in land. In these circumstances I do not see why we should suppose that the passing of the land into a greater number of hands is necessarily going to have a bad effect on agriculture

357
as a whole. It was the sale of these estates that led to the appointment by my noble friend behind me of this Departmental Committee. One cannot help noticing, and the Committee themselves noticed, that as a matter of fact the cases of hardship which the Committee were specifically asked to inquire into have proved of extremely rare occurrence. In paragraph 16 the Committee say—
"Several witnesses stated, either that no hard cases of dispossession kind inability to obtain another holding had been brought to their notice or that they were comparatively rare, and it would be impossible to maintain, in the face of this evidence, that the grievanees, however acute in individual cases, are widespread."
I think there is no question about that. The cases are comparatively small in number. No doubt when they do occur they are hard cases, but hard cases make bad law, and one has to proceed with a good deal of caution when trying to legislate on grounds of this kind.
The recommendations of the Committee divide themselves into two parts. There are, first of all, the earlier recommendations, which suggest remedies for what may be called allaying the fears of the tenant; and in the latter part of the Report come what are more in the nature of heroic remedies to deal with the case. This Committee is by no means the first Committee of the kind which has advocated a system of State-aided laud purchase. That the grounds for so doing appeared a little insufficient is an opinion which I think a good many people who read the Report will themselves hold. After all, the main point in this Report is the definite recommendation of land purchase, and we cannot discuss the Report without first of all dealing with that particular case. Land purchase is suggested, as I have already said, in order to meet a very small number of hard cases. The Report does not go deeply into the question of finance. I do not say it does not suggest methods of finance. But every one who has studied the matter knows what an enormous undertaking a policy of State-aided land purchase would be. It is only suggested here that it should apply to those tenants who are in danger of being dispossessed, but I do not think any Government would be justified in embarking on that scheme on such a footing. If the thing were a success, pressure would be brought to bear on the Government which the
358
Government sooner or later would not be able to resist. We know what has taken place in Ireland, and I do not think any Government could go in for a system of State-aided land purchase without contemplating that it would sooner or later have to undertake a general system of assisting the purchase of all land at present held by tenants. That raises an enormous financial question which I am not competent to discuss, and I do not wish to do so, but the figures of Irish land purchase disappear into insignificance by the side of the figures which would be involved in any scheme for land purchase in this country.
After all, is land purchase really asked for or required in this country? The whole of the evidence taken before this Committee goes to show that it is not required. There is no real demand for land purchase qua land purchase. There is a demand for land purchase as being better than being turned out of a farm, but it is the undoubted desire of the great majority of farmers in this country to remain as tenants, and one has further evidence of that in the very small extent to which opportunities of land purchase are taken up by tenant fanners. Yon have the evidence, already mentioned by Lord Clinton, of what has taken place in connection with the Small Holdings Act, where under 2 per cent. of small holders have availed themselves of the opportunity of purchase. I believe that what tenant farmers attach much greater importance to than purchase is security. If they cannot get security, then they are prepared, on terms which they are capable of meeting, to purchase their holdings. But given the requisite amount of security they put tenancy as the best thing and ownership as the second best thing. Even supposing it were desired, is ownership a suitable thing in this country? If one looks at what has taken place here, if one examines what has been the history of the men who have held land in this country, one cannot but be forced to the conclusion that, for some reason or another which one cannot explain off-hand, ownership is not suited to the farming population of this country.
The three best instances of that are, first, the yeomen farmers of this country. As a class yeomen farmers were wiped out by the bad times of thirty and forty years

359
ago, and they have practically disappeared. A more remarkable case still is that of what were called the statesmen of the North of England. They have all disappeared as a class, and the curious thing about them is that the majority of them disappeared, not in bad times, but in good. They were bought out at a time when they could get good prices for their land, and those who remained disappeared when bad times came. There was another class—the freeholders of the Isle of Axholme, in Lincolnshire. They farmed some of the finest land in this country. The majority of them have disappeared, and of those who remain many are seriously hampered with mortgages. Whenever there has been a system of ownership in this country it does not seem to have lasted long; during recent years it does not seem to have survived, and one is reluctantly forced to the conclusion that for one reason or another the ownership system is not suited to the farmers of this country.
There was a question raised by Lord Clinton as to the desirability, if you are going to have a system of purchase, of asking some deposit from the tenant. With regard to that, I think that the Irish analogy, which is often quoted, for asking for no deposit at all is rather a false one. The Irish system is quite unlike the English system, and the Irish tenant's stake in his holding is so much greater that he has to a large extent paid his deposit. But at any rate opinion, as far as it has been officially expressed, has been very strongly in favour of the deposit system. The three Committees that have sat on the subject—the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1889, presided over by Mr. Chamberlain; the Departmental Committee in 1906, presided over by the late Lord Onslow; and Lord Haversham's Committee—have all reported, though in the last two cases there was a dissentient, in favour of the deposit system. As Lord Clinton pointed out, that is one of the great difficulties. If you adopt that system, as it is practically universally recommended that you should do, you do undoubtedly lock up a much greater part of the money of farmers in the land than they can afford. Farmers as a class, considering the amount of land they farm, do it on comparatively small capital, and are not as a class capable of putting their capital into the land and
360
still farming as well as they do at present. I think that is a very strong argument—you cannot get a stronger—against the system of State purchase. Therefore, you are forced to one of two things—either to the system where you extract no deposit, where, although the land is nominally the tenant's, you have no hold over him and he has no obligation to you and can if he likes farm his land out or quit and leave the land on the hands of the State, or to the system where the tenant has to pay a deposit. That is the position that people who are in favour of State-aided purchase have to face and get over.
The position that we are asked to face in regard to this particular sale of estates is, I think, this. We are told that owing to the feeling of insecurity that exists among tenant farmers at the present time they are in a considerable number of cases buying their own farms, not because they want to, but because they are afraid of being turned out, and that because there is no machinery for enabling them to purchase they have to raise what they can by mortgage or loan at high rates of interest in order to remain on their farms. That may or may not be the position. I cannot say. But I think the real point we have to get at is this. How far is the fanner really justified in his fears? He may be merely doing this out of more or less unreasonable fear of being turned out. Lord Clinton stated that in the cases which had come under his personal notice the tenants were not given notice to quit and therefore did not buy their farms. What we have to do is to try and allay the fears of the farmer as much as possible, so that he shall not be driven to the extremity of buying his farm when he does not wish to do so. As far as you can gather from the Report and from the experience of such people as Lord Clinton the actual number who will really be dispossessed will be very small indeed. It is to meet that part of the difficulty that the earlier recommendations in the Report have, I understand, been framed, and I must say I think that, on the whole, they are the most valuable part of the Report. I think that, as has been pointed out, there is a great deal in them that will help to tide the farmer over the period of uncertainty. The suggestion of the counter-notice seems to me to be a very good one. The noble Duke appeared to think that it would merely double the

361
period of suspense under which the tenant would rest. I do not think he quite understands the usual conditions under which these sales take place. As I understand, what happens at the present moment is that a man receives notice to quit, and that three months or a few months before the notice expires the sale takes place.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That is not by any means invariably the case.
LORD LUCAS: I agree; but that seems to be what is taking place. Instead of having only a year to look round and try and find another farm, the tenant is to have, if he likes, twice that time, or, if the sale takes place within let us say nine months of the time that he received notice, he would, under the recommendation of the Committee, still have fifteen months to remain on the farm, which would give him time either to come to terms with the new landlord—and in the majority of cases we have every reason to believe that he would come to terms—or to look round and make other arrangements. Another good result will be that this will to a great extent do away with land speculators, people who buy estates and then try and turn them over as quickly as they can at the best price they can get. In those ways I think the Committee's recommendation would probably be a distinct help to the tenant farmer. The second, third, and fourth recommendations of the Committee all appear to us of value as tending to allay the anxieties of the tenant farmer. The Government are prepared to legislate along the lines of those three recommendations.
LORD HAVERSHAM: Do you not include recommendation No. 5
LORD LUCAS: The second, third, and fourth recommendations are the ones which are at the present moment specially selected. That is the policy which we have marked out for ourselves. We are definitely opposed to any system of assisted purchase. But, on the other hand, where we can give the tenant a greater feeling of security than he has at present, where we can fairly and legitimately increase the tenant's security, we are prepared to do everything we can along those lines. We believe that security is a much better panacea for the evils farmers suffer from, and it is that part of this Report which makes recommendations along those lines that we think the most valuable, and on which we are prepared to take action.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I certainly am not surprised that the noble Lord who has spoken on behalf of His Majesty's Government should be unwilling to go further than the points which he has just stated to your Lordships. He has undertaken, I understand, that the Government will legislate on the following lines—First, that in the absence of agreement, two years' notice should be required to determine the tenancy of an agricultural holding; secondly, that except when notice to quit is given for one of the purposes referred to in Section 23 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, or where the tenancy is for a period of twelve months or less, notices to quit for less than twelve months should be made void by Statute; and, thirdly, that the tenant should be empowered to demand extended notice in the case of a sale. I confess they do not seem to be very important points, and I am afraid they will not meet the desire of the noble Duke who raised this question or of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, who has taken such an active part on the Committee which devoted so much time to the subject. But though I should not wish to oppose the minute legislation proposed, I doubt if it will do anybody very much good.
I doubt whether the second recommendation of the Committee—that in the absence of agreement two years' notice shall be required—will have any action at all. Agreements are almost universal, and they will continue to be, as they are now, for one year's notice. I also doubt whether the second recommendation—that except when notice to quit is given for one of the purposes referred to in Section 23 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, or where the tenancy is for a period of twelve months or less, notices to quit for less than twelve months should be made void by Statute—will have any practical effect. I think it is very rarely that notice for less than twelve months is given, and I agree it ought not to be less than twelve months. Therefore what the proposal of the Government really amounts to is this, that where an estate is to be sold a sitting tenant is to be allowed to give a counter-notice which will give him a year's further occupation. That will be of service, I believe, to the sitting tenant, but it may prove of considerable disservice in the sale of estates, especially if the sale, as is so common nowadays,

363
is in comparatively small lots. The purchaser of a large estate is not likely to desire to occupy it himself, and may not at all care how long it may be, within a reasonable period, before the sitting tenants leave. In fact, he may desire to keep them, and very often does. But where an estate is broken up into lots and sold to small purchasers, some of those small purchasers will desire to occupy the lots themselves and to that extent the change will be a disadvantage to that very sale of estates which the noble Lord on behalf of His Majesty's Government desires to promote.
Then the interference—for it is an interference so far as it goes—with the present administrative rights of the landlord as to the notice which he can give to his tenants does, to that extent, diminish his power over his estate, and is another step tending to diminish a landlord's power over his property and therefore his interest in it and so sap the very foundation of the English agricultural system, which is that the landlord should do the repairs and keep his property in order for his tenants. Therefore it is not with any great feeling of satisfaction that I have listened on this matter to the speech of the noble Lord, but I quite admit the defence of the Government. They have appointed a Committee, and the Committee has not made one recommendation, but has made what I think I remember Mr. Gladstone described on one occasion as a "litter of reports," and it is almost impossible for any Government to legislate where there is such a wide difference of opinion as there is in this Report.
I listened with interest to Lord Clinton, but I would venture with all respect to him to say that when he advocated a system of advancing Government funds for the purchase of farms by tenants generally he advocated a very dangerous policy indeed. He almost took it for granted that the State could always lend at 3¼per cent. I do not think anybody who has watched our finances for the last ten or twelve years can possibly believe that you can fix a limit of that kind to the rate at which the State can borrow. Just look at the history of the Irish Land Act of 1903. There never was a piece of more unsound finance than that Act, and it has proved to be so. It had to be altered by the Government opposite two years ago.
364
The 3¼ per cent. which was laid down in the Act of 1903 as the annual instalment for principal and interest had to be raised to 3½ per cent., and looking at the point at which the Funds now stand, producing to a purchaser as much as £3 4s. 6d. per cent., who can say that the credit of this country may not soon sink to 3½ per cent. I would venture to point out that this really is at the root of the whole matter.
There seem to me to be two points which are essential to remember in any scheme of purchase by tenants of their farms with the aid of the State. The first is that the tenant will not give more, or at any rate more than a trifle more, as the annual instalments for both principal and interest, than he has been accustomed to pay as rent. That was true in Ireland and it will be more true in England, because in England the tenant wishes to remain a tenant farmer; he does not wish to be an owner, unless the estate is sold. Therefore you may take it as absolutely certain that except in that case he will not nay more for the instalments of capital and interest than he has been in the habit of paying in rent. This cannot be arranged unless the State is able to borrow money at a low rate. It is only when we can borrow for our existing engagements, as we could a few years ago, at less than 3 per cent. that it is possible for a system of purchase by tenants with the aid of State loans, to be at all widely carried on in England. And remember that if such a system were inaugurated by Parliament every million that you borrowed to carry it further would increase the rate of interest which the State would have to give for its money. At the present moment the continued increase of Irish Land Stock is a material factor in the fall in the price of Consols, and I think any one who compares the values of Irish land and English land will feel that any large system of purchase by tenants of their farms in England, bearing in mind the two great factors to which I have ventured to call your Lordships' attention, is practically impossible. It is no use inaugurating any such system unless it is widely availed of, and I say it cannot be widely availed of because you cannot bring to-together the rate which the tenant will pay and the rate at which the State can borrow, unless you are advisedly to make such loans at a loss to the State, a policy which I hope no Parliament will ever adopt.

365
The noble Lord dismissed the idea of aiding tenants on estates which are sold to purchase their farms because he thought it involved the necessity of extending a system of aided purchase to all tenants all over the country. I do not see that necessity. I think it might be possible, with adequate safeguards to secure that no price should be given for a farm that is above its real market value, which, of course, could be done by commissioners or valuers appointed by the Board of Agriculture, to advance money to tenants on farms which perhaps they and their ancestors before them had occupied many years and which were being sold, to enable those tenants to become purchasers, without going any further.
Remember, my Lords, what the position is. The noble Duke alluded at considerable length to the causes—increased taxation, want of confidence in your general legislation with regard to land, and causes quite apart from Government or Parliament—which have decreased the value of land (for it is nonsense to talk of a boom in agricultural land at the present time); and have made many owners of large lauded estates desire to get out of at any rate a large portion of their property and invest the money in securities which would bring them in a larger income and not be so liable to be interfered with to their injury by the State. Landlords are selling outlying properties. That is the position. Are there any persons you would more wish to see purchase them than the farmers who with their ancestors have been on the farms for generations? I do not venture to dogmatise on the subject. I know the dangers; I know the financial difficulties; but I do think that if His Majesty's Government, in place of their negation of any possibility of dealing with the subject on these lines, would devote themselves to the consideration of that part of it, and examine whether it would not be possible through the organisation of the Board of Agriculture to make reasonable advances—if you like requiring a deposit—to tenant purchasers in such cases, I think they might do something to undo the mischief which they have done and to assist the tenants in that which they themselves admit to be an undesirable and unfortunate position.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, the noble Duke in his interesting
366
speech claimed, and rightly claimed, that Oxfordshire had done extremely well in connection with small holdings. I entirely agree, and I say that it is to a great extent owing to the example and the public spirited conduct of the noble Duke himself that that very desirable result has been attained. After all, hard words break no bones. The Duke of Portland, the Duke of Bedford, and the Duke of Northumberland have all given land for small holdings. I do not in the least mind what these noble Dukes say about the Government or any member of it, past or present. What I do mind is what they do, and I must say that the aid which has been given by these noble Dukes to the small holdings movement shows that a Duke's bite is much less dangerous than his bark.
The noble Duke has attacked our policy; he has described himself as having "pulverised our sloppy enactments," and he has told us that on account of the Death Duties there may be no landlords left, and it is questionable whether in consequence of the work of my noble friend behind me any tenant farmers will exist at all. I really think the noble Duke, after what he has done in aid of agriculture, has no right to pose as a sort of agricultural Solomon Eagle. Things are not so bad as he tries to make out. If they were, there would be a panic. If the condition of agriculture were as bad as the noble Duke has represented, and if noble Lords in this House, who own one-third of the land of England, regarded the Committee's recommendations as dangerous, is it conceivable that only thirty-nine Peers would have been present when the noble Duke began to speak? Why in that case noble Lords would have come down to the House tumbling over each other in their anxiety to voice their denunciations. I think such indifference as we see here to-day must be held to show that, on the whole, the members of the House of Lords, the great landowners in this country, are to a great extent satisfied with the proposals which have been recommended.
I was called to account by the noble Duke on the subject of the "atrocious and unfair" proposal that small holders should pay for the fee simple of their land with the rent, and he also said that it would be unfair and atrocious that this

367
charge should be put on the rates. Well he cannot have it both ways. That point, however, has been so well treated by my noble friend Lord Lucas that I will not detain the House upon it. Then the noble Duke asked what the Liberal Government had done for the agricultural interests in the last six years. Well, I will tell him. We have passed twenty-one agricultural Bills out of twenty-two which were brought forward. That is not a bad record, especially as one or two of the Bills were not exactly framed to the taste of noble Lords opposite; and noble Lords will remember that those Bills were passed at a time when the House of Lords was omnipotent and irresponsible and in a somewhat truculent mood. Besides that, we have provided grants amounting to £500,000 annually to the agricultural interest. Is not that something? And since I have resigned the Presidency of the Board of Agriculture my right hon. friend Mr. Runciman has shown his zeal and energy by obtaining another annual grant of £80,000 for the Agricultural Department, following the recommendations of the Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Reay. That is a further considerable benefit to this great interest. Then we have 150 square miles of land let in small holdings; and as regards the Crown lands, which are now under the Board of Agriculture, the rents have in the last three or four years been reduced in one instance from £18 or £20, around Scarborough, to £4 or £5 an acre, and cottages that were let at 3s. 6d., 4s., and 4s. 6d. have been reduced to is and 1s. 6d. a week, and land which was in hand and which was cultivated at enormous expense by the State has been let to tenants, with the result that at the present moment some thousands of pounds a year more are paid into the Exchequer than were paid in three years ago.
Then by the Budget of 1909–10, which was denounced by the House of Lords as atrocious and iniquitous, agricultural taxation has been relieved by £417,000 a year. Honestly speaking, I do think that this record compares very favourably with that of noble Lords opposite during the twenty years during which, with the exception of three years in between when a Liberal Government was in office, they were in power. The Unionist Party were practically in power for twenty years, and what did they do for the agricultural interest? We
368
have it on the authority of the late Lord Onslow, whose death we all sincerely deplore, that during the last five years that the Tory Government were in power agricultural affairs were only discussed for six hours in the Commons House of Parliament. The Land Tenure Act for which I was responsible has been strongly attacked by the noble Duke. Perhaps I may be forgiven if I say one word as to how that Act was introduced and how it was carried. When the Liberal Government came into power in 1905 Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman said to me, "We must tackle the land question and tackle it in earnest." He referred to the abortive Tory legislation of the previous twenty years and to the land hunger which he asserted existed in England at that time. Noble Lords will remember the sarcasm and the howls of laughter from the Opposition Benches when the words "land hunger" were used. "Land hunger," they said, "why we have it on the authority of agricultural experts—the old Tory agricultural correspondents—that there is a great deal too much land and that nobody wants land." The reason why nobody asked for land was that they knew they could not get it. We have it on the greatest authority that the meek should inherit the earth, but I do not know whether your Lordships saw in the newspapers a very caustic remark of a reverend friend of mine, the silver-tongued Sylvester Horne, who said, "Is it any use telling the landless men to be meek when there is no earth left to inherit?"
The land six years ago was in the hands of a very few people in this country. The object of the Liberal Party was to put more people on the land, and the first thing that we had to do was to break up the great estates. That is being done to the great advantage of the people who are getting on the land, and of the landlords who, either because they have encumbered estates or because they want a little more pocket money for themselves and their wives, desire to get out of the land. I do not think there is anybody in this House who would maintain that the old system of big estates was one that was conducive to the welfare or the peace and prosperity of the community at large. What had we to do? We had to devise a plan to put more people on the land. That was the great object that we had in view, and the next object was to give

369
security of tenure at fair rents to existing tenants. To do that, of course, two things were necessary to be done. The first was to give compensation for disturbance, and the second was to get a Land Court to fix prices when land was sold and to fix the rent when it was hired. I am glad to say that in six years we have obtained both those things.
Our scheme was opposed in the House of Commons by the Surveyors' Institute, that great conservative body which is held in such high estimation by the public, and if I had not had at my back the Farmers' Union which was started at that time we should never have got the compensation clause through. Words strong enough could not be found by the landlords to anathematise the proposed Land Court. Yet we have it in the Scottish Bill which my noble friend Lord Pentland got through Parliament with your Lordships' permission last session. We there have a Land Court of the most extreme description. Your Lordships passed a clause in which you allowed this Land Court to fix the price of land that was to be sold or the rent at which land was to be let, and this was to be fixed by one single man selected by the Minister who held the office of President of the Board of Agriculture and against whose decision there was no appeal. Can you conceive anything more monstrous than that? How on earth that ever was allowed to be passed in a House composed of sensible men I do not know. Yet how right you were to pass it. For what has been the result? All the prognostications of failure which we heard have entirely fallen through. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Alverstone, and other noble Lords got up in this House and called attention to imaginary grievances, but there has not been one noble Lord in this House who, when he was brought to book, has been able to prove a single case of hardship.
As an independent member, I can most honestly congratulate my noble friend Lord Haversham upon the result of the labours of his Committee. It shows that in spite of what has been said on the other side of the House the land policy of the Government has in no way depreciated the value of land. I challenge anybody to contradict that statement. There is a keen demand for land all over the country,
370
and though the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, was good enough to say that it was nonsense to state that there was a boom in land, how does he get over this—that farms have fetched from twenty-eight to thirty years' purchase? I myself sold not long ago a 200-acre farm for £8,500. At the same time I bought four farms in Buckinghamshire that were paying 3½ per cent. That shows what an excellent thing it is that land should be able to be transferred from one person to another, of course under proper conditions and without inflicting hardships on the tenants. Mr. Long has admitted in the House of Commons that the new Land Taxes have not affected agricultural land, though they have in some cases, he says, caused hardship to the sitting tenants. On that I need not detain your Lordships, because that point has been admirably dealt with by my noble friend Lord Haversham.
I am extremely glad to see that my right hon. friend Mr. Runciman approves of the extended notice, because this was one of the unanimous recommendations of the Welsh Land Commission over which I had the honour to preside in 1893 and 1894. We proposed that in cases of death or of sale or transfer of estate the tenants should be protected in their holdings for three years certain. It was said that that would be too long a time, that it would interfere with sales, and now two years' notice instead of one has been suggested. I think this extended notice to two years will go very far to remove the grievances that now exist. I should like to ask, Are the Opposition prepared to support this? It would be very interesting to have an answer to that question. All the farmer witnesses without exception approved of it; but a reservation against it was signed by my friend Mr. Howard Frank, a great auctioneer, and by Captain Weigall, the only Conservative Member of Parliament who served on the Committee. This Committee has also rendered a signal service to the country at large by driving the last nail into the coffin of my old and valued friend Mr. Jesse Collings's land purchase scheme. Nobody can now say with any semblance of truth that there is any desire among the farmers for purchase for its own sake. That has gone by the board for ever. The Committee rejected by 12 to 1 Mr. Jesse Collings's proposal of requiring no deposit and of advancing the whole of

371
the purchase money. That was most satisfactorily denounced by Lord Faber and other practical persons in the last session of Parliament. Yet though these proposals are denounced in this House they are trumpeted, placarded, and advertised by Conservative speakers all over the country. The noble Duke who initiated this discussion' has asked a question which no doubt will be answered by my noble friend and Leader below me when he replies on the whole debate. The noble Duke asked, What is the policy of the Liberal Government as regards agriculture I should have thought that any person who had passed the fourth standard would have been able to answer that question. We have laid our cards on the table. All our Bills have been brought before the House, most of them have been passed, and I should have thought that the Liberal policy was plain enough to any one.
But perhaps the noble Duke will permit me to ask him—and through him perhaps we may get some information from the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition—two or three questions. Do the Opposition really intend, as stated on almost every platform in the country, to offer Irish terms to English farmers? Yes or no. Do they consider that the cases of the two countries are at all parallel? Yes or no. How do they propose to find the money for State-aided purchase without disarranging and dislocating the Money Market? In the face of the recommendation of Lord Haversham's Committee, do they propose to advance all the purchase money or not? Lastly, does Mr. Jesse Collings's Bill and do his proposals represent the Conservative policy? After the speech of the noble Viscount who sits on his left I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition whether it is right for the members of the great Conservative Party, with all its glorious traditions, to delude the farmers with base hopes which they know can never be realised. Ought you not to abandon the pretence that you intend to carry out a great scheme of land reform on ownership basis? I hope I may get answers to these questions. We all value the fact that the Opposition is led by the noble Marquess, who has all the old traditions of both sides of the House at heart, and to him I make my appeal. I ask him, Dc you seriously intend to adopt what
372
is called in the country the Verdant Green policy—the policy of the aristocratic rural labourers' league? If not, then some one on the Benches opposite ought to have the courage to disown it. To the noble Marquess I appeal for an answer, and knowing him as I do I feel confident that the appeal will not be made in vain.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, I do not wish to intervene for more than a moment in this debate, but many of us are grateful to the noble Duke for having raised this important question, especially those of us who have been interested in the position of sitting tenants where sales have been taking place recently. Indeed, many of us have watched the deliberations of the Departmental Committee with much interest, and have looked forward to the Report that they were about to issue, and naturally we were anxious to know what His Majesty's Government intended to do with regard to that Report. I think we may gather from this debate that certainly on two points we find general agreement. One is that there is an increasing amount of land coming into the market, and the other that the position of the sitting tenant, in consequence of the sale of land, is precarious.
The noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture seemed to belittle the danger accruing to the sitting tenant, and relied rather upon Paragraph 16 of the Report. But, my Lords, it cannot be denied that the fact that land is changing hands is a danger to the sitting tenant. It may be a small one, but it is there; and the question of dispossession is not the only danger the sitting tenant has to face. The change of landlord may be an equal danger. A man who has farmed for many years under what we may call a beneficent landlord would look askance at the idea of coming under some unknown person who may purchase the land. I am quite certain, from the sitting tenant's point of view, that the danger arising from a change of ownership is quite as great as dispossession. Therefore it is important that he should in some way or other find relief from that anxiety. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, in thinking that some system by which money could be advanced for the purchase of his holding by the sitting tenant need not necessarily mean a general system

373
of ownership throughout the country—although if some sound financial scheme were brought forward which would enable a general system of ownership to be extended throughout the country, I, for one, would welcome it.
But we are not here this evening to discuss the question of ownership as against tenancy. We are here to discuss the position of the sitting tenant when the land that he is farming is going to change hands, and I was disappointed, I must confess, with the lines indicated by the noble Lord as those upon which the Government were going to act on this question. It is small comfort to the sitting tenant to know that all that is held out at the present moment is an extension of the notice to quit. It is a small boon, I admit. I think there is something in it. But I am certain that if you are going to make the position of the sitting tenant secure the only way you will be able to do it to his satisfaction will be by enabling him, if he chooses, to buy outright the fee simple of his land.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we have listened, as usual, to an enlivening, though perhaps I may be forgiven for saying somewhat irrelevant, speech from the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire. When address him by his new title, will be allow me to say that although we miss his genial presence on the Front Bench opposite we are glad to think that he still takes an interest in the affairs of the Department over which he formerly presided, and to-night, perhaps it was pardonable, he fought his battles o'er again. The greater part of his remarks, so far as I was able to follow them, were directed to a vindication of the agricultural policy of His Majesty's Government. May I be permitted to point out to him that at one point, at all events, there has been a somewhat marked departure from that policy as it used to be expounded to us by the noble Marquess. I very well remember that, in one of our discussions last year, he told us clearly that he denied that the practice of charging the small holder with the sinking fund as well as rent had in any way hampered the county councils, either in getting land or in letting land for small holdings, and he ridiculed a noble friend of mine who sits behind me for bringing forward a measure which was intended to relieve the small holder of
374
that particular hardship. Now we find the noble Marquess explaining to us that it was atrocious—I think that was the expression he used—that the small holder should be saddled both with rent and sinking fund.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I quoted that as an expression used by noble Lords on the other side. It was not my expression.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: At any rate in practice there is no doubt as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government, for we have it formally announced that that policy has been abandoned, and that in future the cost of the sinking fund is to be thrown on the long-suffering back of the ratepayers of this country.
LORD LUCAS: I do not think my right hon. friend went as far as that. He only said that, if county councils chose to do it of their own free will, they would not be surcharged. I should not like it to be thought by county councils that we intended that this should be put on the rates.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There is no real difference between me and the noble Lord opposite. The thing is going to be permitted by or connived at by His Majesty's Government, and, as the small holder has no intention of paying rent plus sinking fund, the effect will be in the long run that the ratepayer will be made liable for the charge. There is no doubt about that.
The Report of the noble Lord's Committee is a somewhat distracting document, but it is full of valuable matter and to my mind the fact that there was such a wide divergence of opinion between the members of the Committee adds not a little to the importance of those recommendations upon which they were unanimous. In the few observations which I mean to address to the House this evening I propose to concentrate upon what I conceive to be the real question raised by the Report of the Committee and by the noble Duke behind me, and that is the position of the sitting tenant who finds himself disturbed through no fault of his own but because his landlord has found it necessary to put the estate, or a part of the estate, into the market. There is no use pretending that the sitting

375
tenant has not a grievance. There is a grievance, and it is a growing grievance. The sales of land reached £1,500,000 the year before last, and I think £2,000,000 last year, but it is a matter of notoriety that those figures do not by any means include the whole of the sales. There are other sales which take place privately. It is within my knowledge that one single firm of auctioneers has at this moment something like 1,500,000 acres upon its books.
We have heard something as to the causes which have contributed to bring all this land into the market, and, of course, it is quite fair to say that the causes are more than one. Land no longer carries with it the political influence which it used to carry. I think in many parts of the country sport counts for less than it used to. Then there is, as has been truly said, an upward movement in the price of land. The noble Marquess insists upon the appropriateness of the expression "a boom in land." I should put it rather differently. I should say there was a slight recovery from a disastrous slump in land. That is very much nearer the mark. But, my Lords, the main reason for all this land coming into the market is, beyond all doubt and dispute, that, whereas at one time people were taught to believe that land was the safest investment of all, you are now teaching them year by year that it is one of the most dangerous investments to which you can resort. It used to be said that land cannot run away. No, but you can make the possession of land subject to such intolerable conditions that owners will run away from the land. The Report of the noble Lord's Committee is conclusive on that point, and I cannot help thinking that His Majesty's Government must themselves be beginning to realise it.
My noble friend behind me, the noble Duke, has referred to the effect of the Estate Duties. But while land gets hit by the Estate Duties, as all other kinds of property get hit, land is now subject to differential taxation to which other kinds of property are not subject. There are apparently two separate lines of attack upon which His Majesty's Government have proceeded in their hostility to the ownership of land. There is, in the first place, this gigantic network of Land Taxes which we are constantly reminded
376
is only the beginning of what we may expect—Land Taxes which originated with persons who notoriously look forward to the time when all taxation will be thrown upon land, and whose views have been appropriated by His Majesty's Government. That is one line of attack. The other line of attack is to be found in the tendency of all recent agricultural legislation to attach to the ownership of land conditions which render that ownership not only less attractive than it was but extremely embarrassing and dangerous. I refer to changes in the law which tend to deprive the landlord of the power of effective supervision, which deprive him of the right of free contract, and which enable an outside tribunal to decide to whom and under what conditions he is to let his land. To my mind the culminating point in that legislation was reached when in your Scottish Small Holdings Act of last year you introduced, in reference to holdings which had been managed on a system wholly different from the Irish system, conditions drawn from the Irish Land Law of the present time.
But, my Lords, it is not only the legislation of His Majesty's Government that has created this feeling of insecurity in the minds of the landowners of this country. Landowners are constantly—I am glad that the noble Marquess who leads the House is attending to me—are constantly abused, denounced, held up to execration by his colleagues. You find in speeches delivered by the colleagues of the noble Marquess charges of greed, rapacity, selfishness—charges to the effect that it is the landowners of this country who obstruct beneficent legislation and public improvements, and that it is those same landowners who have been instrumental in driving the people of this country off the face of the soil. My Lords, can you be surprised that a class which is held up to execration in this way for no other reason than that it happens to be largely interested in this particular kind of property should seize the first opportunity to get rid of, at any rate, a part of that property and should desire to substitute some other form of investment less likely to attract upon them the kind of abuse and vituperation to which they are now subject. The result of all this has been to bring about that breaking-up of estates which the noble Marquess on the Second Bench opposite

377
(Lord Lincolnshire) apparently regards as a great blessing to the country.
Whatever one may think as to the desirability of such a change, it must surely be evident to all of us that it cannot be accomplished without a very serious disturbance of the agricultural system and great changes affecting all those who in one capacity or another are concerned in the agricultural life of this country. It affects the owners of land as well as the farmers. It affects the labourers not a little. The noble Marquess probably knows, as I do, of cases in which labourers have been driven from their cottages by the action of the county council for the simple and avowed reason that the county council were not prepared to face the expense of providing new houses for their small holders, and in order to introduce these small holdings on the cheap actually went the length of evicting perfectly blameless people from their homes. But, my Lords, the particular sufferer whose case we are discussing this evening is the sitting tenant. The land changes hands; the person who purchases it wishes to have it for himself; he, perhaps naturally enough, has no particular sentiment for the sitting tenant, and the sitting tenant has to go. That may, perhaps, not be a great misfortune so far as the agriculture of the neighbourhood is concerned. The noble Marquess seemed to think so. But it is a great misfortune for the sitting tenant himself if he is a man who is happy in his holding and wishes to remain in it.
I think noble Lords opposite have discovered that the sitting tenant has a grievance; but there is another discovery which I cannot help thinking is beginning to dawn upon them. They are, I hope, beginning to find out that the sitting tenant was, upon the whole, a very fortunate individual. The noble Lord who was Chairman of this Committee gave an emphatic testimony to the excellent relations which had been found to exist between the owners of land and the tenants upon it, and I do not think that is contested. After all, what has been the position of these sitting tenants? They have been partners with their landlords under very honourable and not unattractive conditions. The greater part of the capital of the concern has been found for them by their landlords, sometimes at a low rate of interest, sometimes without any charge for interest at all; and the one desire of
378
these people, as the noble Lord admitted, is to be let alone and to be allowed to remain in occupation of their holdings. When I heard that witness borne by the noble Lord to the manner in which these people have fared at the hands of their landlords, my thoughts travelled back to one of that memorable series of speeches delivered a few months ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What had the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell his audience about the present land system? He said it required a thorough overhauling; he dwelt especially upon the insecurity of agricultural capital; he said that money spent on land often required ten, fifteen, or twenty years to recoup the person who spent it; and then he said, "What can you expect with only an annual tenancy and one year's notice?" And he held up the miserable farmer who occupied his farm under those conditions to the pity of his audience as an ill-used and downtrodden serf. Yet when we turn to the Report of this Committee what do we find? The Committee say—
"The evidence the Committee have received proves that tenants do not ask for leases and that they prefer to enter into a contract by which the tenancy, save in special cases, can be terminated by the usual twelve months' notice."
What becomes, then, of this diatribe of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? These dispossessed tenants are beginning to say hard things, not of the land system which was thus furiously denounced, but of the statesmen whose inexperienced hands are pulling down that land system about their ears.
It does seem to me that there is a question which His Majesty's Ministers have got to face—namely, what are they going to do to case the position of those farmers who are going to lose their farms through no fault of their own. A grave responsibility, to my mind, rests upon His Majesty's Ministers, because, as I have shown, it is their action which has brought these sitting tenants to their present pass. Upon what terms, then, if we desire that these men should remain in occupation of their holdings, are we to keep them? The Report is conclusive upon this one point, that if they are to remain they prefer to remain as owners rather than rent their land under the local authority. I believe you will find that to be the universal feeling of the farmers of England. They would remain under their old landlords if

379
allowed to do so, but, failing that, they dislike the idea of occupying under the official landlordism of a public body. I hope that before this debate closes we may get some indication, a stronger indication than we have yet received, that His Majesty's Government are prepared to show a little more courage in dealing with this most important question, although I think it would be unfair to press them, so soon after the publication of the Report, for a categorical statement of the action which they might take in the direction of securing these sitting tenants in their holdings.
The principles laid down for the guidance of the Government by the Committee are, I think, sound principles. They are enumerated in Paragraph 64 and are to this effect—that in any arrangement for facilitating the purchase of their farms by the sitting tenants the State should be protected against loss; that the business should be conducted upon commercial lines; that the price should be a fair market price; that the tenant should be carefully selected—by which, I suppose, is meant that precautions should be taken to ensure that none but competent farmers should be allowed to acquire their farms—and that the farmer himself should be protected against an unduly onerous bargain. We have heard a good deal about the merits and demerits of a system by which the occupiers of land in this country would be converted into owners of their farms. I am bound to say—and here I feel much sympathy with what was so well said by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn—that I fully realise the great danger of anything like a wholesale and indiscriminate measure of that kind. But I do put it to His Majesty's Government that it would be perfectly possible to do something for the relief of the particular class of people of whom we are talking to-night without committing yourselves to anything like a wholesale and indiscriminate measure of land purchase. The dangers of a wholesale creation of small holders owning the farms which they occupy would undoubtedly be immense, not only financially, but because you probably would find yourselves saddled with a great many tenants who might be quite unable to hold their own when placed in an independent position. In this case, however, you are dealing with men who are already upon the land, whose forefathers have been perhaps for generations on the land, who know what can be got out of
380
the land, and who are not the least likely to play tricks with it. If the four rules laid down by the Committee were carefully observed, I believe it would be possible to go great lengths in facilitating the acquisition of their farms by carefully-selected men of this class.
The noble Marquess put to me just now a kind of catechism of questions designed to elicit from me a complete statement of the land policy of noble Lords who sit on this side of the House. We are not quite yet at the point when it will be our duty to deal with this question, and I am afraid I cannot completely gratify the noble Marquess's curiosity. But I will make one or two admissions in reply to him. I entirely agree with him in believing that it would be unwise to substitute for the present system of land tenure some vast system of land purchase under which every occupant of a farm, every person in occupation of a farm at this moment, might by a stroke of the pen be converted into a small landlord. I agree that that would be a great misfortune to the country, and it would be a greater misfortune still if by a stroke of the pen you could convert all the farmers of these islands into tenants holding their farms under county councils or local authorities of any kind. I believe the effect would be deplorable, whether regarded from a political or from an agricultural point of view. I make a further admission to the noble Marquess. I quite agree with him that the Irish analogy is not one which can be pressed when you are talking of the system of land tenure in this country. As we all know—I have often heard it said by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack—we have had in Ireland to pass through something like an agrarian revolution. We had to find a way out. Our legislation was, as I conceive, not very well devised in its earlier days; we had to find a way out, and we found one by resorting to State-aided land purchase. In Ireland, however, the agricultural system had broken down, while in this country it has not only not broken down, but it has been wonderfully successful, and it has been one which has tided landlord and tenant over extremely anxious and difficult times. I, for one, should infinitely regret to see that system disappear entirely, as I am afraid it will tend to disappear if you continue your policy of singling out land for special attack and for differential treatment. I say, then, by all means proceed cautiously;

381
by all means remember, as the noble Lord who spoke for the Board of Agriculture told us, that you are dealing, not with the whole class of tenant farmers, but with a comparatively rare and limited class; and I believe that with regard to that limited class you may safely proceed with a certain amount of courage, and go a considerable length in offering facilities to those who desire to purchase their farms.
I have said nothing, and I shall say only one word, with regard to the minor suggestions made by the Committee. I entirely approve of the spirit in which they are made, but I think they will require considerable scrutiny; the proper time for that will, however, be when they come to be embodied in a Bill and are before the House. I will only say this, that any changes in the law of that kind can only be palliatives, slight mitigations, of a great grievance. They do not touch the grievance itself. The only legislation which, in my opinion, is likely to go at all to the root of the grievance is legislation of a much more far-reaching kind, such as that which has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Clinton and others. This really is the question which I should like to put to the noble Marquess who will follow me—Is it not the duty of His Majesty's Government, to whose action, remember, it is due that these men are dispossessed of their farms, to find some means of enabling them under carefully-thought-out conditions to remain in occupation of the homes from which they do not desire to be parted
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lards, the noble Marquess complained of a certain degree of irrelevancy on the part of my noble friend behind me, Lord Lincolnshire. It seemed to me that as the debate has been conducted, everything that fell from my noble friend was strictly pertinent. I cannot deny that the debate as a whole has from time to time been distinguished, which is not altogether an unknown fact here, by a certain departure from the terms of the Motion on the Paper, but I am bound to say that the noble Duke began it himself, because he covered the whole field of agricultural policy, past, present, and conceivably to come, in the very interesting speech which he made. Before he sat down the noble Duke challenged me very seriously to
382
state what the land policy of the Government really is. As the noble Marquess behind me observed, the general trend of the land policy of the Government has been sufficiently obvious in the measures which we have been fortunate enough to pass since we came into office at the end of 1905. Speaking generally, I should be disposed to say that the condition of agriculture in this country is not such as to oblige us to consider a policy of a large or revolutionary character such as the noble Duke seemed to contemplate when he so solemnly asked us to inform the House what our policy really is. He himself offered no solution as to what the policy of himself and his friends would be if they were in a position to enforce it; but the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, in response to an exceedingly definite challenge from my noble friend behind me, has stated at any rate various points of policy which he would not be prepared to include in any agricultural programme supposing that he was sitting on this Bench.
I am, I think, relieved by the speeches which have been made from attempting to discuss at any length the whole situation with regard to agricultural land. It has been mentioned in almost every speech that extensive sales of agricultural land are taking place throughout the country, and various reason; have been advanced by different noble Lords to account for that fact. The noble Marquess opposite and also the noble Viscount beside him very fairly included a number of causes which they consider to be subsidiary causes, such as the diminution in the amenity attaching to the possession of land compared to what existed in a former generation, the diminution of the political influence attached to it, and also to some extent the diminution of opportunity at any rate for those simpler forms of sport with which our forefathers used to be content. But I think they might also have added what seems to me to be the strongest of all the reasons which produce these large sales in land—namely, the prevalent desire, indeed almost the necessity which exists, to obtain a higher rate o" interest upon any investment. The cause which induces a man to sell a landed estate is of the same character as that which prevents him from investing the proceeds in such a security as Consols. Owing partly to the greater expensiveness

383
of life, the more costly standard of living which obtains in all classes, people are determined to get a higher rate of interest for their money; and when a man recognises that his expenses are increasing all round he begins to look at his landed estate and to realise that he is getting only a fraction of the income which he might possess if he at any rate curtailed the amount of his holding in land.
Noble Lords opposite, however, ascribe these large sales of land, if not exclusively at any rate mainly, to the action of His Majesty's Government and to alarm as to the future which that action is causing. As to the second of those reasons I am not altogether in conflict with noble Lords opposite, because I am bound to say that the impression which they have endeavoured to create by the debates in this House and by the speeches that they and their friends have made all over the country—that political and social changes of the most terrific character are impending, and that we who sit on these Benches have adopted and are prepared to put into force the whole Socialist theory in relation to property—has, I have no doubt, met with a certain success in the minds of simple people, among whom I have no doubt many owners of land are to be included. The result has been, I quite agree, a certain degree of that alarm which noble Lords and their allies have done so much to propagate.
The noble Duke who introduced this subject spoke quite fairly of the Death Duties as a cause of the sale of land. He did not attempt to saddle us with responsibility for the sale of agricultural land in respect of other provisions in the Budget of 1909–10. But the noble Marquess who spoke last seemed to go somewhat further, and he accused us of having brought about some of the sales of agricultural land by the provisions which then became law in relation to land which is in no sense agricultural. It is very difficult to prove a negative, and I cannot say that a case may not exist here and there of a man who, finding himself bound to pay a half-penny Land Tax or facing the possibility of paying increment Duty, may there and then have proceeded to sell an agricultural estate, but the connection between the two things must be exceedingly remote. I do not see how it can
384
possibly be maintained that those provisions in our Budget which related to land of a quite special character have had anything to do with bringing about sales of agricultural land. Nor, I am bound to say, so far as my personal knowledge goes, can it be held, as the noble Duke seems to think, that the increases in the scale of the Death Duties which were made in that Budget, although substantial, were such, except perhaps in the case of the very largest estates, as materially to alter the position of heirs. I can only say that so far as my own experience goes I cannot recall an instance, speaking of the neighbourhood I know best, in which it is possible to associate the sale of an agricultural estate with the fears of an existing owner that his heirs might be in some difficulty with reference to the payment of the Death Duties, and I should very much doubt if such cases can be discovered.
I think it is only fair to remind noble Lords opposite that in the whole of the discussion of the Budget of 1909–10, and ever since, the greatest care was taken to keep apart the position of agricultural land and the position of those who owned that land from the special cases of particularly valuable urban land with which that Budget dealt, as noble Lords thought, hardly. Therefore when we come to the main point of this discussion—namely, the position of the sitting tenant in cases where land changes hands—I feel bound categorically to deny the statement made by the noble Marquess who has just sat down that the Government is responsible for the fact that these sales took place. They are, as he quite fairly said, due to a multiplicity of causes, but I do not believe that the action of the Government has in any direct sense been responsible for the magnitude of those sales. I now come to the main proposition—the case of the sitting tenants where these sales take place and how their interests are to be safeguarded. I was glad to observe that the noble Marquess opposite spoke with sympathy of my noble friend's attitude as explained by him in relation to Recommendations Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and I quite agree that a close examination of those proposals had better be deferred until a Bill is introduced which embodies them.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Are we to expect a Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I must consult my right hon. friend the head of the Department before I can answer that question. The question at this moment is whether the principle of State-aided purchase ought to be admitted in these particular cases. I cannot help saying that there has been a great degree of levity in the manner in which the question of State-aided purchase generally has been spoken of by some people throughout the country. It is a question of the most tremendous gravity involving, for all one can see, a possible liability to the State of something like £2,000,000,000 sterling, and I confess I have been somewhat amazed and even scandalised by the manner in which people who were not altogether irresponsible have gone about the country advocating a general system of the purchase of all the agricultural land in England as though it were a matter which could be settled simply by a stroke of the pen.
We have never on this side of the House admitted that tenant farmers as a rule desire to purchase, and that is also the view of the noble Marquess opposite, who would prefer to see the maintenance of the landlord and tenant system provided that it can be maintained on something of the existing lines. There is one objection which a great number of farmers feel to the purchase of farms, which has not, I think, so far been mentioned in this debate, and that is that on large estates the smaller men or the men who have the middle-sized farms look forward to the time when they will be able to get a larger one. That is one of the general practices on well-managed estates throughout the country, and therefore there are at any rate a very large number who would dislike the idea of being perpetually pinned down to a particular holding. I think it will be noted that those who gave evidence before this Committee and who advocated a system of purchase generally belong to the class of holders of large farms—men who in no circumstances would desire to change to a larger farm; that is to say, they are tenants of farms of the largest class in the particular district to which they belong, and consequently I think their views on this particular point might prove to be misleading if they were regarded as the views of farmers generally.
386
But as regards this particular case, there are one or two considerations connected with it which I should like your Lordships to consider. The case in which I understand it is contemplated that purchase should take place is that of a piecemeal sale of a considerable estate where land is bought in small lots and the sitting tenant becomes at the mercy of a small purchaser. But, my Lords, would it be possible, even if you wished to do so, to confine the advance of State funds, supposing you admit the desirability of advancing them at all for such purchases, to cases of that kind? Take the case of an estate sold as a whole. What guarantee have the sitting tenants got on an estate that is sold as a whole that their rents all round will not be raised? It is quite true, as the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition pointed out, that on a great many estates farms are let not merely below their extreme competitive value, but at a value which can hardly be called even a commercial value, and the fear which agitates the tenants when the land is sold is by no means always that they will be turned out, but that their rent will be screwed up at any rate to the commercial standard. When an estate is bought as a whole I take it that the purchaser, being a man of business, will often desire to recoup himself for the number of years' purchase which he has had to pay. The number of years' purchase, after all, is not fairly represented by the number of years' purchase of the gross rental—that is to say, if a man receives the very moderate amount of twenty-five years' purchase on the gross rental of his estate he probably receives thirty-one or even thirty-five years' purchase on the net income, and therefore one cannot be surprised if the purchaser takes the opportunity of raising the rents after he has made the purchase.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Do I understand the noble Marquess to suggest that twenty-five years' purchase of the gross rental is a usual price in these days?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I should have thought it was a not unusual price.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Of the gross rental?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes. I have known cases where twenty-eight, twenty-nine and even thirty years' purchase of the gross rental has been paid. I was speaking of estates sold as a whole. I should like to put this to noble Lords opposite. What are you to do if in such a case one of the sitting tenants desires to buy his farm or if several of them desire to buy their farms? Why is it only to be in the case of a farm being sold singly that this advance is to be made? How are you to prevent, once the principle is admitted, its being extended to individual tenants on estates sold as a whole? Then it seems to me that you will have to extend, or may be called upon to extend, the application of the principle of State purchase to other cases where no actual sale takes place but where an estate is in the hands of mortgagees or even in the hands of an owner who remains in nominal possession but who is so hampered and embarrassed that he has to starve the estate and get as much as he can out of it. I cannot help looking at the matter from the point of view of noble Lords interested in land. If we were to make a proposition of this kind they would be tempted to use that favourite old argument of the "thin end of the wedge," because if you once begin advancing public moneys for these purposes I do not think you will be able to differentiate the particular case of the man whose rent is raised or who is given notice to quit when a farm is sold singly from a great many other cases in which the interests of the sitting tenant are injuriously affected.
I feel sure, therefore, that while my right hon. friend will, in view of the fact that this proposition is put forward by two noble Lords so experienced as the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount, give the suggestion the best consideration in his power, he will be impressed by the difficulty, completely opposed as His Majesty's Government is to a general system of State-aided land purchase, of embarking upon it, even to the moderate extent which they suggest, in view of the extreme difficulty of suggesting securities against a much wider application of the same principle. It seems to me that the ordinary critic would say there is no doubt that a man who sits as tenant on a farm at a special rent which, owing to old associations or to the dislike of the landlord to raise rents on his estate, is a low and
388
altogether uncommercial one, is unlucky, and, if you like, has a grievance, if his rent is raised and he is told that he must either pay the increased rent or leave. But I think the ordinary critic not interested in land would say that though that is a hardship for him it is not a case where grants of public money for the benefit of that particular tenant would be justified. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that the subject is one which bristles with difficulties, and I am not hopeful myself of a solution being found which involves the advance of public money in such cases as these.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, as there is no business on the Paper for Monday, I beg to move that the House do adjourn until Tuesday.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Tuesday next.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.