I beg to present a Petition from women electors of Wimbledon, stating that, while the Government allow profiteering, the separation allowances are insufficient to properly clothe themselves and their children, and praying that those allowances should be largely increased, dating from 1st July last.

May I ask if my right hon. Friend can make any statement to the House with regard to the improved military situation since the House last met, and, if it is not convenient at the present moment to make any statement with regard to communications that have passed between the German Government and the President of the United States of America, when he expects he will be able to make some communication on that subject to the House?

Nobody understands better than my right hon. Friend how careful every Power must be at a time like this, and my own view is that probably the only time when any question of this kind should be made public is after a definite decision has been taken, and not when negotiations are going forward. It is, therefore, not possible to name a time. As regards the military situation, I am sure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would himself desire to make a statement on this subject to the House, but that must, I think, depend not only on calls upon his lime, but on the nature of the operations. I do not think it would be the best opportunity to do it just now while the battle is still raging.

Is my right hon. Friend in a position now to state when he will be able to give a day for the consideration of the recent increased separation allowances and hear the views of the House?

As a matter of fact, during the Recess a Committee was appointed by the Cabinet to consider this subject. It has given its Report, and it has been considered by the Cabinet to-day. I hope, therefore, in a day or two to circulate our decision, and then, if a discussion is still desired, it will be granted.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say in anticipation whether the result of the Cabinet decision is an increase in the sums recently awarded?

I think my hon. Friend may assume that if there is any change it can only be an increase. I think it would be better to leave it until the decision is circulated.

I will ask my right hon. Friend again on Thursday.

Is it the intention of the Government to bring in a Ministry of Health (Local Government) Bill this Session, and is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern with which the proposal is viewed by the friendly societies!

I should like to have notice of the question.

Has a date yet been fixed for the holding of a General Election?

No, Sir.

In view of the uncertainly of a large number of important questions being answered on Thursday, would it be possible to give a little more time for questions on that day?

No!

That would require an alteration of the Rides.

May I ask which of the Orders on the Paper the Leader of the House wishes to take to-day?

The Midwives Bill, the Tithe Bill, the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, and School Teachers (Superannuation) Report.

Will there be a Friday sitting?

I do not think it will be necessary.

I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a second time."

I can perform this duty in a very few sentences. The Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, on behalf of the Privy Council, early in the Session, and passed that House with only one important Amendment. When it came to the House of Commons someone with a lynx-eye detected in some of its Clauses an infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons. These Clauses were held to contain a public charge. That being so, according to our usages, the Bill should have been introduced into the House of Commons instead of in the House of Lords. Therefore it had to be laid by. Three courses were open to the Government. One was to introduce the Bill into the House of Commons in the terms in which the former Bill left the House of Lords; the second to introduce the Bill into the House of Lords in an amended form; whilst the third was to drop the Bill. The discovery of the tiny though damaging flaw in this otherwise spotless Bill was made very late in the Session, some time in July, and about the time of the "slaughter of the innocents." Those who were responsible for the conduct of business in the House felt themselves unable to find a place in their time-table for this Bill before the House rose for the summer holidays. The Bill was accordingly dropped, and I gave notice to introduce it into this House on the reassembling of Parliament. I consequently introduce it precisely in the form in winch it passed the House of Lords.

The basis of all legislation relating to midwives is the Midwives Act of 1902, which set up a Central Midwives Board, and required that after a certain interval women should not act as midwives unless they were duly certified by the Central Midwives Board. This Act applied to England and Wales only. After some years', experience of its operation a Departmental Committee was appointed, in 1909, to consider its working. This Committee made certain valuable recommendations as to Amendments which might very fittingly be brought into the Act by some subsequent legislation. Subsequently, when Scotland, and later Ireland, obtained the benefits of a Mid-wives Act, the principal recommendations of the Departmental Committee were incorporated in those Acts; and so it came about that England and Wales became, as it were, the Cinderella of midwifery legislation. The whole object of the present Bill is to assimilate the law relating to the midwives of England and Wales to that which obtains in Scotland and Ireland—to make the whole of the legislation relating to midwives in the United Kingdom in harmony in every possible respect. I would like to make one or two observations in view of the importance of the Clauses.

Clause 1 provides simple and convenient machinery by which the constitution of the Central Midwives Bill can be altered at times, with proper safeguards, by an Order in Council. Clause 2 endeavours to make an equitable apportionment of any deficit that may be shown in the case of the local supervision authorities against the Central Board—apportionment on the basis of population, and not on the basis of the number of midwives who have taken out certificates. The present system is more cumbersome and less equitable and appears, to a certain extent, to penalise the more active authorities as against the negligent ones. Clause 6 amplifies the provisions relating to suspension; in this Clause Sub-section (2) introduces, for the first time, the principle of compensation. Clause 7 allows the Central Midwives Board, if they think fit, to pay the expenses of any midwife who may be required to appear before them to defend herself; whilst Clause 8 empowers the Central Board in removing from the roll the name of any midwife, also to prohibit her from attending maternity cases in any other capacity.

Clause 10 introduces provision for the reciprocal recognition of certificates granted by the Central Midwives Board in this country and of midwives certified granted by similar bodies in other parts of His Majesty's Dominions. There is a condition that the training must be equivalent in each case. It this Bill is passed there will be reciprocal arrangements between all parts of the United Kingdom and His Majesty's Dominions. Clause 11 empowers the local supervising authorities to contribute to the training of midwives in conformity with the resolution passed by the County Councils Association. Clause 12 repeals Section 9 of the principal Act. This proposal gave rise to a division of opinion in another place, and I think it is probable that in the Committee stage some objection may be taken. I do not propose to argue the case now, but if there be a division of opinion in the House during the Committee stage, I shall be only too glad to listen to all those who are capable of advising me as to the best form this proposal ought to take. Clause 14 provides a simple machinery for the payment of medical assistance summoned by midwives in cases of emergency, and it makes it obligatory to summon a doctor in typical cases of emergency. Although it is obligatory on the local authority to pay the fee of the doctor, half that fee will be paid back under certain regulations issued by the Treasury. Therefore any payments the local authorities may make for this act of welfare and mercy will be recouped to the extent of 50 per cent. by Grants made under the advice of the Treasury and administered by the Local Government Board.

It only remains to be said that the Bill embodies the principal recommendations of the Departmental Committee, and that it brings the whole of our legislation connected with midwives in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland all on the same footing. We are all most anxious to do everything we can to promote maternity and anything Chat relates to child welfare. If we can pass such a Bill as this, which improves the status of midwives and removes some of the difficulties under which they suffer, I feel that we shall have done something to diminish the suffering of motherhood and we shall have done something to attract more women and possibly a better class of women to that ancient and honourable profession. By this Bill we shall take an important step forward in one branch of the public health which endeavours to see that everything is done for the strengthening of the health and the general improvement of the vitality of both mother and child.

With the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman I entirely agree. I rise to refer to one point relating to Clause 12, to which reference has already been made. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not desire any discussion on that point, as he wishes to reserve it for the Committee stage, but if he were able to make any statement at this stage it might very considerably reduce the time required for the Committee stage. The memorandum of the Bill distinctly indicates that this measure is proposed in such a way that all contentious matter is avoided. As the right hon. Gentleman no doubt recognises, the question raised in Clause 12 is a distinctly contentious matter. The county councils very strongly object to Clause 12, which robs them of the power they at present possess of delegating their powers to district councils, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to indicate that he does not intend to proceed with that Clause, and so avoid discussion on the Committee stage.

I wish to endorse what the last speaker has said. The Memorandum says that all contentious matter is avoided, and yet Clause 12 is contrary to the very strongly expressed opinion of the municipal and county council associations of the kingdom. It is rather curious to call this measure non-contentious when that is the position. These associations have already written to the right hon. Gentleman and have had no reply, and they have had no opportunity of discussing the matter. They feel very strongly that it is proposed that populations of 170,000, 150,000, and 140,000 are being deprived of their right to deal through their medical officer of health with this very important subject. It is perfectly true, as the President of the Local Government Board says, Clause 12 appears in the Bill because the House of Lords has put it in, but that is a very poor reason. The representatives of the county councils and municipal associations have a strong view upon this question, and they do not like to have the opinion of the House of Lords foisted upon them by stating that this is a non-contentious question when, as a matter of fact, these associations all disapprove of it.

I had hoped that I should have been able to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon bringing in a Bill which was non-contentious and to suggest that this example might very well be followed by other right hon. Gentlemen; but, to my great sorrow, I gather from the speeches which I have just heard that there are contentious matters in this particular Bill. I hope that that is not really the case, and that this new procedure of bringing in Bills which are not contentious will prove to be a reality.

On behalf of the local authorities I wish to give my support to the view expressed by the two hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate. I desire to draw attention to Clause 1 and to have it clearly understood that the word "person" in Clause 1 includes women. It may be a technical point, but the Law Courts have held that the word "person" does not in certain circumstances include a woman. If this Clause includes the appointment of women, it will enable the Government to increase the number of women upon the Central Midwives Board. As things are developing now, there is, I think, a general recognition that women must more and more be called into the counsels of the nation, and this is peculiarly a province in which it is natural that women should be asked to assist. If we could have an assurance from the Government that they contemplate under Clause 1 having the freedom to appoint more women—I suggest, possibly, a midwife, providing a suitable candidate came forward—on to the Central Midwives' Board, I think the House would regard it as a distinct step in advance.

I do not wish now to argue the rather thorny question of Clause 12, but there is another side of the case, and the House must not assume that all the arguments are on the side of my hon. Friends who have spoken. There is a very strong case the other way, which I and other Members of the House are prepared to make at the proper time. Since the Memorandum has been referred to and since stress has been laid upon the fact that it states that the contentious matter has been withdrawn from the Bill, may I direct the attention of the House to the fact that the Memorandum also says that this Bill brings the law of England and Wales into line with the law at present in force in Scotland and Ireland and that that uniformity cannot be effected unless Clause 12 remains in its present form?

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) asked whether it would be possible under Clause 1 to increase the number of women now on the Central Midwives' Board. Yes, that will be possible, and I entirely share his view that in all this maternity and child welfare legislation we shall need more and more the services and the special knowledge of women. It will be possible, if it is thought desirable, to give the midwives themselves direct representation upon that board. The questions have all ranged round Clause 12. We thought it better, upon the whole, to bring in the Bill as it left the House of Lords, but, as I have said, when we come to Clause 12, which will probably be the only Clause which will require any debate or Division, I shall certainly listen with a very open mind to the arguments that will be brought forward as to whether or not there should be any power on the part of the county councils to delegate to the district councils. I will only indicate a certain preference in my own mind not upon this subject only, but upon many other subjects. I think generally it is wise to give a discretionary power subject to the sanction of the Local Government Board. I do not think it is wise to close the door altogether upon the power of delegation by these local bodies. It is best to leave them with that power subject to the sanction of the Local Government Board. That is the only indication of opinion that I will give. I can assure the House that I have a very open mind upon this question, and that I have purposely kept it open until we debate the whole matter in Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday—[ Mr. Hayes Fisher ].

I beg to move, "That the Bill now be read a second time."

This Bill was read a first time on 24th July, and, in asking the House to read it a second time, perhaps some further explanation is needed. The proposals, as I explained when introducing the Bill, are mainly these: On the one hand, to impose a temporary limit to the value of the tithe rent-charge; and, on the other hand, to increase the facilities for its redemption. Both proposals, I am afraid, are difficult to follow, unless we know how tithe rent-charges are at the present time annually adjusted. The value of tithe in produce in 1835 was ascertained in its money equivalent, but in order to preserve the real value of those payments and to maintain its purchasing power the sum payable in each year varies with the fluctuating prices of fixed quantities of grain. In the seven years preceding 1836 and ending at Christmas, 1835, the prices of a bushel of wheat, of a bushel of barley, and of a bushel of oats, respectively, were 7s. 0¼d., 3s. 11½d and 2s. 9d. The next step was to ascertain how many bushels at those prices the money equivalents would purchase. Dividing £100 of tithe rent-charge into three equal parts, it was found that one-third would buy 95 bushels of wheat, another third 168 bushels of barley, and the remaining third 242 bushels of oats. Those three figures, 95, 168, and 242, are the fixed figures by which in each year the septennial average prices of wheat, barley, and oats, respectively, are multiplied. The aggregate is the tithe rent-charge for the year. Let me illustrate it. Assume that the average prices for the seven years ending Christmas, 1925, are 72s. per quarter for wheat, 64s. per quarter for barley, and 48s. per quarter for oats, then a bushel of wheat is worth 9s., of barley 8s., and of oats 6s. Multiplying those three figures by the fixed numbers, you get the following results: 95 bushels of wheat at 9s. are worth £42 15s., 168 bushels of barley at 8s. are worth £67 4s., and 242 bushels of oats at 6s. are worth £72 12s. Adding those figures together, you get the value of £100 of tithe rent-charge in 1926 as £182 11s. That is an illustration of how the average is worked. Of course, that illustration is only an imaginary one. The increase may be greater or it may be less. In any case its magnitude, and still more its uncertainty is somewhat disturbing. On the other hand, it must be remembered that when the tithe rent-charge rises, even if it rises to £182 11s., the tithe owner only gets that which the Tithe Computation Act intended him to get. The real value of the charge is preserved, its purchasing power is maintained, and the tithe owner only receives that which the Act was designed to give him.

4.0 P.M.

On the oilier hand, I do not think it will be contended that the Act of 1836 ever contemplated the present war conditions. Nothing is normal; everything is artificial—the State controls not only the prices of agricultural produce, but to a great extent also the cost of agricultural production. And the difficulty is increased in another way. So long as the burden fell upon the occupier he derived some corresponding benefit from the rise in the prices of produce upon which the increase of tithe rent-charge was based. But the Tithe Act of 1891 transferred the burden of the charge from the occupation to the ownership of land, and the result is that the owner, if he is not himself the occupier, derives no benefit from the rise in the value of the produce, while at the same time he has to bear the burden of the increased tithe rent-charge unless he can raise his rents. Apart from the fact that many landowners are unwilling to raise the rents of their tenants, there are many cases to-day where the farmers could not stand a rise in the rent. In these circumstances I believe there is a pretty general opinion that some reasonable adjustment of the burden of tithe rent-charge would be acceptable, not only to tithe owners but to tithe payers, and, at all events, I claim for this Bill that it is an honest attempt to be fair to the interests of both sides. Of course, there is a great deal to be said from the point of view of the tithe payer as well as from the point of view of the tithe owner, and in the discussions in Committee many points may be raised. I am sure that the Government will receive all suggestions sympathetically and will desire to make the Bill, if possible, fairer and more acceptable.

The first Clause in the Bill deals with this abnormal and artificial rise. It fixes the tithe rent-charge for seven years at £109 3s. 11d., which is its figure to-day. For the next seven years it will neither rise nor fall; it will stand where it is. Many tithe owners have expressed their willingness to accept some such temporary limitation as that, but that willingness has been coupled with the suggestion that if they give up their prospective rise they ought to be in some way protected against an undue fall. I should like to say at once that if that suggestion is presented in the concrete form of an amendment it will receive our very careful consideration. The second change made by the Bill is with regard to compulsory redemption. The tithe payer may compel the owner to redeem under this Bill, but the tithe owner cannot compel the tithe payer. Universal redemption is what we should like to have, but the position of the two parties interested is so different that it is very difficult to apply it. I imagine very few tithe owners would be reluctant to exchange their present tithe rent-charge for the same net income payable with punctuality, free from cost of collection and independent of the prosperity of agriculture or the burden of the rates. But, on the other hand, tithe payers have got to consider, even if they are willing to redeem, whether it is wise to risk more of their capital by buying up further interests in the land in which they may already have too much. Many of them may be afraid to put all their eggs in one single basket, and therefore, on the whole, a one-sided form of compulsion seems to be fair. It is always easier to compel men to receive cash than it is to compel them to pay it. That seems to me to be the governing principle here.

The next change made is the consideration to be paid for redemption. As the law now stands, when the tithe is over the value of 20s. it can only be redeemed at a sum which is not less than twenty-five times the original commuted figure—that is to say, where tithe stands at 66, as it did in 1901, or at 92, as it did in 1917, if you want to redeem it you have to pay £2,500. That is a figure at which the tithe payer cannot afford to redeem, and so from the very moment that that redemption Clause was passed it practically became a dead letter. The proof of that lies in this, that though the Act has been in existence for eighty-two years, only £73,000 worth of tithe has been redeemed. That is a warning against putting in any fixed figure. What is fair compensation depends upon three figures which you cannot calculate beforehand; one is the rate at which the Government can borrow; the second is the average price of corn, and the third the burden of rates. If you once ascertain these three figures the calculation of what is fair compensation is easy, and by that I mean the net income derived from the sum invested in good Government securities, which is equivalent to the net income the tithe owner would have received. That is a simple actuarial calculation if once you get these three figures. Without them it is mere guesswork. We have been pressed a good deal to put in some fixed figure. I must say that experience of the Act of 1836 made me feel quite strongly that that would be inadvisable.

Section 3, Sub-section (2), deals with the consents that are required. As the law stands a clerical tithe rent-charge exceeding 20s. can only be redeemed with the con-sent of the bishop and of the patron of the benefice or cure. Both of them have to consent. That consent is somewhat difficult to obtain, sometimes expensive, and sometimes it is a rather long proceeding. There have been oases where bishops have refused redemption unless thirty years' purchase was given for the tithe. In this case we propose to do away with the consent of the bishop or patron in the case of clerical tithe and substitute the consent of Queen Anne's Bounty, which is the official custodian and trustee of all redemption moneys paid over for the redemption of clerical tithe rent-charge. I think we have omitted in this Bill the Welsh Church Commissioners, but we propose to associate their consent with that of Queen Anne's Bounty where it relates to tithe in Wales. Section 4 deals with facilitating the landlord raising money to redeem tithe rent-charge. Section 5 deals with the very rare cases where the landowner, having agreed to redeem at a certain figure, neglects to pay the money. Section 5 provides means by which the redemption money is no longer treated as tithe but as a charge on the land. Section 6 refers to corn rents, which are not included in Section 1. I am sure the House will not wish me to embark on a technical description of the difference between corn rents and tithe rent-charge Practically the difference lies in this, that instead of being annually adjusted they are adjusted at different intervals according to the local Act under which they were created—whether seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years. We propose under this Bill to facilitate their conversion into tithe rent-charge and in that way to facilitate their redemption. I do not think there are any other Clauses which I need explain, but I would like, in conclusion, to say that Tithe Bills, I am told, have always been somewhat bitterly discussed in this House. I hope that this Bill at all events will be regarded as an honest attempt to solve the difficulties created by war conditions, and that as it leaves the House it will have the approval not only of those who pay but of those who receive tithe rent-charge.

I do not wish for one moment to delay the passage of this Bill through the House, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on its introduction. It is a most necessary measure. There are, however, one or two points on which I should like his attention, in order that when we come to the Committee stage those points may be cleared up. In the first instance, I should like to ask him why the year 1926 has been taken as the period after which the present system may continue, as I understand it, and the tithe rent-charge continue to increase in amount and in value? Whatever may be said for the proposal from the point of view of the clergy, who for many years past, I should think for forty years past—up to four or five years ago—have seen the tithe diminishing in value, and their incomes growing less rather than greater, there is nothing whatever to be said for the tithe owners, who have rendered no service to the community, but who take away from the landowning and land-cultivating classes an increased income at a time when every other class has been under the necessity of facing a diminished income and an increased expenditure. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to extend this year 1926, as against the clergy of the Established Church, he, at all events, may be willing to accept an Amendment which will put an end for ever to increased tithe being paid to the owners of what are commonly called tithes, who have rendered no service to the people from whom they extract a considerable portion of the income of the locality. So much for that point. There is one other point in connection with Clause 1 to which I would ask the right hon. Gentlemen's attention. Why does he fix

"The yearly sum which, on or before the first day of January."

I gather that in the great majority of parishes in this country the day on which tithes are demanded is either the 25th March or 29th September, Lady-Pay or Michaelmas, while in a number of parishes the 1st January is the statutory day. In the far greater number of cases it is either Lady-Day or Michaelmas. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why the 1st January is fixed, which is rarer than the almost universal days to which I have drawn his attention? Let me draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one point in Clause 2, which is one of importance. It is the use of the word "may." There is always a Parliamentary wrangle over the words "may" and "shall." I do not wish to embark upon a contention of that sort now. Is it the fact that under Clause 2 the power of redemption is an optional power, which is only to be granted if the Board of Agriculture so think fit, or will there be an inherent right in the owner of land to go to the Board of Agriculture and say, "I demand redemption of tithe; I am in a position to pay the lump sum required; you must fix the amount at which that redemption is to take place"? The use of the word "may" there causes a certain amount of ambiguity which, personally, I should be very sorry to see introduced into this matter. The right hon. gentleman said something about an alteration in Clause 3 from a fixed number of years to an indefinite period, and therefore an indeterminate amount for which the tithe should be redeemed. He spoke of the period as one of twenty-five years, but I think that he will remember that twenty-four years is also a statutory period during which tithe may be redeemed. Under the Tithe Act, 1846, Section 5, if the total amount does not exceed 20s.—

I did deal with the matter.

Where it does not exceed 20s. the number of years is twenty-four?

Yes.

I suppose that, too, may be varied like 125. in connection with this the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he wished the redemption of tithe was universally compulsory. For many reasons I should like to see that too, but it all depends on the basis on which the tithe is redeemed whether it is a desirable redemption or not. I should like to know, now that the tithe is being fixed for seven years, whether the Board of Agriculture's view is that the period of twenty-four or twenty-five years is to be increased up to thirty, as apparently some people desire, or whether it should be reduced to something like nineteen or twenty, which is the figure which the payer of tithe thinks is very much more fair. Perhaps, when we come to the Clause in Committee, my right hon. Friend may think it worth while to make some explanation of that matter. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the alteration as to the payment into Queen Anne's Bounty. Will he tell me why, in the future, a person who redeems the tithe is not required, as he has been in the past, to make the reduction of one-twentieth of the capital sum which has been paid and charged upon the land in order to reduce and eventually to extinguish the charges upon the land?

Clause 4 says: has to get a lump sum which a recalcitrant owner fails to find, he intends to proceed? I do not quite understand how he is going to make a charge on the property or satisfy Queen Anne's Bounty with the other recipients. On Clause 6 I do not think my right hon. Friend pointed out that the governing words in that Clause are in the third line

We shall all feel glad that the right hon. Gentleman has brought in a Bill dealing with this really very urgent matter. I do not wish to say anything to stop the easy passage of the Bill. Of course it is a Bill, like all other Bills at this time, brought in in a spirit of compromise. I was a little disappointed, when the right hon. Gentleman was making his speech, that he did not refer to many matters which require consideration before we arrive at the Committee stage. In the first place, I am extremely glad he acquitted the clergy of the accusation brought against them in some quarters that they have been profiteering in this matter. That, of course, is a perfectly groundless charge. The amount they have received has been in strict accordance with the amount the Act allowed them, and at the present time they are perfectly entitled to receive any increased tithe which may come in under ordinary circumstances. Anyone who has studied the Report of the Lower House of Convocation will see that they do desire that this matter should be taken in hand. It is quite as much in the interest of the tithe owners as of the tithe payers that there should be some terms found, and, if possible, the old debatable question of tithe removed from political controversy. Therefore I fully welcome this Bill as it is framed, although I think it may be improved. I do not think there is any doubt about the second Clause, but with my right hon. Friend below me (Sir C. Hobhouse) I feel a little doubtful with regard to the words "may be directed." If it had been "may be redeemed" I could understand it, but to give some authority to someone to exercise an option in the matter I do not think ought to be done, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman intends it should be done. He is very wise in making it compulsory on one interest. Much as we should like to get rid of tithe altogether, it is practically impossible, owing to the enormous charge on the tithe payer involved in the abolition of tithe interests. As to Clause 3, I do not quite follow the suggestion of the President that the Board of Agriculture may fix some sum each year. He mentioned three instances, mainly rates and the price of corn. Of course, if he is willing to introduce something of that sort, it might take away some of the objections I have to this Clause. At present the power is indefinite. It will involve some to the tithe owners, the tithe payers, and the Board of Agriculture, which might be avoided very largely if you adopted some definite number of years. The clergy, through Convocation, had suggested twenty, the House of Laymen have suggested twenty, and other authorities have suggested twenty years. It is a very simple sum by which we see that the present rate—twenty years—means that the tithe owner practically gets his par value back.

I rather hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would explain his position with regard to rates, because the rate question is a serious one from the agricultural point of view. When we are dealing with tithe we come upon several conditions of things in connection with rates. Where the tithe is attached to a benefice, owing to an Act passed not long ago, the tithe owner is relieved of half the rates, and he is in a great deal better position than the ordinary occupier, because under the Agricultural Rating Act the relief is based on rates which were fixed a very long time ago, amounting to a sum which is very much less than half the present rate. The clerical owner has the advantage of geting half the rates at the present time, and so he is benefiting considerably more than the other. Is that ever going to be transferred to the occupier, when he comes to arrange his terms subject to the assent of the Board of Agriculture? The other two descriptions of tithe are in a different position. The tithe belonging to cathedrals or capitular bodies and the tithe in the hands of the laity is not given any advantage in connection with the reduction of rates. Is the Board going to take that into consideration when lay tithe or cathedral tithe is being dealt with, and allow a better bargain to be made in those cases than in the other? It ought to be made quite clear how these different matters are going to be dealt with, and under the Bill it is certainly left in such a very vague and indefinite position that I think it will create difficulty throughout the country. No doubt the right. hon. Gentleman has thought the matter out, and I shall be very grateful if he will explain it a little more clearly. Knowing the very heavy incidence of tithe at present, it is almost inevitable that if you really wish the redemption scheme to work, you must have some means of enabling this to be dealt with, not only by one payment but by payment over a series of years. It will be impossible for the tithe payer in many instances to find the money. He may be unwilling to put at once such a very large sum into land at a moment when it is extremely difficult to borrow except at a very high rate of interest, and there should be in connection with this redemption, if you really wish it to work, some scheme for securing that it may be dealt with by either of two ways, either by payment down or by payment over a series of years, and that should have the authority of the Board of Agriculture.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his motives in introducing this Bill, but I am disappointed with the method by which he proposes to carry out his own and, I think, all our desires. He said just now "universal redemption is what we should like." That is a phrase with which everyone who is concerned with tithe will agree. I am certain both tithe owners and tithe payers would echo that. The ecclesiastical bodies, in different phraseology, express the same idea. Surely if we are all agreed in desiring that, the method of the Bill is the very last to bring it about! The principal motive which would have produced universal redemption is the comparative certainty that for the next two or three years the annual value of tithes is going to rise enormously. The right hon. Gentleman is doing away with the incentive towards redemption by saying it shall not rise any higher. For many years past redemption on a large scale has been impossible, because while the annual value of tithe was standing somewhere in the 'sixties—it did not rise to £70 until nine or ten years ago—the minimum figure of redemption was twenty-five years' purchase at par value. I am ignoring subsidiary cases, where the erection of churches and chapels is required, and things like that. I am dealing with the ordinary case of a tithe over 20s. attaching to land, and in those cases redemption was impossible, because while the tithe was between £60 and £70 a minimum of £2,500 was necessary for the redemption of £100 nominal tithe, and on the top of that were the not inconsiderable expenses of the Board of Agriculture in dealing with the matter. But now a unique opportunity has arisen. Tithe this year is at £100 odd and that figure, taken in conjunction with the rate of interest at which the Government can borrow money, makes it possible for redemption to take place, roughly speaking, on the basis of the tithe payer paying £2,000 for every £100 nominal, while the tithe owner would receive an income on the par value of his tithe in Government securities, and with the prospect of tithe approaching £140 next year and £150 or £160 in the following year, it is almost certain that every tithe payer who could conceivably find means to do it would redeem his tithe this autumn and winter. If a different method was adopted in the Bill there would be almost universal redemption of tithe during the next three or four months, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before the Bill gets into Committee, to consider very seriously whether he would take that view. The whole thing was very carefully worked out originally by a great authority on these matters. It was adopted, first of all, by the Committee of the Central Land Association, and it was submitted by them to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to Queen Anne's Bounty, to the Archbishops and to many other interested bodies, and approved by them all. It was submitted to the right hon. Gentleman himself, and received by him with considerable approbation. Why should not a scheme of that kind, which would enable tithe, on the one hand, to be redeemed for payment in cash or in War Bonds at £2,000 per £100 nominal value, or, on the other hand, to be redeemed over a period of fifty years by an annual payment secured by a rent charge of £113 2s. per annum, which would still provide the tithe owner with £100, his par value, from Government securities, be rejected and this Bill be introduced, which, I think, will be a deterrent to tithe redemption?

In case I am challenged on that statement, that it would be a deterrent, let me put the point of view of a tithe payer. I take my own case merely as an illustration, and not because I have any complaint to make. I am one of many rural land owners who at present find their financial position crippled by the rise in tithe. I am one of many who were making arrangements, in anticipation of some steps being taken to facilitate redemption this autumn and winter, to redeem. Do you think I shall redeem under this Bill? Not a bit of it. I can do much better with my money. I know that for the next few years, the years I was afraid of as a tithe payer, tithe will not rise above £109, the present figure. At the end of eight years it may fall, in which case I shall score by not having redeemed. If, on the other hand, it rises, I can redeem then. I am certainly not going to redeem now, as I should have done. I can do better than about four and five-eighths per cent. interest on my money, which is what it would mean after paying expenses. On the other hand, if there is a prospect of tithe rising to £140, £150 or £l60 in the next few years and we could do it at twenty years' purchase of something like par value, we should certainly redeem.

There is another reason, which is important from the point of view not only of the tithe payer, but of the tithe owner, particularly the ecclesiastical tithe owner, and still more the Board of Agriculture, why redemption should be made as nearly as possible universal at present. One of the principal motives that Parliament had when it passed the Tithe Acts which are now in force was the removal of the growing friction between the rural community and the ecclesiastical authorities and the other tithe owners. That friction was removed by putting the burden of tithe upon the owner instead of upon the occupier. But now the position is this: The annual value of tithe has risen so enormously since the period when many of the current rents were fixed that the owners find themselves under the necessary obligation of raising their rents against the increase of tithe or else running their rural estates at a loss. You cannot raise your rent year by year against the tithe. The owner of a rural estate whose farms are let on a Michaelmas tenancy finds himself, at the beginning of the year, faced with a tithe of £109. The step he can take to raise his rents in order to recover that tithe from the farmers upon the basis of their receipts when the value of the tithe is fixed is this: He gives notice before Michaelmas of his intention to terminate his existing tenancies at the existing rents at Michaelmas next year, and it will be Michaelmas two years hence before he receives the increased rout to cover the increase in tithe. Therefore he has to put his rent up, not to meet the tithe of this year, but the estimated tithe of two or three years hence. That mere fact, which is quite a common fact in these days, is reintrodueing friction between the rural community and the tithe owner, which it was the whole purpose of the Tithe Acts to remove. There is a great opportunity of securing almost if not quite universal redemption of tithe now without the reintroduction of friction, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider whether he cannot alter his Bill altogether in Committee, and whether he could not give the right to the tithe payer to redeem his tithe at a fixed number of years' purchase, so that if he does it now there will be a par value to the tithe owner, while if he waits a year hence he will have to pay 20 per cent. more, and two years hence, or whatever it may be, he will have to pay 40 per cent. more, and so on. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to do that, so that the real incentive towards universal redemption may be introduced rather than abolished by this Bill.

It is far from my intention to rekindle the embers of old controversies in this House, but I feel constrained to move on the Second Reading of this Bill that it shall not apply to Wales and Monmouthshire.

It would not be in order for the hon. Member to move that now. That would mean moving the rejection of the Bill. He can move an Amendment in Committee to strike out any reference to Wales or Monmouthshire, or to limit the Bill to other parts of the Kingdom.

If I am out of order in moving that Amendment, I shall reserve it for the Committee stage. I wish to draw attention at the first possible moment to the great grievance which Wales will suffer if this Bill becomes law without some such limitation as I have suggested. It is perfectly obvious to anyone who reads this Bill, or indeed, to anyone who has heard the eminently reasonable speech of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, that it never was in the contemplation of the framers of this Bill that the case of Wales was different to that of England in the matter of tithes. You have only to look at Section 3, Sub-section (2), in order to see that the case of Wales was never present to the right hon. Gentleman's mind when he was framing this Bill. It was only in the course of his speech to-day that he said that after the words "with the consent of Queen Anne's Bounty," in line 9, he proposes to add the words "the Welsh Church Commissioners." Why has he to put in "the Welsh Church Commissioners"? Because he had forgotten entirely there was such a thing as the Welsh Church Act on the Statute Book, and that the Welsh tithe will have to be redeemed by the Welsh county councils when the Welsh Church Act comes into operation after the conclusion of the War. If the tithe had been redeemed before it could only be with the consent of the Welsh Church Commissioners. I appeal to the sense of fairness in this case, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the position of Wales. As I have said, I am not going to revive old controversies. I take it for granted that the Welsh Church Act, which is on the Statute Book, is to be put into operation at the conclusion of the War. The Welsh Church authorities themselves have long ago accepted that position. They have framed their constitution, they have taken steps to elect a representative body, and they have already said that they will accept commutation. Everything is in readiness for Disestablishment and Disendowment at the conclusion of the War, and yet this Bill has been introduced as if the position in Wales was entirely the same as the position in England.

The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech, with reference to Section 2, that it was one thing to compel people to accept money, but quite another thing to compel people to pay money. On that I pass no opinion. Section 2 gives the tithe payer the option of compelling a tithe owner to redeem, but it does not give the tithe owner the option of compelling the tithe payer to redeem. The hon. Member who spoke last, and who spoke as a rural landowner, said there was no inducement held out to him in this Bill to redeem, because, he said, he would have to pay 109, or nine over par for the redemption of the tithe, and he was cut off entirely from any possibility of recouping himself by an increase in the value of the tithe rent-charge or seven years, which, he said, might rise to 140 next year or 160 the year after that. The right hon. Gentleman also said that in 1926 it might be—

I gave it only as an illustration.

I will use it as an illustration. The right hon. Gentleman said it might be possible that in 1926 the value of the tithe would be £182 10s. If that be the position of the rural landowner in England, it is a very unfair position if he wants to redeem, because, as the hon. Gentleman said, no one will redeem at 109 unless he can see some prospect of recouping himself by an increase in the value of the tithe rent-charge. What about the Welsh county councils? What are you going to do with them? The commutation proposals in the Welsh Church Act compel the Welsh county councils at the conclusion of the War to buy up the life interests of the clergy in these tithes at the figure which the Bill now proposes to fix; that is, at 109. They will not get the benefit from the inevitable increase in the value of tithe during the next seven years, and when the normal operations come into being again in 1926 it may well be, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that the value of the tithe will have sunk, not to 109, but perhaps to 100 or 95. May I ask the House, which is a very fair assembly, to view this matter fairly as a pure business proposition? May I ask hon. Members to consider what would be said in England if instead of Clause 2 in this Bill there was a Clause introduced compelling every tithe payer to redeem tithe next year at 109 and that this Bill should remain exactly the same in other respects? The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was a controversialist in the old days and did yeoman service to his party. What would he say as a fair man if this Bill compelled him next year to redeem his tithe at 109 and took away from him the prospect for seven years of any increase in the value of tithe, but left him with the prospect, if not the certainty, that six or seven years after the War the value of the tithe would decrease, as it always has decreased six or seven years after every war, below par again. Would he not say it was a crying injustice? Would he divide the House on every possible occasion against it? He shakes his head. I am perfectly certain, after his speech, that if the same measure was meted out to him as it will be meted out to the Welsh county councils under this Bill, he would be a very vehement opponent.

The hon. Member asks me a question. One of the complaints I make against the right hon. Gentleman is that he has removed from the Bill the incentive which would, in fact, have compelled me or forced me to redeem this year at 109, for fear of having to pay 140 or 160.

That is the point I am making. Here you compel Welsh county councils to redeem at 109. Do you take away from them the inducement? They have no option. They are compelled to redeem under the Welsh Church Acts. They are not in the same happy position as the hon. Gentleman, who can do as he likes. He need not redeem unless he likes. If he thinks this Bill gives him a bad bargain he need not redeem, and he will not redeem because he has told us so. The Welsh county councils are not in that happy condition. Poor creatures, they are placed in the unhappy position of having to redeem. They were in a very unhappy position before. Through the operations of the War the value of tithe, which was only 77 in 1915, when the commutation proposals were passed, have risen now to 109. It is bad enough prospect that they are to pay 9 over par in order to buy up the life interests of the clergy, and now this Bill adds another injury to the accidental injury caused by the War, namely, that it takes away from them the chance of recouping themselves for the losses they have already suffered, by having to redeem at 109, and it does it by taking away from them any prospect of increase in the value of the tithe in future.

5.0 P.M.

I do not wish in any way to revive the old controversy. It would be easy for me and my Welsh colleague to speak of the inequity under which we are suffering. The Welsh Church Act was put on the Statute Book in September, 1914, and but for the accident of the War breaking out in August it would have been in operation at least in March, 1915. We should then have been able to commute the life interests of the clergy at the then price of tithe, but because of the accident of the War breaking out in August and not in October, 1914, when the Welsh Church Act would have been in operation—that is, if the Welsh Church Act could have been got on the Statute Book before the War broke out—we should have redeemed the tithe at something like 77. Now the Welsh county councils will have to buy out the life interests of the clergy at 109 at least. We could easily make that a grievance. It means adding at least £400,000 to the coffers of the Church. I make no complaint about that. I have never complained, and I do not complain now, that through that accident the Church has benefited to that extent, but I do say that you have no right in justice or in equity to compel the Welsh county councils, or any other public body, to buy at a fixed figure which will mean, and must mean, inevitable loss to them. I put this question, quite apart from the old controversy of Disestablishment and Disendowment, and I put it as a business proposition. We were told that commutation only meant an actuarial calculation as to what the real value of the life interest of the clergy was, and that when an actuary had found out what a fair figure was on an actuarial basis, then that sum should be paid to the clergy or the representative body without their benefiting a penny or the Welsh county councils losing a penny by the transaction. You are intervening now and say, "You shall buy next year, when we all hope the War will be over. You have no option. You must buy the life interest of the clergy next year, and must give 109 for it, because that is the value of the tithe on 1st January next year." My right hon. Friend here asked, Why fix 1st January? Why not fix 25th March this year? I will tell you why, because the value of tithe on 25th March this year was only 92, and the value of tithe, I have no doubt, on 1st January will be 109; so you compel the Welsh county councils to buy at 109 and you give them no guarantee whatever, so far as this Bill is concerned, that they will not make a ruinous bargain.

You say that for seven years they shall receive no more than 109, and at the end of seven years tithe will be assessed under the old Act, and so on, and it may very well be that tithe will be then below par. The value of tithe went up during the Napoleonic Wars, and continued to rise steadily for some years after until 1821 or 1822, when it was something like 121 or 122, that is to say, it continued to rise for more than six years after the Battle of Waterloo. The same thing happened in the case of the Crimean War. Tithe rose during the War and went up for some years afterwards, but in normal times the abnormal conditions created by the War disappeared, and the value of tithe came to be fixed by the ordinary rules again, and there was consequently a depreciation. The same thing occurred in the case of the Franco-German War in 1871. The value of tithe went up, and then it went down gradually to 62 or 63, and in 1915, when the Welsh Church Act was passed, the value was only 77, so we may expect that in all probability the same sort of thing will happen after this War. It is true that the increase during this War has been abnormal. For instance, in March this year, the value was 92, and the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the value of tithe on 1st January next year will be 109.

It is 109 now.

In March this year it was 92. If I am wrong I can be corrected. At all events it is perfectly certain that in 1915 the value was 77 and the value to-day, we are told, is 109, and therefore you have an increase in the course of three years of 32. That is an abnormal increase which has never been known in the history of tithe before, and it is because this War is a war without precedent; and if the hon. Gentleman who spoke last is correct, and that next year the value will be 140 and the year after it will be 160, and that in 1926 it will be 182, then the increase will be very abnormal, but as the increase has been abnormal so the decrease, I believe, will be abnormal too, and it is very probable that by 1926–7 the value may have decreased under par again and there will be a dead loss to the Welsh county councils. No one in this House can defend that position. If you want to abolish the Welsh Church Act do so honestly. We shall fight you. We shall do our best to prevent you. But at all events be honest and straightforward in the matter. The Welsh Church Act was passed in three Sessions of Parliament, and was placed on the Statute Book, and it compels the Welsh county councils to buy tithe at the current rate without seeing that they are safeguarded and that they are not to make a ruinous bargain, as they will if this Bill passes. Do one of two things. Either exclude Wales from the Bill altogether, because of the abnormal conditions of things—I do not think that the clergy will suffer. They will get the full value of the tithe, and I do not grudge it. That is the fortune of war. I do not want to reopen old controversies. I am quite willing to forget the past and to live in amity with our Church friends, but I wish to have fair play for the Welsh county councils, and if you exclude Wales from the Bill we will take our chance of recouping ourselves by the increase in value during the next six or seven years; or we say that since you compel the Welsh county councils to buy tithe next year, when the Welsh Church Act comes into operation, let them redeem it at par. It is not as if you were asking them to pay so much per year, taking their chance whether it is 109 this year or 99 the following year, or 89 the following year, but you are asking them to buy, to redeem, tithe. Therefore why should they be asked to pay more than the par value?

That is a perfectly fair proposition. I would urge it on my hon. Friends the Members for Wales who are in the Ministry—I think that there are five or six of them—men who fought hard in the past for Welsh Disestablishment and Disendowment. I would appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Herbert Lewis). No one has done greater service in the matter of Disestablishment and Disendowment than he. Will he stand by and see the Welsh county councils being led into a ruinous position 8 The hon. Member for East Carmarthen (Mr. Towyn Jones) is one of the junior Whips of the Treasury. He was sent here specially in the old days in order to keep Welsh Members up to the mark on Disestablishment, and he was the most against any concession given by the then Home Secretary. Indeed, I believe that he has even denounced me, who am supposed to be rather extreme, because I was not half extreme enough for my hon. Friend. Here is a Bill which torpedoes the Welsh Church Act, which makes it impossible to bring it into operation with any chance of success, which not only allows the county councils to give at least another £400,000 to the Church, but makes it impossible for them to make it a good bargain. This is the Bill which is introduced by the Government, at the head of which is a Welsh Member who won his spurs by being an exponent of Welsh Disestablishment and Disendowment, and four or five of whose colleagues are equally committed on the Welsh Church Act. I have sufficient confidence in the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill to feel that he will see to it that the Welsh county councils shall have fair play in this matter. The character of the Bill, the fact that it never mentioned Wales, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman show that he has erred in this matter, so far as Wales is concerned, simply because he has never considered it, and I appeal to him, as a man of fairness, who loves justice, to see to it that this blot on his Bill shall be removed. The question of English tithe is a domestic question. I leave him to settle with his English supporters the character of the Bill so far as England is concerned, but I do ask him, in all earnestness and sincerity, to consider the special case of Wales and to do all in his power to meet it.

I do not desire to deal with any particular part of the United Kingdom nor to discuss to-day any details in connection with this matter, but I would like to say a word or two upon the principle of it. I think that the whole House of Commons, in touching this very-difficult question of tithe, does desire to avoid doing any injustice either to Wales or the Welsh county councils, or the clergy, or cathedrals, or the lay people who happen to own certain of the tithes. I was rather hoping, when the Government took up the question of tithe in this Bill, that they were going to give facilities for universal redemption in order to get rid of tithe altogether, so far as it affects portions of land. There are five or six different kinds of tithe; and in some cases lands are subject to two or three of those. Everyone who has got anything to do with the ownership of land knows that these sometimes small and sometimes large impositions are very annoying, and cause an amount of trouble and inconvenience quite out of all proportion to the matter involved. The whole tendency to-day is to simplify the ownership and occupation of land and to get rid of impediments and obstacles which practically are nothing but a nuisance. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman that Clause 5, I think, contains a provision that where a landowner has given notice of redemption but does not go on with it there is machinery there to carry it out. I am one of those who could have wished that the whole of this Bill was an enlarged Clause 5 with machinery to carry out redemption over the whole country in respect of this matter.

There is one simple way in which, without very much difficulty and without any comparative hardship, tithes could be got rid of. I understand that if an addition were made to the annual amount of tithe of about 11 per cent. of the amount that in a period of years, which I believe would not exceed forty, the tithe would automatically disappear, because that small addition would enable a sinking fund to be set up which would wipe it out. I do not say that that is an altogether desirable method of doing it, because one does not like to add 10 or 11 per cent. to a charge which in itself is a, nuisance. But if you have a number of cases in which landowners find it difficult to raise the amount of capital to enable them to get rid of the tithe at once, surely they might be willing to agree to some small addition if that had the effect of completely wiping out the tithe in a given number of years. It is quite true that forty years is a long period, but still it is a period that comes to an end. If it is desirable to get rid of a thing, then surely even forty years is better than never. I do not believe, of course, in extending anything to forty years if there is any quicker or more reasonable way of doing it. I think it would be a good thing if this Bill contained provisions under which landowners could go to the Treasury and get the necessary amount on the same terms as, say, local loans which would automatically free them from these tithe charges. I think, too, it would be an excellent idea if there was a system under which, with a Small edition, say, of one-fifth, they could get rid of the charge in fifteen or sixteen years. In the case where the tithe was, say, £10, an addition would make it £11 4s., and which would enable the landowner in a number of years to get rid of it, would, I am sure, not be objected to. I think it is a pity that the Bill does not provide machinery to enable the man who wanted accommodation for this purpose to get it. I am sorry to see that the Bill as a matter of form and as a matter of essential expenditure does not seem to me to initiate any idea of enabling these tithes to be more advantageously got rid of and wiped out. At the present moment the burden is a particularly serious one, because, with the great rise in the price of grain, you have got a great rise in the annual amount payable as tithe. I can see that in the next few years there will be an outcry with regard to the amount of tithes to be paid. Under this Bill that amount is going to be restricted, and is not to be increased after a certain date, but there, again, it may be said that you are depriving the owners of tithes of the right to be paid at some future date on the same basis as regards price as the system now provides. I regret very much that this Bill fails in my judgment hopelessly to provide machinery to give facilities for wiping out and getting rid of one of the incidents to land tenure in this country which for many years has been a source of annoyance and of grievous wrong to a large number of people.

The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen District (Mr. L. Williams), when dealing with this question, endeavoured to introduce into it a number of old controversies. I will not follow his example, nor will I take up the time of the House in showing the numerous inaccuracies in his speech, but I would like to draw attention to the principal inaccuracy which he mentioned, and not for the first time. The hon. Member stated that the effect of this Bill was to hand over a large sum to the Church in Wales. In that statement he is absolutely inaccurate. The mere fact of whether the tithe rises or whether the value of the tithe increases or decreases does not in any way affect the Church in Wales if the Welsh Church Act comes into force at the end of the War. That is so for this reason, that the present incumbents take a life interest in the tithe, and if the Church receives a larger sum in commutation because the value of the tithe is increased then exactly in the same proportion have they to pay a larger sum every year to the incumbents to pay off their life interest which is secured to them under the Act. Therefore for the hon. Member to say that this Bill hands over £400,000 to the Church of Wales is, I contend, absolutely inaccurate and it was simply in order to correct that statement that I rose.

The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. I never said that this Bill did anything of the kind. What I did say was that by the operation of the War and the fortune of the War the Church had got in effect £400,000 more than we thought she would have got when the Welsh Church Act was passed. I never said a word about this Bill giving 1d. to the Church, and I repudiate the suggestion.

I have listened to the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman and I still understand that he informs the House that the fact that the tithe has risen from the value of 77 in 1913 to 109, mentioned in this Bill, is giving £400,000 more to the Church in Wales. That, I contend, is absolutely inaccurate, and for this reason: The matter is a business proposition and one about which I think I know something. Under the Act, if the tithe is commuted at, say, at 109 as against 77, there will certainly be a larger sum of commutation, but the receivers of the benefit who have the life interest in the tithe—that is the incumbents—take every penny and get a larger sum in exactly the same proportion for their life interest. Therefore I think I am quite correct in my contention that the Church in Wales does not benefit by the rise in price.

I think it is clear that the abnormal rise in tithe rent-charge due to the abnormal rise in current prices necessitated some measure of this kind. My only regret is that the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to bring in a Bill of this sort last year before tithe had risen so much above par and when its future rise was for all practical purposes certain. I suppose, however, we must deal with matters as they stand and possibly on the basis of tithe rent-charge being, as it is for the present year, £109 3s. 11d. for every £100. I, however, would have liked, if it had been possible, to fix the par value as the value for the next seven years, and I think, for reasons which I may mention, that it would have been fairer all round. One fully appreciates the importance of the question, because, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, tithe rent-charge, like the tithe which it represents, is a larger proportion of the value of the property than it at first sight appears, because of course, like tithe, it is ultimately based not on the value of the profits but on the value of the produce. That proportion increased steadily during the fall in prices, because when prices fell the cost of production did not fall in the same way, the result being that tithe rent-charge eat further into the profits of those who had to deal with the land. The Tithe Act of 1891, which made tithe rent-charge payable by the owner instead of the occupier of the land, contained the very necessary provision that where tithe rent-charge exceeded two-thirds of the annual value of the land under Schedule B, the excess should be remitted. The mere fact of such a provision showed how enormously tithe had eaten into the profits of those interested in production, and if it had not been for that provision in many cases tithe rent-charge would have swallowed not only more than two-thirds but the whole of the profits. My right hon. Friend very kindly supplemented the previous figures as to tithe rent-charge with some that he was good enough to give me shortly before the House rose. At the time of the commutation the total amount of tithe rent-charge in 1836 was slightly over £4,000,000, of which nearly two and a half millions was payable to the parochial incumbents and the remainder to other tithe-owning interests. The reduction by redemption, merger and exchange has exceeded the additions due to conversion of corn-rents into tithe rent-charges, with the general result that the variable tithe rent-charge is now about £3,678,000, and taking the present value of £109 it is about £4,016,000.

Some reference has been made to the amounts of tithe rent-charges in preceding years, and as to what may be possible in future years. I will venture, if I may, to call the attention of the House to what has been the rise in tithe rent-charge in more recent years. The value of £100 tithe rent-charge readied its lowest figure of slightly under £66 11s. in 1901; next year it was slightly over £67, and from 1903 to 1909 it was between £69 and £70. Then it rose very steadily even before the War, and reached £75 16s. 4d. for 1914. That was the last year on which it was calculated on the pre-war prices. Then for 1015—when war prices first began to tell—the value of £100 tithe rent was over £77, for 1916 it was over £83, for 1917 was over £92, and for the present year it is over £109, while there is every possibility it will continue to increase rapidly in value. This increase is a very serious thing for agriculture and for those who put money into the land. It must be remembered that while the landowner may put capital into the land and the tenant his labour, the tithe owner does nothing whatever towards increased production. I draw no distinction whatever between the clerical and the Jay tithe owner in this respect; the tithe owner, as tithe owner, in no way contributes towards production; he, in fact, takes a toll on the production of other people, and it is very important that the House should take care that this toll is not too heavy or too crushing. In considering this tithe question, I would point out that the tithe owner has always been the spoiled child of legislation. We all know what was done. As in the Agricultural Bates Act, the Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Act of 1899 similarly provided that half the rates on tithe rent-charge attached to benefices were to be paid by the taxpayer, and the remarkable circumstance is that as tithe increases in value so the amount the taxpayer has to pay in respect of rates on tithe also increases. The value of the tithe rent-charge when the Act was passed was very low, but it has steadily increased, and last year the amount paid under that Act for rates on tithe rent-charge attached to benefices was £193,000, more than had been paid in any other preceding year.

I think it would have been well, in view of that enormous rise of tithe rent-charge, by which all tithe-owners benefited, that in respect of this subvention from the heavily burdened taxpayer this Bill should have been of rather wider scope, and that the Tithe Rents-Charge (Rates) Act ought to have been repealed, and prevented from operating when this new measure comes into operation. I think that should have been dealt with, and I would remind the House that it would be very difficult to deal with it in the ordinary way, because, though it is annually renewed under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, it does not appear in that Act, but in the renewal of the Agricultural Rates Act, which automatically operates the renewal of the Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Act, because of the very ingenious provision which was put into the latter measure. I submit that when this Bill was brought before this House, it would have been a very good thing, in view of the enormous rise in tithe rent-charge, if the subvention from the taxpayer had been stopped. I hope that my right hon. Friend, if the Bill becomes law, will see that very careful statistics are obtained as to the amount of tithe in the various counties, and to whom that tithe belongs, I have received information as to the total amount, but there seems to be a want of exact statistical information, which certainly ought to exist, not only as to the numbers but also as to the subventions from the taxpayers in payment of the tithe rent-charge rates. The suggestion has been made that as the tithe rent-charge will not be raised above £109 during the next seven years, so there should similarly be some provision against its fall in the future. I submit that in view of the tithe owner's position who does nothing towards production, such a provision would certainly give a guarantee as to the minimum. If anything is done along these lines, it should be, as now, a matter simply and solely between the tithe owner and the tithe payer, and the taxpayer should not be brought directly or indirectly into the transaction.

I venture to make a suggestion on another point which has been raised. It has been said with some justice that in the redemption provision it is rather a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has provided only for redemption by capital payments, and has not provided an alternative form of redemption of payment by instalments, but whatever facilities may be given for redemption, I am sure that the House feels that at a time like this the redemption should be carried out as between the interests concerned alone, and that the taxpayer should not be brought in any way to finance, still less to endow the transaction.

Some suggestion of that sort has been made by an hon. Friend of mine behind me, and I venture to put to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, that whatever arrangements may be made for redemption, and however much it will expand, he will leave the matter to be arranged simply and solely between the tithe owner and the tithe payer, because if the taxpayer is brought at all into these arrangements, the Bill will become controversial, and there will be grave danger of its being lost. I say frankly, and I believe I speak for other Members better qualified to judge than I am, that many will be strongly adverse to bringing the taxpayer into these matters at all. Whatever arrangements may be made for commutation or redemption, they ought to be made directly between the parties concerned. It is a pity, I think, that this Bill has been delayed until the tithe rent has gone up to over £109, and I submit that it is a matter for consideration whether, for the seven years, the amount ought not to be fixed at par instead of £109. The whole question is one of very great importance. I see from what some of my hon. Friends have said that there may be difficulties about the redemption provision, I hope, however, that it may be satisfactorily arranged, and, in any case, whether the redemption provisions are carried or not, I think the House will recognise the need of some measure of this kind which is designed, at least, to prevent tithe rent-charge going higher than the high figure it has reached, and to prevent the tithe owner, who does nothing towards production, from getting still more than he has already obtained from the conditions arising out of the War.

I differ very much from the hon. Member who has just sat down. I hope very much that the Bill will be looked at from the point of view of the tithe owner before the Committee stage on the question. I trust also that Members will carefully read the admirable speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman. I never heard a clearer exposition of this most difficult problem of the tithe rent-charge. It should be remembered that the tithe owner is giving up a very great deal. He is giving up practically a certain rise of tithe during the next four or five years, and he is willing to take the sum that has been fixed on what it was last January. He is not getting very much back in redemption if he is liable to be bought out by the tithe payer. While he cannot insist upon being bought out the tithe payer can insist, and the terms are to be such as the Board of Agriculture decides. That is not satisfactory from the point of view of the tithe owner. I say that in no spirit of hostility to the Bill. It does not seem to me to be a very satisfactory proposition, and I do not think the matter ought to be left to the absolute determination of the Board of Agriculture. The last speaker said that the tithe owner is the spoilt child of the Legislature, and suggested that he was getting too much under this Bill, but in contrast to that the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs put forward the grievance that under the Welsh Church Bill the county councils in Wales will become tithe owners, because they have to buy out existing tithe owners. It is in that way only that this Bill will affect them, because until they become tithe owners they are not touched at all. He certainly spoke with a strength and vehemence on the point that did not lead us to suppose that he thought the tithe owner, under this Bill, was the spoilt child of the Legislature, because he said it was the most monstrous injustice. I submit that the tithe owner should look carefully into this Bill before the Committee stage, and, as far as I can judge, looking at it perfectly impartially, being neither a tithe owner nor a tithe payer, I think he is not getting quite the same advantage that the tithe payer is, and that compensation ought rather to be given him when we come to the Committee stage.

I do not intend to answer in detail the questions that have been raised, because, I think, on the whole, they are best dealt with in Committee, but there was a question which I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the reason why the rent-charge is fixed on the 1st January, 1026. Under Section 20 of the Tithe Act of 1840 the tithe for every year is announced on the 1st of January, and begins to take effect at the first half-yearly payment on the 1st of April in the same year. That is the explanation of the form in which the first Clause is drawn. It looks as if we were fixing it for eight years, but if you remember that the first tithe, when it comes into effect, is on the payment on the 1st of April, the mystery is explained. As to the question of redemption, what I would say about that is shortly this. We have always considered that the net income which would have been obtained by the tithe owner is the amount that ought to be securable, and when I say net income, of course I mean the net income subject to the deduction of the rates, and in certain cases Land Tax, where the tithe owner is subject to that, and that the remaining net income we have to secure him is such a sum of money as will maintain that income if invested in Government securities. That, as a matter of fact, at the present moment amounts to about twenty years' purchase, and that is the amount at which clerical Lithe now will be able to be redeemed under this Bill. Therefore, when the hon. and gallant Member behind me said he had no inducement whatever now to redeem the tithe, I hope he will think better of it, and remember that in all probability if he does not redeem it until 1926 he may have to redeem the tithe which then may be at something between 160 and 170, and he may not benefit by having waited so long. I beg to move the Second Beading of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Committee stage will be likely to come on?

I really do not know what the business of the House is going to be. As long as we get the Bill through this Session it will do.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us adequate notice of the time when he proposes to take the Bill again?

I will take care that that is done.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[ Mr. Prothero. ]

This is the only occasion on which we can ask the Government with regard to the connection between this delightful island and the United Kingdom. The Channel Islands do not send a Bill like this forward, and it has never been explained to the House why, and I propose to ask again if any explanation can be given, but I would first like to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill whether he can take this opportunity of informing us whether the Isle of Man has contributed financially to the burden of this War. I take it the Government answers were quite complete and satisfactory in regard to Jersey and Guernsey, but no statement, I believe, has been made as to what part the Isle of Man has taken, and we should like to know what the response has been from the loyal Manx people to the financial need of the country during the War. Secondly, I want to ask the Government if they can now make a statement why this Bill is constitutionally necessary. I have asked now for seven years, and this is the eighth year on which I have raised this question, and I am told by an hon. Member, who is well up in these matters, that it is the only autocracy in the British Dominions. I do not think that is a correct description, but there is no doubt it is in a very unique position. I have thought sometimes whether it would not be an appropriate time for the Government to review in some way by an inquiry the position of all these islands. We have a Bill later dealing with education, and the Island of Jersey is in a unique position in regard to education, but with regard to Customs the Isle of Man is in the same unique position. Jersey and Guernsey do not send a Bill like this; and they have Houses of Parliament. The Isle of Man has its House of Keys, but it does send this Bill here. I have no doubt the Treasury simply preserve the ancient form. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can make a statement upon the constitutional position, but I was told that the Law Officers of the Crown would give their attention to this subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) assured me that there is filed somewhere a special document, which he took great pains in preparing, to make plain to the Government and to the House what the position is between this country and this House and the Isle of Man. I have mentioned this for the well-known reason that when the Insurance Bill was before the House I put an Amendment on the Paper to make that Bill apply to the Isle of Man, because of its contiguity to the Lancashire coast. The Chair ruled that that Amendment could not be put, but at that time, in my youthful innocence as a new Member, I thought the Chair was in error, but I am bound to say that I now think the Chair was quite right and that I ought not to have been allowed to move to extend the Insurance Act to the Isle of Man on the well-known ground that they have no representatives here. At that time, though, a reason was given that was not quite correct—namely, that we were not entitled to legislate at all for the Isle of Man. We are doing that to-day; but why, this House has never had properly explained. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has distinguished himself with a desire to inform the House on many points that have come up. He has multifarious duties and is practically the maid of all work of the Government, and if he could explain to the House the constitutional position of this island I should be deeply obliged. With these inquiries, I offer no opposition to the Second Reading.

I think, perhaps, it would be travelling rather outside the confines of this Bill if I attempted to go into the constitutional position of the Isle of Man in relation to the United Kingdom; but I think it is a perfectly fair request and one to which I will endeavour to reply—that I should try and explain what is the constitutional position in regard to the matter contained in the Bill, namely, the Customs of the Isle of Man. The governing Act is the Isle of Man (Customs) Act of the year 1887, and by that Act such Customs as are imposed in the island by their own Legislature have force without further authority from the Parliament of the United Kingdom for six months, or until the end of the Parliamentary Session, but they then lapse unless confirmed by such an Act of Parliament as the one which I am presenting this evening as a Bill to the House. The island has complete power to vote its own Customs. It may select the same articles for taxation as we do in the United Kingdom, or it may select other articles. It may have the same duties as we have, it may have other duties, or it may, if it so elect, fix its duties on a different basis. This Bill which we have before us this evening is in common form a ratifying of the action of the Manx Parliament, and will give when it passes through Parliament statutory effect for the whole financial year to the duties that have been proposed.

6.0 P.M.

But I should like at this stage—because I shall ask the House for permission to take the Bill this evening in its stages unless there be any objection—to call the attention of the House to the fact that we have introduced a new Clause this year, namely, Clause 3, and to explain to the House why we have had to introduce it. The Isle of Man have raised their duties considerably on various articles about which I shall say a word in a minute or two in answering the first part of the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). The Act of 1874 referred to in the third Clause of this Bill stipulates that when beer is imported into the Isle of Man the gravity of that beer must be declared, and if it be not declared it becomes subject to the highest rate of duty, which at that time was 11s. a barrel. The rate of duty has now been raised this year to 44s., which brings it much nearer to the rate in force in England, and the legal advisers of the Board- of Customs have informed them now, in the absence of any evidence as to the gravity of imported beer, that such imported beer is liable to this high duty of 44s., a figure which was never contemplated in addition to the duty that has been paid in this country, and have advised that the time had come when this Regulation of 1874 should be withdrawn. At the same time, they called the attention of the Board of Customs to a phrase which appeared in the same Act, where the words "and not drawn back" occur. Those words, as they appeared in the Act of 1874, limited the Excise duties payable to British goods and not foreign goods, and if those words are still allowed to stand it would mean that imported foreign goods which, in normal times, consist mainly of imported liquor, would be subject to both the duty in the United Kingdom and the duty in the Isle of Man. It is for those reasons that these two small alterations, which have been suggested by the legal advisers of the Board of Customs, have been inserted.

I should like to say, although I do not know it is strictly within the purview of this Bill, a word or two in answer to my hon. Friend's first question, as to what the Isle of Man has done since the beginning of the War. I think I should say in preface that the island is not a wealthy community and we must bear that in mind. It depends very largely on what I believe is known as "tripper traffic."

That traffic, of course, during the War has been reduced to a minimum, and in its place there are a large number of interned German prisoners. The result on the social life of the island has been that while those engaged in agricultural pursuits have probably clone very well, those in the urban areas have suffered a good deal; and when I remind the House that the island has contributed, as a gift, a sum of £10,000 in cash, that they have paid out of their revenue grants in aid of rates for distressed persons to local authorities, and have also made arrangements, by the imposition of an Income Tax for the first time, this year to meet the rent subsidy in the island, I think the House will see that they have made an effort not incommensurate with their needs. But, to my mind, more important than that, I think the House must recognise that the island has played its part with the United Kingdom in that it has given its full toll of manhood, and that, of course, is a far greater sacrifice than any pecuniary sacrifice which they might make.

I hope these few words of mine have explained satisfactorily the object of this Bill, and that what I have said will convince the House that the island has made an effort to stand in with the United Kingdom to carry out the objects of the war in which we are all engaged. I might mention, before I sit down, that, just as hon. Members know, we in this country have increased our taxation to an enormous extent, so in the island they have, in a great degree for them, followed suit, for if I take two or three articles of common consumption, I find on beer the duty was only 5s. 6d. a barrel in 1914, and it has now been raised to 44s; on sugar they have raised the duty front 1s. 10d. a cwt. to 9s. 4d.; on unmanufactured tobacco from 3s. 8d. a lb. to 8s. 2d.; and on the proof gallon of spirits from 13s. 9d. to 27s. 6d. When you add these increases to the imposition of the Income Tax, I think that the House may feel satisfied with the efforts which the island is making.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[ Mr. Baldwin. ]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

It is far from my wish to do anything to retard the progress of a Bill for the advantage of teachers. At the same time, I am bound to say, from the Paper that has been placed in our hands containing the main headings of the Superannuation Bill, which is not yet in our hands, that I regard it with some—I will not say trepidation—but considerable doubt, and I feel that the principles embodied in the Bill are very large, and, I would say, of an almost revolutionary character. The Bill proposes to abolish, practically for the whole of the teaching profession, the contributory pension system, and to abolish that not only as established by Parliament, but also all local systems of contributory pensions for the profession. In place of that it proposes to establish a system for the pensioning of teachers in aided schools on a non-contributory system at special rates, and, as we are told, as nearly as possible on the model of the Civil Service. This really means that, if we pass this Bill, we are going to transform the teaching profession very largely into a branch of the Civil Service. I am not perfectly certain that that would be in the long run for the advantage of the teaching profession. I gravely doubt whether the same good work, the same freedom, the same elasticity of that profession will prevail when you go so far as you do in this Bill, by means of an entirely new system of pensioning, to transform them into a branch of the Civil Service.

I want to point out that there are other schools than aided schools in the country. There are a very large number of endowed schools and private schools. I have suspicions that in the administration of the Board of Education there is a little too much desire to make all our schools of a uniform type, and to crush, if possible, all private schools, all independent schools, all those who do not come within the State system and receive Grants under that system. I am quite certain that that is a system which will not suit this country. We shall not preserve the elasticity and force of our education if we turn it altogether into a State machine. Remember, if we establish this wide scheme of non-contributory pensions for all teachers, certificated and uncertificated, so long only as they are in State-aided schools, we put a very severe penalty and a very severe drag upon all schools outside that system. We add difficulty to the managers of those schools in maintaining themselves against the powerful competition of the State system. If we pass this Bill, it will undoubtedly be a very long step towards discouraging all outside influences and all outside organisations, and bringing the whole of our education and the whole system under the Civil Service system, and making them conform in their curriculum to one model. I should be false to the whole work of my life if I did anything which would delay and hinder a real benefit to the teacher. As I have urged over and over again, be liberal in your salaries and pensions; but I am not quite sure that this benefit, accompanied as it is by a transformation of the whole profession into what will come very nearly to a Civil Service system, will be in the long run for the real advantage of that profession or for the advantage of education. I raise this doubt because I wish my right hon. Friend to recognise that there are questions that must be raised when this Bill comes before the House, and that although we may pass this Resolution just now it is with certain reservations on my part which may or may not subsequently be put forward by me.

I think first of all everybody must congratulate the President of the Board of Education on the simply magnificent sweep and grandeur of this scheme. Not content with having passed a Bill which is going to transform and enlarge the education of the Kingdom, he at this time introduces a scheme—for the Bill is not yet introduced, this being simply a Money Resolution previous to introducing the Bill—which is going to give every teacher in the country a pension at the age of sixty.

It is not every teacher in the country, but only the teachers in aided schools.

Yes, of course, I am coming to that. As a matter of fact the offer of this pension and the other facilities will bring all teachers who are not in aided schools into aided schools. There is such a deficiency of teachers in aided schools that one result I foresee from this scheme is that there will be a great rush from the private schools into the public schools and the aided schools, and it will practically mean all, for this scheme will have to be extended until it does mean a pension for every teacher in the land. We ought, I say, first to congratulate the President on this scheme—a scheme which has magnificent objects and a great many useful and admirable provisions. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had in Committee said a word or two about this Resolution. There were then only a few present, and I was pressed not to say anything because it was desired to get on with the business. I think he should have risen at the very opening of the proceedings and explained a little more about this scheme. I suppose the President will answer questions that are raised, and therefore I should like to ask, "How much does he expect this scheme will cost the country in two years, in ten years, and in twenty years?" It looks like being a matter of many million pounds per year. Unless it is many millions it will not be effective. In any case I congratulate him on having got the consent of the Treasury to this really immense scheme. It shows his desire to make the education of this country something bigger than it has ever been before.

To come to the details of the scheme, there are, I think, one or two fundamental conditions which are imposed as set out in the White Paper—a sheet of notepaper—which has been circulated. There are certain provisions which to my mind are very difficult and objectionable. It is going to sweep away all local pensions schemes; not entirely, and not at once, but the result of this scheme will sooner or later be that there will be one great national scheme of pensions for teachers, and all local schemes which have been in operation, and are still operating, will gradually cease to operate. That being so, I conceive it to be a great disadvantage that under this scheme no teacher is to get a pension until he or she is sixty years of age. I venture to suggest that there are many teachers, a majority of teachers, especially in the elementary schools where they have to teach small boys and girls, who are past being effective teachers when they have got, certainly, say, to fifty, and in cases of the sort the scheme, if carried out in the form in which it is at present, will mean that it will keep a number of worn-out teachers working on until they are sixty, when they ought to retire at forty-five, fifty, fifty-five, at a time when they are still able to take up some other work. I suspect the President will say that thirty-years of service will be sufficient to qualify for a pension, and that with many teachers beginning to teach before they are twenty it will mean with thirty years service they will be qualified, by length of service, before they are fifty. As I understand the Bill which is to be introduced, though the point is not quite clear, they will be able to leave their teaching at forty-eight, say, after thirty years' service, and so will be qualified for a pension when they reach the age of sixty.

The Bill says so.

Very good. But what have they to do between the age of forty-eight and sixty? They have to live, I suppose, on the prospect of getting a pension in twelve years time! If I have the chance when the Bill is in Committee, I shall attempt to alter the provisions so that a reduced pension may be granted at an earlier age after thirty years' service. Any teacher, especially those in elementary schools, ought to be qualified for some pension or other after thirty years' service. Give them the full pension if you like when they attain sixty, or allow them to contribute in some way or other; but in justice to the teacher you must give an option before sixty years of age. After all, we are not dealing with old age pensioners. I suppose that is the analogy that has been followed—that if the average man gets a pension at seventy, teachers who may be worn out should be given one ten years earlier. My opinion is that teachers are often worn out twenty years earlier—at any rate, if they have special duties and responsibilities. These points, I hope, will receive the attention of the President, and I trust we shall have some discussion when the Bill is brought in, and some opportunity, even this Session and in a dying Parliament, to pass this Bill in a thoroughly considered, fair, and practical form.

May I call attention to the fact that time and consideration is necessary, because we are told in this White Paper that besides the matter of pensions there are about ten or twelve other large subjects which will be dealt with in the Bill. For instance, there is the extension of the Bill to the Isle of Man, to the Channel Islands, its application to industrial schools, and so forth. The Bill, therefore, I take it must to a large extent be detailed and comprehensive, and possibly fairly lengthy. We shall see when it is brought in. I wish, however, to conclude by asking the President to elucidate the scheme a little further, and especially to tell us how much the scheme is going to cost the country. I want to press, perhaps most earnestly of all, upon him that there should be some alternative pensions with the object of giving either a reduced pension or one under different conditions to those teachers who before sixty years of age wish to retire, having done the full thirty years' service, and who are not eligible to receive the full pension granted till sixty. This scheme and these proposals are to be welcomed. They do show a very real grasp and intent to tackle a very big subject. Passed in some more satisfactory form than this White Paper suggests they will do a very great deal to make possible all the provisions of the great Education Bill which we passed a few months ago.

I should like to say-that I agree to a very large extent with the remarks which have been made by my hon. Friend opposite as regards the importance of the measure which the President of the Board of Education proposes to introduce. I have always thought that it was absolutely essential, if our teachers are to do their work satisfactorily, that they shall be free from those monetary anxieties which for many years have oppressed them. It has been my privilege to call attention on more than one occasion to the very small salaries received by the teachers in our elementary and secondary schools and to take such steps as I was able to take to have those salaries increased. It is very desirable, in addition to increasing the salaries of the teachers, that provision should be made for their receiving some pension in comparative old age which shall diminish the anxieties from which they suffer. I must, however, at the same time say that I have very full sympathy with a good many of the remarks which have fallen from my right hon. Friend on my right (Sir H. Craik). The Bill does a great deal to remove what I call the disabilities under which the members of the teaching profession have existed for many years; in some respects it does not go far enough. I take it, however, and I hope, that when the Bill is introduced and goes to Committee that the President will again be as willing to accept Amendments which are likely to improve the Bill as he was in the case of the great Education Bill which is now an Act of Parliament.

I feel very strongly indeed that these pensions should not be restricted to teachers engaged in State-aided schools. I agree very much indeed with what my right hon. Friend has said that the tendency of a Bill framed on the lines indicated in this White Paper will be to bring all our schools under the practical control of the Board of Education, and will destroy that variety and elasticity which previously has existed in our schools and that freedom which teachers have enjoyed, very much to the advantage of education in this country. This is not a time to bureaucratise too strongly the schools of this country. We have the awful example of Germany before us. That example ought to induce us to retain, as far as we possibly can, the freedom of our schools and the individuality of the teaching. I feel very strongly indeed that to exclude from the provision of this Bill a large number of our very best schools, schools of a quasi-public character, schools belonging, not to the different religious denominations, but schools like the Lancing School, Dulwich, Mill Hill, and a great many others of the same description—to exclude from the privilege of pensions teachers in schools like these seems to me a great defect of the Bill if the latter is founded on the conditions here laid down. I need scarcely say that I do not intend to vote against the proposal which has been made by the President of the Board of Education to obtain from the Treasury Grants for pensions. I think it is so desirable that I should be one of the first to support a proposal of that kind, but I do take it that in supporting this proposal we are not committing ourselves definitely to all the provisions laid down in this White Paper, nor are we committing ourselves to a scheme of pensions, which will necessarily exclude such public schools as those which were referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think it would be desirable if the President, in speaking to this Resolution, would give us some idea of the probable cost of the scheme, and I hope, at the same time, he will tell us that when the Bill is introduced he will be prepared to consider very carefully in the interests of education generally, Amendments which I feel it will be the duty of many hon. Gentlemen of this House to propose.

Perhaps the House will hardly expect me to follow hon. members in all the points which they have raised with respect to this Resolution. I do not propose to reply to them now, not because I have any doubt as to the importance or the interests of the points which have been raised, but because they seem to me to be more appropriate to a Second Reading discussion on the Bill. Upon that occasion I shall endeavour to deal with the points which have been raised, and I can assure the hon. Baronet, who has just spoken, that I should be very willing to give careful consideration to any Amendments which he or any other hon. Members may choose to suggest. There is, however, one question which has been asked by the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King), which is germane to the financial resolution which we are now discussing. I have been asked to furnish an estimate of the cost. Of course hon. Members will realise that the cost of the Pensions Bill, or any system of pensions, cannot be very accurately estimated. There are a number of uncertain factors in any preliminary calculation, but I will, however, offer the House an estimate which will, I think, be as good as can be provided at the present juncture.

There are at present about 100,000 teachers serving the State under the existing law, and this Bill will increase that number by about 70,000, and it will also increase the amounts of the pensions to be granted in the future, besides giving other benefits in addition. The existing Pensions Scheme now costs us £256,000 yearly, and would probably cost in ten years' time, if left undisturbed, about £428,000. The Pensions Scheme now pro-posed will probably, in ten years' time, cost about £2,000,000 per annum more than this. I ought to add that, in giving this estimate, I make no attempt to forecast the rise in salaries which may take place in ten years' time. I have endeavoured to take account of the rise which has been going on through this year but not beyond that. Any further increase in salaries will ultimately bring with it a corresponding increase in pensions.

I have taken account of the increase in the number of pensionable teachers which will immediately result from the inclusion within the pensions system of 70,000 teachers who are now outside the system, but I have not attempted to forecast what may be the increase in the number of teachers in this country due to the extension of our educational system. As that grows so must also the expenditure grow, both on salaries and on pensions. To carry the forecast beyond ten years would involve too many problematical results. My hon. Friend asked me for an estimate twenty years hence, but that would be very difficult to give. On the whole the best indication I can give of the expected cost of the present measure is to say that at the present moment the salaries of teachers granted in schools amount to something over £20,000,000 a year, and on those teachers and those salaries we expect the pension system ten years from now to cost something like £2,500,000 per annum, of which £2,000,000 will be new money, and the remainder is what the present system would cost if left unaltered. That is as far as I can go at the present moment, and I hope that indication will satisfy my hon. Friend opposite.

I desire to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the successful way in which he has been able to deal with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have spent some ten or twelve years in this House knocking at the door of successive Presidents of the Board of Education. I have introduced deputations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the figures we have been allowed to work upon have been meagre in the extreme. I have complained, not once, but frequently of the niggardliness of successive administration, and the right hon. Gentleman's figures really made my mouth water. I never for one moment anticipated that any such rise could have been got by any President of the Board of Education, and I think the amount which has been announced reflects very great credit upon the right hon. Gentleman. This means £2,000,000 a year on existing salaries ten years hence, when the real expenditure on a pensions system will not come into full swing for long after the ten years, and consequently these figures are most satisfactory. Although I am glad that we have got, this money for pensions, I think we might make better use of it than has been done in the scheme put before us. The White Paper which was circulated on the 8th of August sets out the Bill in advance. I am not going to discuss the details, but I notice many of the recommendations made by various Committees, including those made by some Committees on which I sat, have been adopted.

One of these points is that pensionable service should continue until sixty-five. There is one point which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with, and that is the extension of the scheme to those public schools which were mentioned by the hon. Member for the London University (Sir P. Magnus). Schools which are not under State aid are placed under an enormous disadvantage under this new scheme, and I hope this point will be borne in mind and generously dealt with. The scheme is not sufficiently generous to such schools as Harrow, Mill Hill, and others, some of which are under Government inspection. I am aware that Harrow is in a somewhat unique position, but I think the position of all these schools should certainly be considered, otherwise they are placed at a great disadvantage. I might make many other criticisms, but I hope the points which I have mentioned will be considered between now and the time the Bill is brought in. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the effect of his proposal upon our national system of education, and consider whether you are not unintentionally doing a certain injustice to all those schools which do not come under State provision. I hope the Bill will go a step further, so as not to operate unequaliy on those schools which are not receiving State aid. Apart from this injustice, I believe you will do a disservice to education if you hamper the schools which are outside your ordinary school system.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Herbert Fisher, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL,—"to make provision with respect to the Grant of Superannuation Allowances to Teachers and of Gratuities to their legal personal representatives, and to amend the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1898 to 1912,"—presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second tïme To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.