laid upon the Table, List of the Bills, Reports, Estimates, and Accounts and Papers printed by order of the House, and of Papers presented by Command, Session 1903, with a General Alphabetical Index thereto, 27th Parliament, Fourth Session, 3rd Edward VII., 17th February, 1903, to 14th August, 1903; to be printed. [No 358.]

said he was afraid that he and his friends who were responsible for that sitting of the House would be looked upon as the common enemy. They would have been equally glad with hon. Gentlemen opposite had it been possible to finish the work of the session on the preceding night, but the matter they desired to bring forward was one in which their constituents took a deep interest, and possibly there would be no other opportunity of discussing it in this Parliament. He would first call attention to the new by-law which had been issued by the Education Department, interpreting the conscience clause. This by-law, if given an ordinary interpretation, was, he thought, an admirable document, and he would not have deemed it possible to place upon it the interpretation since given to it by the Minister of Education in the House of Lords. It proposed to give the local authorities the right to declare that the time during which religious instruction was given in any school should not be regarded as ordinary school hours in the time-table, so that if any parents objected to the religious instruction they could not merely withdraw their children from that instruction, but from the school during the time in which it was given. That to his mind was an admirable proviso, especially as there were some 3,000 parents taking advantage of the conscience clause. But what happened was that such children were detained within the precincts of the school, and in some cases where no class rooms were available they were put in dark corridors and forced to remain there. They were practically imprisoned, although they might be better off in gaol ["Oh, oh!"] for a convict was not put in a corridor, but given a decent cell. The interpretation put upon the conscience clause was not a fair one. Such children should either be allowed to go home, or to stay at home longer if the religious instruction was given in the early morning. In the debate in the other House it was argued that children ought not to be allowed to leave the school buildings unless some provision was made for religious instruction for them elsewhere. That was not a fair interpretation to put on the conscience clause. There were thousands of parents who had no affection for any dogmas at all, and why should their children be penalised by being detained forcibly for no useful purpose? In addition to that it was not always possible, especially in rural districts, to provide special religious instruction for children during school hours. This was a matter in which the will of the parents should prevail.

The interpretation put upon the new Act, to the effect that County Councils were bound to provide prayer books and catechisms was one which nobody contemplated at the time of the passing of the Act, nor indeed was it supposed for one instant that they were to be held responsible for the efficiency of religious instruction. If they were responsible, who was to report on the efficiency? Were the inspectors to examine children in the dogmas of the Catholic faith? It had been understood that the County Councils were taking over the responsibility for secular instruction, and that the responsibility for religious instruction would be upon the managers. If the local education authorities were responsible for providing catechisms, prayer-books, and books of comment on religious matters, had they any voice at all in the selection of the books? In a school he knew of at Cardiff, for instance, a catechism was used in which the following question and answer occurred:—"Should you attend a Nonconformist place of worship?—No; it would be very foolish and wrong." Now the Cardiff County Council was composed mainly of Nonconformists, and represented Nonconformists, according to the new interpretation of the Act they were responsible for the efficiency of the religious instruction in the schools under their control. Would the education authority be compelled to pay for copies of that catechism? Take, for instance, the catechisms taught in some High Church Schools. There was Knott's Catechism which stated that the Holy Ghost never visited dissenting places of worship. Would they be compelled to provide copies of that catechism at the invitation of fanatical intolerant bigoted gentlemen, and at the expense of the Nonconformist ratepayers? Would they be compelled to provide copies of Gace's catechism in schools in which it was now used? If so, passive resistance would soon pass out of the passive stage. He contended that if the education authority was responsible for the efficiency of religious instruction, if they had to pay for the books, they had the right to select them.

He desired, in passing, to offer a word of thanks to the hon. Baronet for the new section drafted under the Welsh scheme for the purpose of uniting Welsh County Councils and giving them joint action and control over elementary education. It had given very great satisfaction in Wales, and he felt perfectly confident that the results would be most beneficial, especially if the Board of Education would show the same trust in this joint authority as in the bodies which dealt with secondary and higher education. The only other point to which he wished to call attention was the administration of the Act throughout the country. The Government ought to take serious consideration of the situation. The reports of disturbances throughout the country could not possibly have escaped their attention. The local authorities ought not to be left to face the difficulties alone. It was quite certain the Act was not accepted by any section of the people as a fair settlement, not by any section of the Church of England or even of the Catholic Church. Its administration had created friction and disturbance, and once or twice something approximating to riot. In one case within a mile from the House the auctioneer came to a sale armed with a revolver, and the police intervened and disarmed him. He was hustled in getting through the crowd of 2,000 persons, and he came to the conclusion that this was a fierce attack upon him, and, placing the revolver in the rostrum, he said he would shoot down the first man who assaulted him. It was in the employment of hysterical creatures like that that danger existed. It was not possible to get respectable people to sell up the goods of reputable fellow citizens, and, consequently, outsiders had to be brought in to do the work. The Government could not ignore the situation; and, although they had transferred a responsibility to the local authorities, who never asked for it, the real responsibility of the administration rested with the Government themselves. What were they going to do with the recalcitrant County Councils? It was not only the Welsh County Councils that were in question. The Cambridge and Halifax Councils had made up their minds that they would not raise money for sectarian education unless they had control of the schools, and it was not improbable that the London County Council would take the same course. What were the Government going to do? Here was a legitimate subject for inquiry. Whilst they were mixing the pigments for the colouring of their statistics could they not give a moment's consideration to this urgent problem at their very doors? He asked whether they did not think the time had come when they ought to consider this subject seriously, and, in the meantime, suspend the operation of the obnoxious part of the Act.

thought the Government had scarcely appreciated the responsibility under which they were in regard to this matter. They seemed to think it was purely a matter for the local authorities, but that was an entire misconception of the scope of their obligations. It was primarily a matter for the Local Government Board. They had placed on them very definite and important duties with regard to the collection of the poor rate. They had to draw up forms and orders and other documents connected with legal procedure in connection with the collection of the rates, and they had the inherent duty of advising the local authorities upon these matters. If they had issued no instructions they were guilty of a breach of duty for which they ought to answer to the country. Failure to pay the poor rate did not stand on the same footing as non-payment of a civil debt. If a man failed to pay his rates, and had no goods on which a distraint had been levied, he was liable to imprisonment. It was, in fact, a criminal offence. The overseers, if not allowed to accept part payment of rates, were in the position of saying to the debtors, "I will not let you minimise your offence. I insist that you shall magnify your offence." Why was this done? In order that the law might magnify the punishment? That was not a legal attitude for the overseers to adopt. Nobody could doubt that it was within their right to accept part payment. Why did they not do so? Why did not the Government direct them that it was their duty to do so? They had no right to magnify an offence so as to increase the punishment. It was an illegal and improper course which indicated vin dictiveness. They would probably hear a good deal in the course of the debate about respect for the law, but if the Government desired to inculcate respect for the law, they must not themselves permit it to be administered in a spirit of vindictiveness. The Government dare not attack the passive resistance movement as a whole, but were throwing on the local authority the responsibility for a harsh, oppressive, and vindictive application of an unjust law.

said that up to the present time he had never spoken one word in support of passive resistance, and he was therefore entitled to criticise the action taken by the local authorities in this matter. In the debate on the Second Reading of the Education Bill the Prime Minister in deprecating, in anticipation, objections to the payment of rates, referred to the fact that Churchmen had for years contributed towards the maintenance of religious instruction in elementary Church schools. They, no doubt, did pay taxes for that indirectly, but he pointed out at the time in reply to the right hon. Gentleman that immediately the payment became a direct one strong opposition would be evoked. He regretted that the Prime Minister was not present during the debate, because he wished to appeal to him and to the Government to take steps to mitigate the severity of these distress processes. In many places the overseers had agreed to accept the payment of all but the education part of the rate. If this was legal in one part of the country it must be legal in another. The Government should take steps to moderate the rising flame of passion. They were only on the threshold of that agitation, and the Government should try and allay the great wave of opposition to the law by calling on the local authorities to adopt the most moderate means possible in enforcing it. The rough manner in which distraint had been levied in many cases demanded attention. Goods had been seized far in excess of the amount required to meet the deficiency in the rate. Why should that be necessary? Why should these brokers be let loose upon an inoffensive, law-abiding community? The Prime Minister had declared there was a limit to human endurance when attention was called to the violent attacks on meetings held to protest against the South African war. There was also a limit to human endurance in this matter, which touched the consciences of thousands of most reputable citizens. To be compelled to pay for the teaching of doctrines and professions of faith with which they had no sympathy whatever, was to them an intolerable strain and an intolerable wrong. He asked the Government to mitigate the hardship of the execution of these distress warrants. The proceedings were aggravated by the bad taste of some of the magistrates from the bench, than which he could not imagine anything more calculated to inflame a still more violent opposition to the Education Act. The events on the preceding night in London should be a warning to the Government. His hon. friend the Member for North-West Norfolk was assaulted by the police, and he would like to ask the Home Secretary whether it was intended to take proceedings against the auctioneer for flourishing a loaded revolver in a public place. Had a trades unionist done anything of the kind when a strike was on they well knew what steps would have been taken against him. Over 800 summonses had been issued under the Act, half of which had not yet been heard What possibilities of illegality and violence there were in the execution of these warrants against the most law-abiding classes of the community. Men had consciences before Parliament made laws, and they would exercise their consciences as far as they could do so, despite any physical violence which the Government might let loose upon their hitherto peaceful homes. He would be only too glad if the Government would at once take steps to moderate the wave of passion which was accumulating throughout the length and breadth of England, and which must bring injury of a serious nature to the country.

wished to emphasise what had been said with regard to the by law upon religious education. Since the interpretation referred to had been put upon it in another place there had been great uncertainty as to how parents were to get the relief to which they were entitled. They were now called upon to write claiming the exemption of their children from religious instruction in the school, and they were also expected to certify that religious instruction was provided for their children elsewhere. These demands upon the parents were, he ventured to submit, improper. Those who claimed exemption were, in the main, parents who did not neglect the religious instruction of their children, and were certain to do their duty in that respect without the intervention of the State. Working men also were often placed at a disadvantage by being called upon to send in written applications. But he rose especially to deal with the administration of the Act, and the disturbances which had arisen in connection with what was termed passive resistance. Last night he went down to Battersea to attend what was practically the first sale of goods seized under the Education Act in the neighbourhood of London. [Laughter.] This was no laughing matter to at least half the people of this country, who were absolutely opposed to the Act. The sale took place in a small room, capable of containing 100 people, and the fact that the goods to be sold had been removed from Wimbledon to Battersea was one which could not be justified. There was a large crowd of the public assembled outside, claiming admission, but they were kept out by a force of police. When he demanded admission to the room, a robust policeman caught him by the collar and shoved him back violently. He then told the policeman that he was a Member of Parliament, upon which the policeman at once made way for him to the door. He was sorry afterwards that he had said he was a Member of Parliament, as he should like to know from practical experience how a private individual would have been treated. He should have liked to have undergone the experience which a private individual would have under the circumstances. He got into the room and found only between twenty-five and thirty people there. At any rate, it was not quarter full. He thought the Home Office ought to say whether the police were justified at a public auction in keeping the public out of the hall by force, when there was plenty of room. The men and women outside would have been quite content not to force their way in when told that the room was full. He maintained that such action would bring about unnecessary friction between the police force and the public. The Home Office ought to issue instructions to prevent the police doing, in such cases, what they would not do in the case of an ordinary public auction. Under ordinary circumstances, if there had been 300, or 400, or 1,000 people surrounding the hall, he supposed that the auctioneer, and the people whose goods were to be sold, would have been extremely glad because of the competition there would have been in the bidding for the goods; but in this case the police actually used force to prevent the people from doing that which they had a right to do. There was plenty of room in the hall, and there was a policeman inside who could have repressed any disturbance if it had arisen; but he was quite certain from the nature and character of the crowd that there would have been no resentment on their part had they been uninterfered with, and the sale would have gone on in the ordinary way. This incident at Battersea was but typical of what was going on over the length and breadth of the land. They had yet only reached the fringe of this movement. The trouble was only beginning.

He saw from the Papers that there was scarcely a single town in which crowds of from 100 to 800 people had not assembled at these sales. It must be remembered, too, that the Act had not come into force in many districts of the country. In his own county of Norfolk, and in Yorkshire, the people had as yet had no opportunity of showing their opinion, because the rate had not yet been levied. He assured the hon. Baronet that he and the Government seemed to have little idea of the strong determination there was on the part of the whole of the Nonconformists in the country to resist the payment of rates for the inculcation of dogmas which they existed as religious bodies to fight against as erroneous. He thought that in many cases the carrying out of the Act might be mitigated by the advice of the Government. There was a degree of uncertainty in the manner in which the Act was being enforced in different parts of the country. He found that the stipendiary magistrates were much more considerate and courteous in their dealings with the public than the benches of magistrates. He was not surprised at that, for those who sat on the bench to adjudicate in these cases were generally magistrates who took strong views in regard to this Act. He noticed that only two days previously an hon. Member who had strongly supported the Government in forcing this Act through the House—he meant the hon. Member for Oxford University—and who held strong views on the necessity of the State enforcing religious teaching of a particular kind, even against the consciences of the people, had sat and adjudicated in a case under the Act One was, therefore, not surprised that he should be somewhat tyrannical in his conduct on the bench. In some cases persons summoned before the magistrates were not allowed to explain their conduct or motives, and yet the meanest wretches brought into Court were allowed to make a statement and explain their conduct in regard to far more serious matters. He commended the hon. Baronet's attention to a case at Stratford where a well known citizen was summoned for the payment of £415 for rates. The stipendiary magistrate took a rational view of the matter, and declined to give judgment for the whole of the amount. If the bailiffs had been allowed to proceed to restrain in this case they might have taken goods to the amount of £2,000 or £3,000 from this gentleman's emporium for £415 rates. This amounted to persecution of those who did not shrink from any consequences that might result from the maintenance of their conscientious views. Where was the necessity for it? He thought that it would be a very simple matter for the Local Government Board to issue a circular stating that the portion of the rate which was tendered might be accepted. He was quite sure that if these Education Act persecutions were continued in this vindictive way, it would arouse a feeling in the country which the Government would have reason to deplore. He would not detain the House further under the circumstances in which they met, but would express the hope that the hon. Baronet the Parliamentary-Secretary to the Board of Education and the President of the Local Government Board would do what in their judgment might fairly be done to prevent the Act being administered vindictively. In that way the strong feeling that was now being aroused among half the nation would be somewhat allayed and kept down all over the country.

^* said he felt it right that he should rise at this particular juncture and deal with the matters which had been raised by previous speakers in this debate. It had been suggested in a Question addressed to him yesterday that the Board of Education had issued a circular to the effect that local authorities were bound to supply prayer-books and other religious books to managers of voluntary schools. No such circular had been issued, nor had it ever entered into the mind of anyone in the Department to issue such a circular.

^* : I think it was the impression of Canon Sewell and others that the communication addressed to them was a circular.

I never said it was a circular. I said it was a letter.

^* said he was alluding to the terms of the Question addressed to him on the previous day. The Question of the right hon. Baronet and a part of the speech of the hon. Member for Carnarvon arose out of a point which ought never to have been raised. The Board of Education was asked whether local authorities could be called on to buy prayer-books for voluntary schools. The answer sent by the Board of Education stated the actual dry, legal facts The local education authority was responsible for the efficiency of the schools, and if religious teaching was part of the curriculum, the authority was responsible for what was needed for the efficiency of the teaching. The question would really emerge very rarely. There were only two schools in England in which it had arisen. The Education Committee of the County Council of Gloucestershire sent round a circular to all the voluntary schools to the effect that they would not purchase prayer-books or other religious books for those schools. Only two schools in the county raised any question, and they asked the Board of Education what was the legal aspect of the matter. The Board told them, as they were legally advised, that the local authority would be responsible but the Board took care to say that it was probably the more desirable course that the managers themselves should own the books. The books would, in most voluntary schools, be wanted for Sunday school use, and the question would naturally arise as to what should be paid for the use of them. If the local authority supplied the books, it might claim to select them. Although the managers had control of religious instruction, there might arise cases in which the local education authority would say, "We have to pay for the books, and we shall choose the particular books used for the purpose of religious instruction." It was, therefore, obviously most undesirable that the managers should ask the local authority to purchase these books. The National Society had pressed strongly on all schools that the matter should be retained entirely in the hands of the managers, and that they should not ask the local education authority for any contribution towards the purchase. This was not a matter about which the local education authority should be troubled, or towards which it should be asked to contribute. He hoped that this subject, which ought never to have arisen, would cease to trouble the minds of the local education authorities in future.

Are the local education authorities equally responsible for the religious instruction in non-provided as well as in provided schools?

^* said that if the local education authorities found the teaching thoroughly inefficient, then they might treat the school accordingly. But the religious education in voluntary schools was, by Sub-section 6 of Section 7 of the Act under the control of the managers, and this relieved the local education authority of responsibility in the matter.

Something had been said about the new by-law. He thought that there was an impression abroad that this new by-law in some way trenched upon the conscience clause. The by-law had nothing whatever to do with the conscience clause, which provided that nothing should prevent the withdrawal of a child from religious instruction if the parent wished it to be so withdrawn. No conditions were imposed on the exercise of this right, and it existed subject to the inconveniences which had been mentioned. But the Act of 1870 gave a power to the School Boards, and now to the educational authorities, to make by-laws, subject to the approval of the Board of Education, and this power included that of determining the time during which children had to attend school. Under the present rules the children might be desired to move into another room to receive religious instruction of a different kind, but many schools did not offer that accommodation. The consequence would be that the children withdrawn from religious instruction might have to stand in a cloak-room or porch, or be put aside in another room, or in a different part of the room in such a way as to be subject to some inconvenience. The new by-law, therefore, provided that a parent might notify to the managers in writing his intention to withdraw the child, not merely from religious instruction, but from the school during the period of religious instruction. The conscience clause entitled withdrawal from religious instruction; the provision in the new by-law gave a further power of withdrawal from the actual school buildings while used for religious instruction. This model by-law was nothing more than a specimen by-law put before the local education authorities to adopt or not to adopt as they pleased, or to adopt for one parish and not for another; but if the local education authority did adopt the by-law, then it determined the time during which certain children might attend school in accordance with the written request of the parent. It had been objected that the Department had suggested to the local education authorities that they might impose conditions. He thought that he could convince the House that there was a very substantial reason why the local education authority should be reminded of the possibility of needing such a restriction. There was a risk that children might be kept away from school merely for the purposes of amuse- ment, or for employment, particularly in towns. The House was aware that children were required to work by their parents, were sent out to work, or were employed at home to work, up to the very moment when school hours began, and very much to the disadvantage of their education when they were attending school. An extra half-hour might be profitably employed by the parent in using the child to earn a little more money than if he were at school. That was a serious risk which had been impressed upon the Department by the Chairman of the London School Board and others. The Education Department thought it right to address a warning to the local education authorities to watch the operation of the by-law, that it was not intended to enable children to stay away from school merely for the purposes of amusing themselves or for the purposes of employment. It was to meet the conscientious objections of those who desired their children to get religious instruction elsewhere at that period of the day or at another period of the day; and the Department had warned the authorities to watch the effect of the bylaw, and, if necessary, to impose conditions.

^* : Does it refer to religious observances as well as to religious instruction?

^* said the by-law did not touch the conscience clause, which gave a right to the parent to withdraw a child from religious instruction or religious observances in the schools. That right remained; and the by-law placed before the Local Education Authorities the option of allowing a parent to take his child away from the school building during the period of religious observances as well. The Department had told the local education authorities that they must endeavour to ensure that this privilege was asked for on account of conscientious reasons, and was honestly taken advantage of. The Department did not desire to see the children kept away to play about the streets, or in order to earn a little more money for their parents. Really, it was an endeavour to meet one of the great difficulties presented by the religious question in relation to education. If religious instruction—denominational, in any form—was to be a part of a child's education it must be effected, either by free access for every kind of religious teaching in every school or by giving power to obtain such religious instruction outside the school during the school hours, or at some time corresponding to school hours.

IS it to be understood that it is a condition of absence from religious teaching in the school that the child should be taught a religion somewhere else?

By what statutory right does the Education Department impose upon a child, withdrawn from religious instruction, such instruction elsewhere?

^* said he had not suggested that the Board of Education was imposing this requirement. The local education authority had to define the time wherein the children were to be taught, always subject to the conscience clause. They could determine the time subject to a condition, but they could not infringe the conscience clause; and they might say that the children must be on the school premises unless they were satisfied that they were well employed elsewhere.

But what is the statutory authority giving the local education authority power to impose such conditions? Is the local education authority entitled to impose as a condition that the child shall not have its religious instruction elsewhere?

^* said that the local education authority could say that a child should be in the school, or, if not in the school, they must be satisfied for the reason of his absence.

That is to say, the conscience clause is absolutely abolished?

^* said that the bylaw did not abolish the conscience clause; it merely provided that the child need not be present on the school premises during religious instruction. He quite understood the desire of hon. Members to make some remarks on the working of the Education Act before the close of the session. The great case of the failure of the Act alleged by hon. Members was that a timid auctioneer took a revolver to an auction. The Education Act could not be held responsible for that. As to what would be done if County Councils refused to levy a rate, the business of the Department was to see that the schools were maintained efficiently. When that was not done the question suggested by hon. Members would arise. Hon. Members had secured a promise from the leaders of their party to repeal a portion of the Education Act as soon as they came into power. That being so, as the Act was admitted to be the law, would it not be better to observe the law while it remained the law? When he observed the action of other religious denominations, that the Jews had for long paid rates for Christian teaching, and that the Roman Catholics had paid rates for religious instruction of which they did not approve, he could not but think that the conscience of the Nonconformist body was a somewhat pampered conscience. Anxious as he was to sympathise with religious scruples of every denomination, he could not sympathise with these. Passive resistance he regarded mainly as a political move, and the remarks addressed to the House on that subject in this debate as uttered for at political purpose. One or two other points had been referred to, but they were points which were more within the province of the President of the Local Government Board to answer.

said that so far as he was concerned he believed that Nonconformists had many legitimate grievances in this matter, and that he did not regard the arguments which had been used by the hon. Gentleman as either reasonable or fair. But the question he desired to raise had nothing to do with education. It was the question of Macedonia, and the reason he was compelled to raise the question again to-day was that the position was becoming more acute, that the insurrection was spreading, 20,000 insurgents were under arms on the one hand, while, on the other, the Turkish authorities were distributing arms to the Mussulmans which could only end in massacre, and it was clear that a crisis was approaching. Of all the Powers responsible for the present position in Macedonia the gravest responsibility was on the British Government. But for the action of Lord Beacons-field the greater part of Macedonia would have been free from Turkish rule. No Englishman could look back on the action of his Government at that time without a feeling of horror. The speech of the Prime Minister on this subject revealed a gross misunderstanding of the situation; and his statement that— Daily News said that the Turks had made Macedonia "a hell upon earth," and the Correspondent of The Time, commenting on the speech of the Prime Minis er said that he had spent much time in searching for outrages committed by the Christians on the Turks and had found only one case, and that, according to this correspondent's account, was very questionable. The Times correspondent also dealt with the suggestion that this revolt was engineered from outside, and said that he had spent three months in trying to establish this fact and had failed, and he went on to say that the rising might fairly be called a national one as far as the Macedonian Bulgars were concerned. Everybody, no matter what his nationality might be, who had been to Macedonia within recent years, had described the state of things there as absolutely intolerable. It was really the Turkish Government who were responsible, having by organised anarchy created a state of things which in the long run would be disastrous to Turks as well as Christians. The hon. Member proceeded to quote extracts from recent works published in England and America, describing scenes witnessed by the authors, and maintained that with such outrages going on, it needed no encouragement from outside to drive the people to rebellion. It was really no exaggeration to say that, so far as the condition of the Macedonian and other Christian subjects under the Porte was concerned, the Empire was one of massacre, lust, and anarchy.

Was the Prime Minister really doing justice to himself, his government, or his country, to say nothing of the people them selves, when he assumed an attitude of carefully balanced judgment in deciding where the responsibility rested? The whole responsibility rested with the Government which created such a state of things. The present reign of misrule could not last, it would pass away as the Turkish Government in Roumania, Servia, and Bulgaria had passed away. In Crete almost the same state of things had existed as now prevailed in Macedonia, and every man who in this House dared to call attention to the state of the island was reprimanded for encouraging a rebellion which was bound to end in failure. In spite of those warnings they continued to call attention to the matter, with the result that intervention was secured, and Crete was now in the enjoyment of peace, freedom, and the beginning of prosperity. The Prime Minister ought not to assume an attitude of, not benevolent, but almost hostile neutrality to Christians who were fighting for the rights of manhood and womanhood. The nations of Europe who had power to deal with this matter should be given to understand that in any attempt to liberate the people of Macedonia they would have the sympathy of the people and the Government of this country. He hoped the Prime Minister would find it consistent with his duty to make a statement different from that made a few days ago, which would give Bulgarians some hope of a restoration of peace.

said the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool had not in the least exaggerated the condition of things in Macedonia not only at the present time, but for many years past. The record of the Turkish Empire since the Treaty of Berlin was a terrible one. Nobody except those who had followed events in Asiatic Turkey and Macedonia since 1886 had any idea of the horrors which had been daily going on under Turkish Government in nearly all the provinces inhabited by Christians, especially in those parts most removed from Western knowledge, such as the interior of Asia Minor and Macedonia. The Prime Minister sated the other day that—"Historic truth required us to lay the balance of criminality on the shoulders of the revolutionary bands."

was understood to deny the statement.

said he would read the passage; it was from The Times —

"Historical truth requires us to say that the balance of criminality lies rather on the revolutionary bands than on the Turkish Government."

said he understood that to be the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The balance of criminality could only be decided by the tribunal of Infinite justice; it was not for Parliament to decide. At all events, when the balance of criminality came to be ultimately awarded, some share of responsibility would lie upon those who had kept these regions under the Turkish Government. If the Treaty of San Stefano had been carried out, the regions in which most of these horrors had been going on in European Turkey would have been removed from the rule of Turkey; and they could not help remembering that the Treaty of Berlin, which was made the subject of so much congratulation and glorification, was the means of throwing back these unhappy people under the dominion of Turkey. They all knew that Macedonia would follow Roumania, Bulgaria, Servia, Greece, and Crete, and would be emancipated from the rule of Turkey. Surely if that was to be so, the sooner the better. Surely the sooner these horrors came to an end the better; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would say that he had no intention of accusing him of being indifferent to the present terrible state of affairs, but he hoped he would be able to give the House an assurance that the influence and power of Great Britain would be used to bring this state of things to an end as soon as possible, to encourage the Powers responsible, but not solely responsible—for we were also responsible—to take vigorous and prompt measures for putting an end to a state of things under which such horrors were possible, and to bring about a permanent settlement by the elimination of Turkish rule from these territories, and by giving the people a chance, under a régime of autonomy and freedom, of obtaining happiness and prosperity.

Passing to the questions raised by his hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon, the mistake seemed to him to have chiefly arisen from some words used by the President of the Board of Education in another place, which put an interpretation on the by-law which, he thought, it did not bear, because he was understood to mean that the local authorities or the Board of Education would have the right to insist that, wherever a child was withdrawn from one kind of religious instruction, an assurance should be given that it should receive another kind. Surely there was nothing in the by-law to justify such a statement.

was understood to say that the words used were "withdrawn from school during religious instruction."

said that he understood the passage to mean that a child must have some kind of religious instruction, and he need hardly repeat that it was perfectly clear that the right of a parent to withdraw his child from religious instruction was absolute. He assumed that the hon. Baronet did not mean to go further than to say that the local education authority was to be satisfied that the withdrawal was a bonâ fide, withdrawal on religious grounds, and not a withdrawal in order that the child might be employed. The Board of Education would require to watch very carefully the operation of the by-law in order to see that it was not misused or used to interfere with the right of the parent to withdraw his child. He understood that the hon. Baronet opposite withdrew the intention attributed to the Board of Education of Sanctioning the purchase of prayer-books and other religious books by the local authority; but what was the position? The Board of Education said that the local authority was responsible for the efficiency of religious teaching. How could it be if it had no control over religious teaching? The religious teaching was entirely under the control of the denominational managers, and the local authority had nothing to do with it. He was informed that the Gloucestershire County Council was a strong Tory body with a large Tory Church of England majority upon it. If anybody was disposed to throw the charge of these books on the local authority they were, but that Council repudiated this because they knew if the local authority had anything to do with the matter it would have a right to the selection of the books. It was quite impossible that this matter should stand as it was. It could not be said in the same breath that the control of religious education in the non-provided schools was entirely in the hands of the sectarian managers, and also that the local authority was responsible for the efficiency of religious education. That was a wholly illogical position.

With regard to the point put by his hon. friend the Member for Shields, it was quite clear that in the enforcement of an Act like this it was eminently desirable that the utmost possible care should be taken by the Departments concerned, especially by the Local Government Board, which had control over the rate collectors, and the Home Office, which had control over the police, to secure that there should be as little friction as possible in the administration of the Act. He believed the Secretary to the Board of Education had spoken of the passive resistance movement as a political movement. The remarkable feature of the movement was, not that it was political, but that it had engaged the interest and sympathy of a great number of people belonging to both political Parties, and also of people who took little or no interest in Party politics. The Government did not seem aware of the nature of the forces they were setting in motion by this Act. They had seen forces set in motion far stronger than any of them expected to see, and they had seen a state of things produced which had not been seen in this country before. There would certainly have to be further legislation on this subject. They could not leave the question of religious instruction and other parts of the educational problem in their present state, and no Government could be in power in this country without dealing further with this matter. This was a movement which would make any Government feel its power to an extent which the right hon. Gentleman had not realised. With regard to what fell from the hon. Member for Liverpool, he might say that it had been the practice to claim Roman Catholics as being the supporters through thick and thin of this policy, but he thought he was right in saying that even Catholics recognised that there were serious grievances under which the Nonconformists of this country suffered.

He also wished to allude to what had been said in another place as to our diplomatic relations with Venezuela. The House of Commons would remember the dispute they had with Venezuela which culminated in the blockading of her coast, and which on the 3rd February was settled by a protocol in which Venezuela admitted the claims of the British and German Governments, and undertook to set apart 30 per cent. of the receipts of her Customs in order to meet those claims. She was to set apart that 30 per cent. from the 30th March last, and it was further provided that the rights of the different creditors of Venezuela were to be determined by a tribunal sitting at The Hague. The settlement come to with Venezuela was to be carried through by the protocol of 7th May, and he wished to call the attention of the House to the terms of that protocol. The first article decided the question whether Great Britain, Germany, and Italy were entitled to preferential treatment of their claims against Venezuela, and it said that, Venezuela having agreed to set apart 30 per cent. of the Customs revenue, the tribunal at The Hague should determine how it should be divided between the Powers. Article III. provided that the Emperor of Russia was to be asked to name three arbiters to constitute a tribunal to meet on 1st September. It was further provided that other nations having claims against Venezuela might join in the arbitration in order to have their say on the question how far the Customs revenue set apart should be appropriated to the three Powers named. This protocol was intended to be a complete and final settlement of the case. The House would notice that it was an agreement made between Great Britain and Venezuela which was absolutely final as between them, without requiring the concurrence of any of the other Powers. He desired to ask the Government what steps had been taken to carry out the protocol. Would they also state whether he was correctly informed that up to now Venezuela had paid 30 per cent. of the Customs revenues into the bank? He further asked whether His Majesty's Government had applied to the Emperor of Russia to nominate the tribunal of three. He understood that Venezuela and the United States were acting in conjunction in the matter. The House would remember that Venezuela was almost under tutelage in this matter. At any rate, the United States had applied to the Emperor of Russia to nominate the three arbiters. Had the British Government joined in the application? He presumed they had not yet done so, or the House would have heard of it. Something was said on the subject in another place yesterday, and he could not clearly gather whether the Government had addressed this application to the Emperor of Russia or not. If they bad not done so, he should like to know why. What was the reason of the delay, and what would happen if the tribunal was not ready to act on 1st September? Venezuela's engagements appeared to be conditioned on the action of the tribunal. Had Germany made a parallel agreement? Was she going to ask the Emperor of Russia to appoint a tribunal? How far was Germany's action or inaction affecting our action? It was desirable to avoid all risks of keeping open a transaction which was not only troublesome with regard to Venezuela, but might involve the possibilities of friction with the United States.

He had one other word to say before sitting down. He was aware that he could not, under the Speaker's ruling on the Second Reading discuss the merits of our fiscal policy, but he desired, within the limits of that ruling, to refer to the tables of figures bearing on British trade, which they were now told would be published within a month from now. A month ago the Prime Minister said he expected to present them before the House rose. The other day he told the House that they had been received by the Cabinet—how long ago did not appear—but they could not yet be published because it was necessary to verify the figures and correct the proofs. The correction of proofs could not affect the broad results. The case on which some members of the Cabinet relied to settle their minds must be independent of the correctness of the additions of columns of figures or a slight alteration in the details, and there would be those who would think that surely something might have been done, having regard to the expectations raised on 14th July, to accelerate the correction of those proofs and the publication of the reports, so that Members of the House might have had them in their hands before they separated. With the receipt by the Government of these figures and tables, which they had now in their hands, the last plea for a longer maintenance of what he might call this farcical inquiry disappeared. The Government might now at once decide upon the question which lay before them, and those who were still halting between two opinions might let an impatient country know where the Cabinet stood in this matter. He was astonished at the position in which they left the Government to carry on the affairs of the country for the next six months as this Bill enabled them to do. They saw, as they never saw before, a member of the Government assailing through the Press, and apparently prepared to assail on the platform, a policy which many of his colleagues approved, while the head of the Government, the Leader of the House, refused the House an opportunity for a supremely important discussion, except under conditions which would deprive that discussion of the greatest part of its value. This enforced silence was not only a humiliation to the House of Commons, it was also an injury, and a novel injury, to the working of the Constitution of the land.

I think the kind of criticism in which the right hon. Gentleman has indulged towards the end of his speech is extremely absurd. As the House very well knows, public attention has been directed to fiscal problems, not for the first time, but to a degree—I quite admit—which has not been reached before. Nothing that I know of has been said by a Minister of the Crown which that Minister had not himself said on some previous occasion; and it is only that the matter has taken a deep hold on public opinion, which has led, I suppose, to that kind of criticism of which the right hon. Gentleman has just given us a specimen. I deny that anything I have done has interfered with the liberty of the House in the smallest degree, or has, in the smallest degree, touched our inherent right of public criticism.

You refused a day for the discussion.

Am I to give a day for anything any hon. Member would like to discuss?

Why have not the Papers been laid on the Table?

If the Papers had been laid it would not have altered the case for discussion in the least. There is no pending question before the House, and, what is more, there never will be a pending question during the life of the present Parliament. Why, then, is the House to be compelled to hurry on, before the proofs can be corrected, a discussion on certain Board of Trade Returns; in view of what decision? No decision that this House can ever be asked to take.

We were invited to a discussion.

Not by me.

By the principal mover in this matter.

Then the right hon. Gentleman abandons his high constitutional doctrine, and it is simply an obiter dictum of my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary upon which he bases his application.

I base it on both.

I will not continue that branch of the subject. But, before leaving it, I must remark that I have never yet heard so absurd a suggestion made in this House as that the Board of Trade should be required to publish elaborate statistical tables before they can be corrected; or that we should be called upon to give our own rough impression of what they contain in anticipation of their publication; and that not with a view to any immediate action on the part of this House, or of any politican in the House. So much for the printing of these Returns, which I hope hon. Gentleman will have at no very distant date, and which I can assure the right hon. Gentleman we have every desire to publish as soon as possible. Then the right hon. Gentleman asked me about Venezuela. I do not quite know what he has at the back of his mind that induced him to make the rather long appeal to me, of which I do not complain, but which I am unable to understand. It is perfectly true there has been some more or less unexpected delay in the steps preliminary to the sitting of the tribunal at The Hague. This, however, is not due to the action of Germany, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest.

I did not suggest it.

Then why drag in Germany? The right hon. Gentleman most inaccurately observed that in his judgment Germany dictated the policy of this country.

I did not say that. I said you keep in very close touch with Germany.

I have no objection to that statement at all. So far as I know Germany is taking on her part a parallel course to that which we are taking on ours. Though there has been a delay I do not think it is due at all to our actions, or to Germany's action. It is rather due to the fact that France and Spain raise some objection to English being the language which was to be used in the proceedings at The Hague. It has been arranged, and very properly and satisfactorily arranged, that the tribunal itself shall decide what is to be its language and what its procedure. The right hon. Gentleman appears to suppose, in the first place, that there is very little chance of the tribunal sitting on 1st September; and that, in the second place, if it did not sit on 1st September Venezuela would be released from her engagements to the Powers.

I carefully avoided saying that. I only want to know what the Government think as to her position.

The right hon. Gentleman may feel quite easy on that point. Venezuela will not be released. In any case I do not think the contingency will arise, as I have every hope that the tribunal will sit on 1st September. The Powers have requested the Emperor of Russia to name the members of the general tribunal who are to take part in this particular judicial transaction, and I believe the tribunal will be at work on the date contemplated.

When was that request made?

It was quite recently, but I cannot give the exact date.

Was it within the last few days?

I think so. Then the right hon. Gentleman made an excursion into the education question, in which I do not think I need follow him. He told us that we had not foreseen the strength and magnitude of the forces which have been aroused by the attempt to deal in a broad manner with the problems of education in this country. The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken on that point. My own view is that the problem of education could not, in justice to the country, be deferred, and that it could not be dealt with without raising religious difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman carefully abstained—and I am glad he did so—from saying a word in commendation of what is known as the passive resistance movement, a movement of which I will only say that I am now, and have always been, astonished at the want of logic which it displays, because the very persons who are engaged in this movement on the ground that under the Education Act of last year public money is used for teaching religious doctrines with which they disagree, are the first to insist that public money shall be spent in teaching in the schools religion with which they do agree. The passive re-sisters are the very first to insist that rates should be paid for that purpose. How they can reconcile their position with the elementary principles of logic I have never yet been able to understand.

I go now to the question of Eastern Europe. The few words which I said the other day on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill have been very severely criticised by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool as being perfunctory and inadequate. I do not suggest for a moment that I attempted in that speech to traverse the long, bloodstained, and tragic history of the Eastern question. I did not even go back to the days of Lord Beaconsfield, to which neither the hon. Gentleman nor the right hon. Gentleman opposite could refrain from referring. I think very scant justice has been done by persons of the way of thinking of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the great task that was performed by Lord Beaconsfield's Government in preserving the peace of Europe. But I am not going to deal with the question now, nor am I going to ask the House to endeavour to apportion the responsibility among the various historical causes which for centuries have been at work, and which have led to the present disastrous condition of Macedonia. If you are going to begin at any time in that history, had you not better at once go back to the original divisions among the Christians of Eastern Europe, divisions not yet healed, without which the Turks would never have been there at all, and which, had they been healed even in recent times, I think the present condition of things in Macedonia would not have arisen? I grieve to say that these divisions among Christians, dating back for many centuries, have not been healed, and they are still producing the same baleful results in the twentieth century as in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries. When the hon. Member for the Scotland Division tells me that I am historically inaccurate in the account of affairs in Macedonia which I gave the other day, let me respectfully retort on him and say that he has not really grasped one of the deepest sources of mischief at the present moment in Macedonia, which is, that the Christians are not united in the praiseworthy object of obtaining an amelioration of their wretched lot and an improvement in the Turkish administration, but that their methods of barbarism are directed against each other. It is not the Turk alone, deep as is his guilt, who is responsible for the present miserable condition of Macedonia.

I think it is the Turkish rule that has produced it.

I am sorry to say that these Christian dissensions existed before the Turks came there. It is that the Turks came there because of these dissensions, rather than that these dissensions are due to anything which I can discover the Turks have done. To represent what is going on in Macedonia now as simply a quarrel between Turk and Christian is wholly to misunderstand the situation; and, while I have never said a word that could be twisted even by political animosity into anything but the deepest horror and reprobation of those dreadful deeds which have been done by Turkish officials and Turkish soldiers, it is folly to forget that Christians have been committing during the last few years atrocities on Christians, and that it is not simply to deal with the Turks that these Bulgarian bands are ravaging the country, not simply even to enlist the sympathy of Europe, but to drive or persecute Christians differing from themselves into the fold of their own special form of orthodoxy.

That is not the case.

I say it is the case.

There is a great deal of race hostility, but the state of things is not primarily due to religious animosity.

I never used the word primarily. But what the Government have got to do is not to endeavour to apportion the blame between those that are responsible, but to improve the condition of things that exist in Macedonia. And how is that end to be accomplished? We are of opinion that the best chance of accomplishing a most difficult task is by supporting the two Governments most nearly concerned in this matter in their endeavours to improve the Turkish administration in that part of Eastern Europe. That is the policy of His Majesty's Government. I cannot imagine anybody thinking it would be an improvement on that policy if we were to bring in all the signatories of the Treaty of Berlin, to let them oust from the position of leadership Austria and Russia, and take the thing in hand themselves. It is difficult enough for two Powers to do it; the difficulty would be augmented with every new Power that takes a leading part in the matter; and I am convinced that Europe is doing the best it can for the interests of those populations by giving all the support which it is able to give to the Governments most nearly concerned, most competent to deal with it, and who have, by their mere geographical situation, the deepest interest in the reasonable Government of the Balkan Peninsula, and the most urgent motives for preventing the conflagration from spreading to any wider area. The hon. Gentleman opposite apparently tried to revive the old passions raised by the Bulgarian atrocities of twenty-five or twenty seven years ago. I do not think, if he desires to make political capital cut of it, that he will succeed.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to make that observation. I want to protect the Christians of Macedonia. That is my only object.

I am glad to have that disclaimer. Then he and I are, in that, perfectly at one. I gathered from the strictures he passed on former Conservative Administrations and comments he passed on some observations of mine the other day, that his object was not absolutely an unmixed one, though I never doubted his sincere desire to ameliorate the lot of this unhappy people. The Government share that object. They have no stronger desire than to see good government established in regions which, one might almost say, have hardly known it in recent historical times, and whose lot has certainly not improved with the march of civilisation in more favoured regions. I have explained to the House the way in which we think that end can best be attained. I do not gather from the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that they dissent from us in that view, and if we are agreed upon the end and upon the means, I do not think there is much room for any exchange of unfriendly compliment between the two sides of the House. I have now traversed the whole ground, and I do not think that any Question has been left unanswered.

asked if the full text of the proceedings at the Colonial Conference was to be published.

said that the replies of the Colonial Premiers had not yet been received; but the Government had no objection whatever to the course suggested.

I do not think that the House will be inclined to agree with the Prime Minister that he Las done nothing to restrict the liberty of debate in this House. I will not, however, question that point further; but, whatever views may be entertained regarding the action of the right hon. Gentleman, it is certain that our rules leave us in a position of very little liberty; and I venture to assert that if our rules had been in force in the Roman Senate it would have been perfectly impossible and the——

The question of the rules of the House do not arise on the Appropriation Bill.

I did not intend, in any way, to comment on your decision, Mr. Speaker, but merely to point out in one sentence the difficulty under which we labour. I have, Sir, studied, with the greatest attention, the ruling you gave on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill; and I can assure you Sir, that in the very few remarks I will address to the House I shall confine myself within its strictest limits. It is perfectly reasonable on the part of the Prime Minister not to publish information collected by Departments of the State until it is carefully checked and verified and until he and his colleagues have had an opportunity of considering it. That is a course which ought to commend itself to the House. What we complain of in regard to this inquiry is not the collection of materials and the digestion of evidence; we complain of the wild and premature speeches of Ministers committing the country apparently to a great change. We would venture to suggest that it would have been a very good thing if the numerous leaflets of the Birmingham Tariff Committee had also been kept in a state of "advance proof" until the inquiry had been completed, and until the figures could have been carefully checked by the right hon. Gentleman and by competent officials. In that case, the Free Food League, in which the right hon. Gentleman behind me is so much interested, need not have come into existence; and we would all have been spared a great deal of trouble.

What is the position in which the Government has been placed by these premature disclosures. We know that some members of the Cabinet are said to entertain a very strong opinion that the result of the inquiry will be fatal to free trade. We believe that they are perfectly sincere and that they are ready to sacrifice their political position. We believe, on the other hand, that there is another portion of the Cabinet not less willing to make great sacrifices, who believe the contrary. But the class of Cabinet Minister who appear to me to claim most sympathy from the House in consequence of this inquiry are under neither of these two headings. They are a class of right hon. Gentlemen—all goodmen, all honest men—who are ready to make great sacrifices for their opinions, but they have no opinions. They are ready to die for the truth, if they only knew what the truth was. Their opinions are only in the "advance proof" stage; and will be carefully corrected and revised by the Prime Minister before they are actually made public; and I do not think that the House ought to separate without expressing sympathy with these right hon. Gentlemen. They are weary of office; they wish anything would relieve them of its cares, but their patriotic duty obliges them to remain, although they have no opinions to offer, holding their position undecided and yet unflinching, like George II. at the Battle of Dettingen, sans peur et sans avis. Either the inquiry in its result will be favourable to the Colonial Secretary or it will not. In either case there will be a difficulty. If the inquiry is unfavourable to the Colonial Secretary, after the very strong opinions he has expressed it seems to me he will be in a very difficult position. If on the other hand the result of the inquiry is favourable to his opinions, if the Board of Trade has collected facts and figures which show that our position is entirely wrong, that we are rapidly degenerating into ruin, that we are overrun by the foreigner, and that our colonies will desert us, then the Prime Minister will be in a very difficult position, because then a very revolutionary change will naturally follow. I would venture to remind my right hon. friend—and it is the principal reason for my venturing to obtrude on the House—that he has given very distinct and very definite pledges in this respect of the Party. I would remind him of the words he used only a year ago, when he received the Leadership of the greatest and most powerful political instrument created for a hundred years in this country. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking on that occasion with all deliberation to his supporters, said— [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.] The right hon. Gentleman cheers that. I wish we could attach hope to that cheer. The right hon. Gentleman added—

I shall be all right.

I hope that interruption is intended to give the right hon. Gentleman's supporters real comfort, and not merely to indicate that when the occasion arises the right hon. Gentleman's mental agility will be equal to the greatest difficulty. Parliament is now separating. Is this House of Commons ever going to meet again? It is very important to establish that fact. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a pledge that this Parliament will meet again? The right hon. Gentleman will not give us that pledge; he has no power to give us that pledge. A doubt, an unworthy doubt, has sometimes come across my mind. I have sometimes doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman's policy has been so disingenuous, so haphazard, so dictated by circumstances beyond his control, as I would gladly believe, whether in fact it is merely a serious and honest, but a somewhat undignified, attempt to keep the Cabinet together rather than a tactical deployment to commit a great Party to a new policy against which its instinct revolts and distrusts—a policy which in the minds of the wisest and oldest counsellors in its ranks would lead to ruin and failure, whether it is an attempt to coax the Party over difficult ground, and to commit it to a position which, had there been full opportunity of debate, the Party would have repudiated. I cannot hold to that view, because to do so would be to say that the right hon. Gentleman has been guilty of bad faith to his followers and friends. Therefore I put that doubt aside. But he said that if the result of all these Parliamentary manœuvres as to this "inquiry" should be that this Parliament was going to a general election in November, either with or without the right hon. Gentleman's will, and if an electoral decision was given which inflicted widespread and lasting injury and ruin on the Conservative Party, then there might be those who would arise and attribute designs to the various incidents by which that result had been attained, and they would be much less ready to believe that they were serious and honest makeshifts to tide over a very difficult situation. But there was one protest which must be made. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich complained the other day that the inquiry had given rise to novel Cabinet proceedings and precedents of Ministerial responsibility. He had nothing to add to these words of his noble friend. But there was one other constitutional point which the Conservative Party might well consider. A deliberate attempt was being made to exchange discussion in the House for discussion in the country. Discussion in the country might be good and enlightening; but to change the venue from the Imperial Parliament to the political platforms all over the country was not the method of the statesman, but of the demagogue; and it was a method against which the Conservative Party of all Parties in the world ought to protest. But in registering that protest, in order that it might not be misunderstood, he would say at once that those who took the free trade view of this controversy did not in the least shrink from the discussion under any conditions the Government might prescribe or in any localities they might select. They might object to the methods employed, which were unconstitutional, and they might protest against a practice which they knew to be unusual, but this year or next year, in Parliament or in the country, they would be perfectly ready to meet the Colonial Secretary on the issue he had raised, confident that, in their appeal to he wisest democracy in the world, right and reason would prevail.

said it seemed to be their duty to consider whether it was right to trust the enormous sums involved in this Bill to those who were going to have the adminisstration of it. The Government had to administer the law and they were also the persons who had to bring forward a policy. It was a very difficult matter for the Prime Minister to carry out a policy when he had not got one. The Government appeared to be at the present moment absorbed in a search after truth which left them no time properly to carry out their other duties. The Government were anxious inquirers but inefficient administrators. In this Bill they were proposing to expend a certain amount of money to educate the Government, and teach them on a great question of policy. They could not deal with that question of policy to-day, but they could say they did not want an inquiry. They had been inquiring into the policy for sixty years, and were quite satisfied with it. They objected to the public funds being expended in simply teaching the Government what they ought to have known before. The Government were in a very extraordinary position. There had been all sorts of Governments in this country. There had been bad Governments with a good policy, and good Governments with a bad policy, but this was the first bad Government he had ever heard of which had no policy at all. Nobody in that House more admired the mental agility and charming dexterity with which the Prime Minister met all attacks upon him and his policy, but still that did not give them confidence. If Mr. Speaker for his well-earned holiday went for a voyage in a ship and asked the captain where he was going, he would not be very well satisfied if the captain said he did not know. That is just the position with regard to the Prime Minister on one of the most important questions that could engage their attention. He reminded the House of the British Ambassador who, in a despatch wrote "some say the Pretender is dead and some say he is alive. For my part I believe neither." That was the exact position of the Prime Minister who in effect said "Some say free trade is good and some say it is bad, but for my part I believe neither." It was an admirable attitude for a philosopher but fatal for a Premier. Mr. Arthur Chamberlain said, the other day—

"The present Government becomes every day more immoral, more retrograde and more dangerous to the material, mental, and moral welfare of the people."

That came from Birmingham and what Birmingham said to-day England would say to-morrow. All he could say was that the sooner England said it the better it would be for its welfare, happiness and prosperity.

reminded the House that recently the Government appointed a Commission in Ireland to inquire into the condition of the Irish workhouses. At the time Irish Members pointed out that, in regard to the composition of that Commission, they thought they had been very unfairly treated. Two Government officials were appointed to represent the official side, and one of the hon. Members for Tyrone, who did not represent the Irish Party, was the third member of the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman might say it was too late to do anything to alter the composition of the Commission, because it had already commenced its work. He complained that no information appeared to be forthcoming as to where the inquiries of the Commission were going to be held. Careful inquiry was necessary, because he knew of policemen in receipt of substantial salaries who went into Irish workhouses on the plea of being sick, but really for the sake of taking a holiday. He thought the poor people of Ireland ought to be afforded proper opportunities of presenting their grievances before the Commission, and if it was found that the law was as it had been represented it might be changed as soon as possible. He wished to know from the Chief Secretary it the Commission was going to inquire into the treatment of the aged poor in the Irish workhouses. Many of those poor old people had been unable to save any money, and had no relatives to maintain them, and they were very often the worst treated of any of the people in the workhouses. As for the Labourers Acts, the Chief Secretary had stated, with reference to the balances, that his instructions had been carried out, and those balances had been applied to the credit of the districts where the Labourers Acts had been carried out. He wished the Chief Secretary to say something to indicate that those balances would be applied more to the counties which had done their best to carry out the Act.

He also wished to call attention to the action of the Congested Districts Board. It had already been pointed out that the Congested Districts Board had confined their attention to certain parts of Ireland. There were certain portions of the County of Kerry which were as much in need of assistance from the Congested Districts Board as any other part of Ireland. Nothing had been done in Kerry except the making of a few rules. A discussion had already taken place in regard to education in Ireland, and as to the application of the money set aside for that purpose. It was clearly apparent that a substantial portion of that money ought to be set apart for primary education in Ireland. The least inquiry on the part of the Chief Secretary would enable him to see that primary education in Ireland was sadly in need of assistance. There were many Irish Members deeply concerned in primary education in Ireland. It was the only form of education which could be taken advantage of by a large majority of the young people of the country, and for that reason he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would regard it as his prime and principal concern to make the primary schools as efficient as they ought to be. Referring to the question of railway rates the hon. Member said it had been stated that the Board of Agriculture acted when a complaint was made to them. He thought it should be the function of the Board to see that reasonable rates were charged wi hout waiting for complaints. The Great Southern and Western Company were making a substantial profit over a large portion of their line, but there were parts where by manipulation they were able to show that they were working at a loss, and the poor ratepayers were made to pay in consequence. He urged that something should be done in this matter.

said he believed the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly sincere in the action he had taken to bring about a better state of affairs in Ireland, and in his desire to introduce peace where there had been war. There were some of the parties to that war who did not seem to be desirous to meet the right hon. Gentleman in that matter. In his own constituency there was a property of notoriety. It was known as the Massereene estate. Notwithstanding the trouble which had taken place there between the landlord, the agents, and the tenants, he found that the present agent on the estate was proceeding with an eviction. This seemed a very hard case indeed. It was that of a widow, seventy years of age, who, after a long life of labour and struggle in her holding on this estate, found herself, when almost on her deathbed, threatened with eviction. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman could do anything in the matter. He believed that the rent had been paid in full for the past twelve years, but it appeared that on account of some arrears that had accrued, possibly in the famine years, she had been deprived of the benefits of the various Acts passed by this House for the relief of cases like hers. Now it was only a doctor's certificate that prevented the forces of the Crown from stepping in and taking her from her home to the workhouse, there to spend the remainder of her days as a pauper at the expense of the rates. He should like very much if the right hon. Gentleman would either by friendly representation to the landlord or by withholding the services of the forces of the Crown put a stop to what was a crying evil and a scandal.

said the hon. Member for South Louth was aware of the fact that the Government could not intervene between parties where a legal debt was due. All he could say was that under the Land Purchase Act caretakers could purchase, and he hoped that the general effect of the Act would induce them to do so. The Executive Government could not intervene in questions when they arose as between parties in Ireland, nor would such intervention, if possible, be likely to be attended with good results. With regard to the matter to which the hon. Member for East Kerry had drawn attention, he failed to notice any new point raised which was not already present to his mind, or to that of some of his colleagues. The matters referred to, and many others, were receiving his attention.

asked whether the Viceregal Commission would have power to inquire into the grievances of dispensary officers. It was most important that inquiry should be allowed.

said that he had within the last ten days stated that the Commission would not take evidence upon that point, and he thought his position in that matter was a sound one. Until they knew what the facts were in regard to accommodation, and what savings could be affected by amalgamation of unions, and whether one could be devoted to the aged and another to the children, it must be clear that no useful purpose would be served by attempting to anticipate on the last day of the session a conclusion which at present could not possibly be arrived at.

said that did not affect the Question he had asked.

said it did indeed. The question of the balances under the Labourers Acts would also receive his attention. He would also consider whether it was possible to have the materials collected for the Local Government Board Report in order that the Report might be presented at an earlier and more convenient date to Parliament. As to the Agricultural Board, that was a statutory body and could only apt under statute when a representation was made to it. This was not the occasion on which to consider whether the Agricultural Department Act should be amended. He did not think that it was. It would be far more to the point if hon. Members who had complaints to make, brought specific cases against specific railways to the notice of the Department, or would communicate with himself, and they would be attended to.

said that he wished to support his hon. friend the Member for Kerry. What he asked was, that this money should not be diverted from the purposes for which it was originally attached, viz., to aid the rates in the erection of cottages for agricultural labourers. It should be distributed in fair proportion amongst the various unions where the Act was to come into operation. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not make up his mind on the matter of the railway schemes until the whole facts had been laid before him.

asked if Constable Murphy, regarding whose conduct he had put a Question to the Chief Secretary, would be cautioned to behave himself while stationed at Nenagh. If not, he would ask that the constable be transferred to the North of Ireland or elsewhere.

^* said he wished to mention a matter in connection with the administration of Customs. When the coal tax was in Committee, he showed how the tax was evaded, and how the coal owners were perfectly entitled to evade it. The operation of the coal tax was simple. If small coal was sold at 6s. a ton, and large coal at 12s. 6d. a ton, no tax was paid. After his speech, the Commissioner of Customs inquired into the operations of two companies with which he was connected. Fortunately, one company did not ship any small coal at all and in the other company he had nothing to do with the sales of coal, but he was still awaiting the result of the inquisition into other companies. He saw the Commissioner of Customs, who told him that he was entitled to sell without paying the tax for small coal at 6s. and large coal at 12s. 6d. if those were the current prices; but that he must not have in his mind the fact that he was evading the tax. He did not keep his commercial conscience in his boots; he took the law as he found it. The position was that he might evade the law, but that he must not say he was evading it. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told him how much he was obliged to him for pointing the matter out; and then followed an inquisition into his own affairs. He would ask the Financial Secretary whether it would be possible to make other arrangements before Parliament met again. The present position was wholly ridiculous.

said that if the hon. Gentleman had given him notice he would have been able to give him some explanation. He would bring the whole matter before the Commissioner of Customs, and see how it stood. When next session arrived, or perhaps before, he would be able to give the hon. Gentleman a full explanation.

said in reply to the hon. Member for North Tipperary he could assure him that Constable Murphy was severely reprimanded, and transferred to another part of the country. That was the best way of preventing him from repeating the conduct for which he was reprimanded.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.