CHAPTER III.

The Easter Recess: Mr. Brodrick on the Premier's Fiscal Policy-The Question of Relief to Underfed School Children; Order by the Local Government Board-Aliens Bill; Debate; Second Reading Carried-Difficulties of the Board of Education, in the West Riding and Elsewhere; Debate on the Refusal of the East Ham Borough Council to Continue Administering the Education Act; Submission of the Council; Deputation to the Premier; Debate on the Treatment of Merionethshire as a Defaulting County-Debates on Budget Resolutions and Finance Bill-The Trade Unions and Trade Disputes Bill Altered in Grand Committee, and ultimately Withdrawn by Promoters-Criticisms on and Prospects of the Unemployed Workmen Bill-Progress of Workmen's Compensation Bill in both Houses-Mr. Balfour at Albert Hall and Mr. Chamberlain in BirminghamFarewell Banquet to Mr. Choate-Scottish Education Bill; Second Reading -Local Veto (Scotland) Bill defeated, and Land Values Taxation (Scotland) Bill Read a Second Time-Lords on West Australian Aborigines and Chinese Labour in the Transvaal-Mr. Wyndham's Explanation of His Resignation; Debate in Commons-Agricultural Rates Act, etc., Continuance Bill through Committee-Mr. Balfour's Statement on Imperial Defence; Discussion thereon; Lord Esher's Letter-Lord Lansdowne on German Pacific Islands -Development of Commercial Advisory Committee of Board of TradeNational Liberal Federation Meetings and Labour Legislation- Mr. Cham berlain and Trade Unionists-The Government and the Automatic Conference of 1906; Great Disorder in the Commons-Discussions on Irish Secretary's Salary and on Proposed Repeal of Crimes Act-Lord Lansdowne on German Tariff and Anglo-Japanese Alliance-Resignation of M. Delcassé; Regrets in Great Britain-Motor-car Debate-Lords and the Afghan TreatyThe Fiscal Views of Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain; Debates in both Houses Scottish Churches Bill-Resignation of the Speaker; Thanks Voted to him; Election of his Successor.

By politicians generally the short Easter recess of 1905 was taken as an almost complete holiday, almost the only considerable exception to that rule being Mr. Brodrick. The most noteworthy feature of the Indian Secretary's speech at Godalming (April 27) was the emphasis which he laid on the non-Protectionist and self-sufficing character of the Prime Minister's fiscal views. He believed that "if Mr. Balfour's policy had been the only policy before the country as against sheer Free Trade they would have had not a minority but a majority at Brighton."

The question of underfed school children was the subject of a Local Government Board order (published April 29) carefully designed to secure co-operation in the treatment of this difficult and delicate subject between the guardians and the local education authorities. The order, which dealt only with children under sixteen who were not blind, deaf or dumb, and were living with a father not in receipt of relief, provided that the application for relief must be made to the guardians by school. managers, by a teacher empowered by the managers, or by an officer duly empowered by the education anthorities. On its receipt the guardians were to inquire into the circumstances, and decide whether the relief was to be granted in the ordinary way or as a loan, in either case notifying their decision to the father. Thus the father would be allowed the opportunity of making the needful provision himself, but if he failed to do so,

the guardians would be empowered to make it and to recover its cost, as if it were a loan, by county-court process. The relief could in no case be given in money, nor was it to be continued on a single application for more than a month, and it was suggested that, where possible, arrangements should be made with local charitable organisations for the issue of tickets for meals. On the whole, this action on the part of the Local Government Board was thought to be an effort towards the treatment on sound lines of a painful problem which could not be ignored, but the hasty and ill-considered treatment of which might lead to very grave results.

On resuming its work after the Easter recess, the House of Commons at once took up the second reading of the Aliens Bill. It had, in the meantime, become evident that in the opinion of Liberal politicians sitting or desiring to sit for the metropolitan districts which would be affected by that measure, its main purport must be treated as good. A meeting of Liberal Members and candidates for East London constituencies was held at the National Liberal Club on April 27, when a resolution was unanimously passed declaring the belief that the Aliens Bill, in the form in which it had been now introduced, could be "made to satisfy the legitimate demands of East London," and accordingly the hope that its second reading would not be opposed by the Liberal Party. This resolution was signed and forwarded to Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman by Mr. Sydney Buxton, and eight other Members and candidates for East London constituencies. On the order for the second reading (May 2) Sir Charles Dilke (Forest of Dean, Glouc.) moved an amendment declaring that the evils of low-priced alien labour could "best be met by legislation to prevent sweating," and that before assenting to the second reading of the Aliens Bill, the House should have assurance that sufficient regard was had in it to the retention of the principle of asylum for the victims of persecution" (refugees from Russia being specially in view). The Bill, he said, had been supported outside the House on anti-Semitic grounds. Major Evans-Gordon (Stepney, Tower Hamlets) warmly resented this imputation on the supporters of the Bill, which he contended was absolutely required to prevent this country from being longer used as a refuse-heap for Southern and Eastern Europe. Mr. Asquith (Fife, E.) admitted that there was an excessive percentage of crime among the alien immigrant population, and approved the provisions of the Bill directed towards the exclusion and expulsion of criminal immigrants. He held that the modifications introduced into the measure by the Government fully justified the opposition maintained to the Bill of the year before. The new Bill was still open to criticism, which he offered, on several points; and he did not believe that it would have the effects anticipated from it by its promoters, but he was not prepared to oppose its second reading.

66

The Home Secretary (Mr. Akers-Douglas, St. Augustine's,

Kent), after stating that on the Boards appointed to deal with appeals from the decision of the immigration officers there would always be a magistrate and he hoped a poor-law guardian, maintained that the Board of Trade figures as to immigration, recently published, showed an increase in the number of immigrants, and dwelt also on the increased number of " undesirables" sent back in 1904 from America to Liverpool. There was, he assured the House, no intention of excluding bond-fide political refugees. Mr. Buxton (Poplar, Tower Hamlets), from the front Opposition bench, gave an earnest support to the present measure (though justifying the resistance offered to the Bill of 1904), because he was convinced of the necessity of keeping out uneconomic and undesirable aliens, especially Russians and Poles. The practically uncontrolled immigration at present permitted tended, in his opinion, to lower wages and in East London aggravated overcrowding and other social evils. On these points Mr. Buxton distinctly separated himself from those Liberals who challenged the existence of an economic and social case for the proposed legislation, though he hoped to see the Bill amended in Committee.

Mr. Chamberlain (Birmingham, W.) welcomed the Bill mainly as an effort to protect the working classes against the underpaid labour of immigrants, and ironically congratulated many members of the Opposition on having in this respect made progress in the direction of fiscal reform. Mr. Emmott (Oldham) held that no statistical case had been made out for the Bill. Sir H. Vincent (Sheffield, Central) and Mr. Ridley (Bethnal Green, S. W.) supported, while Mr. Keir-Hardie (Merthyr Tydvil) and Mr. Atherley-Jones (Durham, N.W.) opposed it. In concluding the debate Mr. Balfour maintained that the Jewish question had nothing to do with the Bill, and ought not to have been raised. The ground which he took was that this country could not continue to be the sieve in which the useless dregs of emigration from Eastern Europe remained. The burden thus incurred, moreover, he urged, was borne exclusively by a few localities.

The conviction that those localities would resent any opposition to the enactment of restrictions on the immigration of undesirables appeared in the division on Sir C. Dilke's amendment, which was rejected by 152 votes (211 to 59). Some ten Liberals voted with the Government, after which the Bill was read a second time without further division amid Ministerial cheers.

The Board of Education at this period was suffering from a considerable accumulation of difficulties connected with the administration of the Act of 1902 in different parts of the country. Some of these did and some of them did not come before the House of Commons. Of the latter was the action of the West Riding County Council in resolving to make deductions from the salaries of teachers giving religious instruction of a denominational type in proportion to the time expended on such instruc

tion. This proceeding was, of course, in contravention of the Act of 1902, and the West Riding Council were informed that the Board of Education held it to be so, and hoped that the Council would reconsider the matter. In the meantime the Board said that they had recommended such school managers as had appealed to them against the course of action proposed by the Council "to take no steps to comply with the directions based upon that resolution." In Wales the Merionethshire County Council had been declared to be in default, under the Defaulting Authorities Act of 1904, for their failure to maintain certain voluntary schools. This question came up in the House of Commons a few days later. But a situation of immediate urgency was created by a remarkable resolution passed in April by the East Ham Borough Council refusing to administer the Education Act after the month of May, in view of the excessive burden which it imposed on the ratepayers; and on May 4 the adjournment was moved, with a view to discussing it, by Mr. Gray (West Ham, N.). He pointed out that unless a modus vivendi were found some 25,000 children would be without school accommodation in three weeks' time and a large number of officials would be ousted from their employment. The education rate during the last half-year had amounted to 2s. 9d. in the pound and new schools were needed, and if they were provided an additional rate of 9d. would be necessary. The Borough Council, looking around, saw localities which escaped with a small education rate, and, holding that education was a national obligation, the Council asked that the burden entailed should be borne by the State. He could not approve the unconstitutional course which East Ham had taken to rivet attention on its grievance, but of the grievance there was no doubt, and it was growingly felt elsewhere than in that borough. He appealed to the Government not to proceed against the Borough Council by mandamus, and he asked them to re-enact the statute of 1897, relating to necessitous School Boards, and to establish a sliding scale of grants for the purpose of meeting the requirements of different districts. Mr. Cripps (Stretford, Lancs), who seconded the motion for adjournment, reprobated defiance of the law; but, holding that under the Education Act poor, necessitous districts had been placed at some disadvantage, he urged that the Government should take steps to distribute fairly the burden of the cost of education. Some other speeches followed, including one from Mr. Ellis Griffith (Anglesey), who satirically contrasted the violent methods adopted by East Ham to obtain its ends with the relatively peaceful methods advocated in Wales. Then Mr. Balfour, after examining the Borough Council's claim to be relieved of its responsibilities, affirmed emphatically that the Government could not recognise the validity of that demand. He traversed the allegation which had been made, that necessitous districts had been put in a worse position by the operation of the Act of 1902. But the only question for consideration that

evening was, he said, the obligation of the local authorities to fulfil their duties. Was the House, he asked, prepared to endorse the view that the State should contribute towards education in proportion to the distress of a district? Already, he reminded the House, the State contributed between 60 and 70 per cent. of the cost of education. Much beyond this limit of assistance it would not be safe to go, for if it were greatly exceeded all inducement to economy on the part of localities would be swept away. As it was, the East Ham authorities had apparently spent too much on their schools, for they had built schools costing 181. per child to be provided for, when elsewhere the corresponding expenditure was only 12l. 10s. The illegal policy which they now threatened to pursue raised issues going to the very root of our system of public and local taxation and of our public and local duties. The Government would be greatly to blame if, in obedience to threats, they were to promise to deal with this matter except as part of a well-considered scheme of reform. He sympathised with the difficulties of the East Ham ratepayers, recognising that the district as long as it remained isolated might suffer exceptional hardship; but there was no justification for the course which was contemplated. If it were permitted local government would be endangered.

On a division the motion was rejected by 159 votes against 116-majority 43.

The attitude adopted by the Prime Minister was, of course, the only one possible to a Government in such circumstances. The East Ham Council issued a statement altogether challenging the figures given in his speech as to the relative costliness of their school buildings, and setting forth that in their case the amount of State grant received towards education was only 48 instead of from 60 to 70 per cent.

In the course of a few days, however, it became known that Mr. Balfour would be willing to receive a deputation who would urge upon the Government the need of legislation equalising the burden of the cost of education, and on May 23 the East Ham Council by a majority of 12 to 7 rescinded its resolution of "revolt." The deputation was received by Mr. Balfour on June 8. It represented a number of urban district councils in the neighbourhood of London and some large provincial towns. The proceedings were private, but it was understood that proposals were laid before the Prime Minister whereby relief might be granted to overburdened districts and that he promised to give the subject the full consideration which its importance merited.

The question of the action of the Board of Education in declaring the county of Merioneth in default under the provisions of the Education (Local Authority Default) Act of 1904 was raised on a motion for the adjournment of the House of Commons by Mr. Osmond Williams (Merioneth) on May 15. The effect of the Board's action was, in view of the failure of the