Commons Sitting of 15 March 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF LONDON (INCLUSION OF SOUTHWARK) BILL.
  On the order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  DR. FARZQUHARSONmoved that the Second Reading be postponed until to-morrow.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL, who had on the Paper a Motion for the rejection of the Bill, thought he had some reason to complain that this stage had been put off without any notice whatever, being given to him, notwithstanding that his notice of opposition had been on the Paper for some time. It was in accordance with the usual practice and courtesy of that House that, when an hon. Member had given notice of opposition to a Bill, the promoters or, at all events, the agent should give him notice of any postponment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ALFRED LAFONEremarked that he spoke to the hon. Member on Friday, and explained to him that hon. Members who were interested in the Bill had asked that it should be postponed till to-morrow—a request which had been acceded to.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: My complaint is against the promoters of the Bill.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONobserved that when a Bill was put down for Second Reading "by order," as was this Bill, it had always been taken on the day named unless both supporters and opponents agreed to a postponement. It was discourteous to those opposing a Bill if they did not receive from the promoters a notification of any intention to defer a stage.
  MR. JAMES STUART, while not wishing to prevent the postponement, pointed out that when the promoters of a private Bill, after any stage had been put down by order, desired that that stage should be postponed till a later day, they always gave notice to and consulted with the opponents of the Bill.
  MR. R. K. CAUSTONobserved that he was in the House till 12 o'clock on Friday night, and was anxious to ascertain whether the Bill was to be taken or not, but could get no information. The Bill being down by order he had attended that day at great inconvenience.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said the Bill proposed to put additional work on the Local Government Board, and they were in the same position as hon. Members opposite, not having had any notice of the postponement. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. EDMUND BOULNOIS, as one of the promoters of the Bill, disclaimed, on their part, any intention of discourtesy to those opposing it. He was present by accident, because he quite understood on Friday afternoon that the agents had made arrangements with the opponents as to the postponement. He expressed his sincere regret that any inconvenience should have been caused by the misunderstanding which had arisen.
  MR. CAUSTONpointed out that tomorrow, when it was proposed to take the Second Reading, would be an inconvenient day to many hon. Members.
  Second Reading deferred until Monday next.

  THOMPSON'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
QUESTIONS.

  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS (WINTER SCHOOL OF INSTRUCTION).
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the evening schools of instruction which the General Officer Commanding the Home District has been good enough to arrange during the winter for Volunteer officers can possibly be continued in the summer, having regard to the benefit accruing thereby to the Volunteer force, and the difficulty young officers in professions have of attending in the morning?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The General Officer Commanding the Home District states that it would not be practicable during the summer months to hold a night school in addition to a day school, and that there are so many applications for the latter that he cannot recommend it should be omitted in favour of a night school.

  PARCEL POST (LIVE BEES).
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why the United Kingdom, alone of countries and colonies within the Postal Union, declines to carry live bees by post if securely fastened; and whether, having regard to the desirability of encouraging every branch of rural industry, the Postmaster General will be good enough to reconsider the restrictions placed by his predecessors upon this form of postal traffic, which in the United States and elsewhere appears not to be attended with any unsatisfactory results?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend contemplates postal facilities for a single bee or a swarm—[laughter]—or whether he would also send by post other live specimens of rural industry. He is, however, mistaken in supposing the United Kingdom to stand alone in this matter. On the contrary, many countries and colonies within the Postal Union share its objection to the transmission of live bees in the ordinary mails. Against the transmission in these mails of anything likely either to damage the correspondence or to injure postal officials there is a general prohibition of the Union; live creatures are held by the British Post Office to come within this prohibition, and there seems to be no special ground for excepting live bees. The ordinary mails, it has to, be borne in mind, are in this country frequently transferred by apparatus to and from railway trains in motion—a process necessarily attended by shock and consequent risk of breakage in the case of anything fragile or not securely enough packed; and in the event of such breakage happening to a consignment of live bees the creatures would almost certainly escape into the

  653
  mail bag and produce unpleasant results. [Laughter.] It is possible, however, for an expert in packing bees to obtain the consent of the Postmaster General to their transmission by parcel post within the United Kingdom. But such permission is subject to conditions and restrictions, and cannot be extended to cases of transmission to or from places abroad, as parcels arriving from aboard are liable to examination in the Custom House.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked if such permission could be extended to the colonies, as there were breeders of queen bees in Sheffield who were anxious to have this facility?
  MR. HANBURY: No; I think a great many of the colonies refuse to carry bees by post.

  CABLE COMPANIES (TARIFF OF CHARGES).
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the discontent existing in commercial circles with the tariff of charges enforced by the Cable Companies, ranging from 4s. a word to India up to 9s. 5d. a word to Queensland, 10s. 8d. a word to Japan, and 12s. 11d. a word to British Guiana; whether he has been informed that the merchants engaged in Anglo-Australian trade, and the public generally, have to pay considerably over £1,000 a day or £412,000 a year, for cablegrams, and the Government at least £100,000 a year in communicating with the colonies and foreign governments and with its naval and military officers; is he aware that experts have estimated that a set of cables in every respect equal to those existing could be constructed, paid for, and maintained by the State at a cost which would give to the people cheap cable communication to all parts of the Empire for a tenth of the present rates; and whether, seeing that all the chief cables of the world belong to a few British companies, which are practically under one common and supreme direction, and pay large dividends, he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the whole question of cable communication, and the effects of the present charges as regards the trade and security of the Empire, and also the question of the
  654
  acquisition of the existing cables by the State, with a view to extend and cheapen cable communication?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has from time to time received representations on the subject of the charge to India, and has endeavoured to bring about a reduction, but so far without success. The charge to Japan by the cheapest route is 8s., not 10s. 8d., and to British Guiana not 12s. 11d., but 10s., He is not aware of any general feeling of discontent, and, as he does not think that any useful purpose would be served by an inquiry into the questions raised by the hon. Member, he is not prepared to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission. The Postmaster General has no information as to the amount paid for telegrams by merchants engaged in the Anglo-Australian trade, and it is not within his province to state what the expenditure of the Government is on telegrams to and from places abroad. The Postmaster General has not had before him any calculations as to the cost of constructing and maintaining a set of cables to take the place of those which are already in existence, and he has no reason to suppose that cable communication to all parts of the Empire could be given for a tenth of the present rates. It would seem to be entirely contrary to sound policy for the State to attempt to acquire all the existing cables. They are necessarily landed at a great many points in foreign territory, and it is not to be supposed that foreign countries would acquiesce in the working of the cables by the British Government, although they are quite ready to come to terms with British companies. At the Telegraph Conference in Budapest arrangements were made for very considerable reductions in the charges to various parts of the world. Some of these reductions are already in force, and the rest will be brought into operation on the 1st of July next. I may add that these arrangements could not have been made without the cordial co-operation of the British cable companies.

  PARISH COUNCIL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND)
  MR. J. H. C. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the cost of the Parish

  655
  Council Elections in the various parishes of Lanarkshire has been greatly in excess of the cost of the corresponding School Board Elections; and, if so, whether anything can be done in the interest of the ratepayers to limit such expenditure?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The School Board Elections of 1894 in Lanarkshire cost £4,064. The Parish Council Elections of 1895 in Lanarkshire cost £4,421, in addition to £1,048, the cost of making up the first Parish Council register. Without committing myself to the opinion that these figures are sufficient to prove that the expenditure on parish council elections, taken all round, was excessive, I think they suggest the desirability of some inquiry into the subject. I have conferred with the Secretary for Scotland, who will be glad to give the matter his consideration. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the first parish council elections were held under exceptional arrangements, and in future they will be combined with the County Council and municipal elections.

  INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. M. J. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return asked for in connection with the Intermediate Examinations (Ireland) 1896?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education have communicated with the Chairman of the Board in reference to this Return, but so far I have not learned with what result. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Question on Thursday next.

  FLAX GROWING (IRELAND).
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps he intends taking to improve the growth of flax in Ireland, as promised by him last Session?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A large amount of information respecting the treatment and culture of flax has been obtained by the Irish Land Commission
  656
  in consultation with a representative Committee consisting of the leading spinners and of well-known agriculturists of Ulster. It is not my intention to take any action in the matter pending the passage through Parliament of the Board of Agriculture Bill.

  AMERICAN MAILS.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Adriatic, which left Queenstown on 11th February with the American mails, was overtaken and passed by the Lucania, which, leaving three days later, arrived 28 hours before the Adriatic; and that the steamer which left in the mid-week following only arrived one day sooner than the steamer which left at the end of the week; whether steps can be taken to prevent the twice-a-week service being practically made a single service; whether he is aware that on the eastern passage the Teutonic and Majestic frequently beat the steamers of the American Line which bring the mails, so that the public are inconvenienced both ways; and whether negotiations can be entered into with the American postal authorities for arranging that the mails leaving both sides of the Atlantic shall be conveyed by the fastest steamers.
  MR. HANBURY: The Adriatic, which left Queenstown on the 11th of February, arrived at Sandy Hook 21 hours after the Lucania, which started from Queenstown on the 14th, and, according to telegrams published in the newspapers, the steamer which left Queenstown on the following Thursday arrived 27 hours before the steamer which started three days later. As explained in this House a fortnight ago, the Adriatic is only used occasionally, when one of the better steamers has to be withdrawn for overhaul—a course which is expressly provided for in the mail contract. It cannot be admitted that the twice-a-week service is practically made a single service; there are generally intervals of two days or more between the arrivals of the mails at New York. So far as the homeward mails are concerned, the mails brought by vessels of the American Line during the last year were more frequently received in London before than after those brought

  657
  by the Majestic and Teutonic, while there are other parts of the United Kingdom of which the reverse is the case. The Postmaster General does not propose to enter into negotiations with the American Post Office, as suggested by the hon. Member, because the contracts, which secure us all the year round the services of the fastest ships afloat, and which were made with the full knowledge and approval of this House, debar us from diverting, any letters, &c., except those specially marked, from the ships of the contractors.

  ASSIZES (IRELAND).
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland (1) whether he is aware of the fact that jurors in County Monaghan at the late assizes had to travel over 26 Irish miles to see the Judge presented with white gloves, there being no business to be done, and that the County Court Judge of County Monaghan has several times sympathised with the jurors of this county for having to attend before him when no business was to be transacted; and (2) whether he will take steps to prevent jurors being put to the trouble and expense of having to attend assizes or quarter sessions when there is no business for them?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): If the hon. Member will refer to the Votes, he will see that I have given notice of a Bill to remedy the grievance under which jurors suffer in being obliged to attend Quarter Sessions unnecessarily. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statements in the first paragraph of the Question, but they are quite exceptional. I do not see my way to extend the scope of the contemplated Measure to the case of jurors attending at assizes, or to introduce independent legislation with regard to them.
  MR. JAMES ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the charge of Chief Baron Palles to the Grand Jury of the County of Kerry in opening the Spring Assizes at Tralee on Thursday last, in which he stated that the criminal calendar was one of extraordinary lightness, there being only five bills to come before them; and (2) whether, in view of
  658
  this satisfactory judicial pronouncement, he will endeavour to make some substantial reduction in the large force of extra police now stationed in that county, as the cost of the smile bears with especial force on what is now the highest rated county in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have seen a newspaper report of the learned Judge's address to the Grand Jury at the opening of the Kerry Spring Assizes, in which he referred to the improvement in the condition of the county as shown by the Constabulary Returns. With regard to the second paragraph, there has been effected a reduction of 35 men in the extra police establishment of the county during the past twelve months, consequent on the improved state of the county, and this reduction is equivalent to a relief to local rates of £1,100 per annum. The strength of the extra force in the county at present is 65 men, as compared with 151 in March 1894.

  CONVICTS UNDER SENTENCE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a convict under-going the preliminary stage of his term has, for a period of nine months, to work, eat and sleep in one small cell, in which he is confined for 23 hours out of every 24, at all seasons of the year; whether he is aware that several principal officers of prisons have described this confinement as excessive, and as producing injurious results, both moral and physical; and whether he will confer with the Prison Commissioners with a view to the granting to this class of prisoners of more than one hour's exercise per diem?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I am aware that a convict under sentence of penal servitude, with the exception of his daily attendance at chapel and hour of exercise, passes the first nine months of his sentence in separate confinement. I believe the hon. Member to be misinformed as to the opinions held by the principal officers of the prisons in which convicts are received with regard to the effects of this confinement. The amount of exercise necessary for the health of

  659
  each prisoner is left by statute to be determined by the prison surgeon, and I am perfectly content that, under that statute, the surgeons should exercise a liberal discretion.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that Captain Johnson, the Governor of Dartmoor Prison, had condemned the system of separate confinement for nine months before the Departmental Committee which inquired into the matter?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he had no doubt the hon. Member was correct in what he stated, but he was not aware of the fact.
  MR. A. O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make himself acquainted with the evidence placed before the Departmental Committee?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he was perfectly ready to do so, but the question of the amount of exercise necessary for the health of each prisoner was left by statute to the discretion of the prison surgeon, who, he thought, should be allowed a liberal interpretation.

  FERMANAGH SCHOOL ESTATE.
  MR. P. C. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the tenants on the Fermanagh estate of the Commissioners of Education petitioned some time ago for the sale of their holdings to the occupiers, and that the Estate Committee of Enniskillen recommended the adoption of that course in the interests of the fund for educational purposes; and whether the prayer of the memorial and the recommendation of the Estate Committee will be acceded to?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A memorial to the effect stated was received by the Commissioners in November of last year, and the Estate Committee expressed approval of the principle of sale to the tenants at a fair purchase, to be mutually agreed upon. The question of sale is now under the consideration of the Commissioners.
  MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the gross rental of the Fermanagh School Estate, and what is the annual cost of management?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The gross rental of this estate for the year ended November 1896 was £1,944 10s., and the cost of estate management in the same period was about £120.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS' SMOKING ACCOMMODATION).
  MR. JOHN AIRD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if, while arrangements are being made for an additional smoking room, Members may be allowed, after 9 o'clock, to smoke in the South Dining Room, this being immediately adjacent?
  *SIR C. DALRYMPLE: May I ask my right hon. Friend, before he answers the question, whether he will bear in mind, in making further arrangements for smoking, that all Members of the House do not smoke?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I frankly admit the insufficiency of smoking room accommodation in this building. So far as I am concerned, I see no objection to the proposal of my hon. Friend, but it is one on which I think the Kitchen Committee might with advantage be consulted.

  COOTE ESTATE (COUNTY MONAGHAN).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that great dissatisfaction prevails among certain tenants on the Coote estate, County Monaghan, with the rent reductions given by Sub-Commissioners Crean, Boyd, and Creery, in cases tried at Cootehill on the 25th November last, owing to the fact that the reductions in these cases amounted to but 24 per cent., while tenants on adjoining estates have been granted 33 per cent. under equal conditions of tenure, soil, climate, and market contiguity; and can he explain upon what principle the decisions in these respective cases were based?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not aware whether the facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The rents fixed by Assistant Commissioners are fixed after hearing evidence offered to them by the parties and after an inspection of the holdings. Their orders are made in a judicial capacity, and if the parties are dissatisfied it is open to them to appeal.

  AFRICA (MILITARY OPERATIONS).
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will furnish the Return on this day's Paper relating to details of recent military operations in Africa?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Return in question would have to be obtained from the several Governments and Protectorates concerned; and its preparation would probably take much time and labour. On the other hand a Return is now in preparation a casualties on warlike operations from 1891 to 1896 inclusive; this will include most of the information desired by my hon. Friend.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will that be ready during the present Session?
  MR. BRODRICK: I hope it will. We shall lose no time about it.

  LONDON PARKS (CYCLING TRACKS).
  MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, on general grounds of public convenience safety, provision can be made in the Estimates for the construction of cycling tracks in such of the London parks as are suitable for the purpose?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I am not prepared to recommend the Government to embark upon the very considerable outlay that would be entailed were they to commence the formation of cycling tracks, which would, moreover, in my opinion, seriously injure the appearance of the parks.

  POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Revenue Departments Estimates call be put down at an early date, so as to enable the Post Office Departmental Committee's Report and the Treasury Minute thereon to be considered by the House?
  MR. HANBURY: I am unable to make any statement to my hon. Friend as to the date on which these Estimates will be taken.

  SUCK DRAINAGE AWARD.
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether extra
  662
  police have been drafted into North and East Galway to protect the Sheriff's bailiff in making seizures under decrees granted in connection with the Suck Drainage Award; will he state how many police are so engaged; when they commenced this duty; how long it is intended they should be so employed; and what is the cost per week; and whether the charge is a county or baronial charge, and off what particular area this charge will he levied?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The duty of protecting the Sheriff's bailiffs in the execution of these decrees has been carried out by a few of the local police, and no extra police have been drafted into the county for the purpose. Any additional expense that may have been incurred will, therefore, be borne by the Constabulary Vote, and not locally.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received resolutions passed at several public meetings held in County Galway within the last six months, called to protest against the tax levied under the Suck Drainage Award and asking for relief; whether, for example, he is aware that in the case of Michael Lohan (Matt), in the neighbourhood of Ballygar, the tax charged on his holding is £8 13s. 3d., the judicial rent of this holding fixed in 1888 £6 6s., area 8a. 2r. 0p. Irish plantation measure, the area of holding on which tax is levied 7 acres Irish plantation measure, the tax imposed on the land said to be improved being about £1 5s. per acre annually; also Bridget Kenny, area 17a. 1r. 0p. Irish plantation measure, drainage tax £11 14s. 9d., over 13s. per acre, rent £9, a large portion of this holding being bog land not worth more than 5s. per acre; and whether he will induce the Government to make a grant in aid of this impost?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—whether he is aware that in the neighbourhood of Ballygar, County Galway, several tenants holding, about an acre or two of lowland are charged under the Suck Drainage Award as much as 30s. per acre Irish plantation measure, and over; whether in these cases the upland, unaffected by the drainage, was included in the area improved; and, whether he can state on what principle the award was made?
  MR. HANBURY: I understand that the hon. Member's Questions refer to the townlands of Tryhill East and West, and I have already explained, in answer to a Question put by him on the 20th February 1896, that these tenants hold under 99 years leases, and, therefore, are proprietors as well as occupiers for the purposes of the Drainage Acts. As occupiers, they are only liable for the actual benefit to their holdings resulting from the Drainage Works. As proprietors, they have to pay their share, along with other landlords, of the unprofitable outlay including maintenance. In this double capacity, Michael Lohan has to pay £8 17s. 7d., of which the occupier's share is £3 14s. 4d., or 5s. 4d. per statute acre (equal to 8s. 9d. per Irish acre) and the landlord's share is £5 3s. 3d. Similarly, Bridget Kenny has to pay £12 0s. 7d., of which the occupier's share is £5 0s. 8d. or 3s. 7d. per statute acre (equal to 5s. 9d. per Irish acre), and the landlord's £6 19s. 11d. The average rate on the other tenants qua occupiers is 8s. per statute acre (equal to 13s. per Irish acre). The upland which is unaffected by the drainage has not been included in the area improved, and except as collateral security there is no charge on it. The principle of the award is laid down in the River Suck Drainage Act 1889. As I have repeatedly explained in answer to similar questions, the Act provides that the actual improvements in the holdings shall be charged on the occupiers, and the unprofitable outlay and maintenance on the proprietors. The Government has already made a free grant of £50,000, and I can hold out no hope of further assistance from the taxpayer.
  MR. KILBRIDEasked whether the increase in the value of the land under the improvement scheme was worth the money that had been expended?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir. So far as the occupiers are concerned, the extra charge on them is represented by the rise in the value of the land itself.

  REFORMATORIES FOR INEBRIATES.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Bill for the establishment of Reformatories for Inebriates, announced in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, is likely to be introduced?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am afraid I cannot, at present, say. The Bill has been fur some time in a forward state of preparation, but there are still remaining some important points which require to be settled.

  WRECK (INDIAN TROOPSHIP "WARREN HASTINGS").
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of indemnifying to some extent the troops which were on board the Warren Hastings for the losses they sustained, more especially as their conduct upon the occasion of the wreck has been the subject of commendation by the Military authorities themselves, as well as by the public at large?
  MR. BRODRICK: No claims have yet been received for indemnification for losses consequent on the wreck of the Warren Hastings, but the whole question is under consideration with a view to the fair treatment of those concerned.

  CONTRABAND TOBACCO.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the amount of the stock of seized tobacco already accumulated in the Queen's Warehouse in London; and whether he will consider the advisability of having some portion of it allotted to the pensioners of Chelsea Hospital, seeing that a large portion is distributed yearly to troops ordered on Foreign Service, and even to the inmates of Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum?
  MR. HANBURY: The quantity of seized tobacco accumulated in the Queen's Warehouse in London at the present time is 5,899lb. There will, no doubt, be a certain surplus of tobacco in the current year, after meeting the demands of the criminal lunatic asylums and the Botanic Gardens, and the Board of Customs is under promise to the War Office to assign such surplus for the use of troops ordered abroad, should it prove sufficient. There would be this objection to diverting it to the use of Chelsea pensioners, that they are not confined to the hospital, as criminal lunatics are to the asylums, and there would be no security against their selling it outside.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (WAGES).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office when the promised statement with reference to the wages of the Government employés at Woolwich may be expected?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked the Under Secretary of State for War—when the employés of the Royal Army Clothing Department may hope for a reply to their memorial forwarded through the Director of Clothing in October last?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): Any statement that may have to be made on the wages question will be in connection with the Estimates for the Ordnance Factories and the Vote for Clothing.

  ORDNANCE FACTORIES (SUPERANNUATION).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office when the Government employés at the Ordnance Factories may hope for a reply to their memorial with reference to superannuation, presented in April 1895?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The subject is still under consideration by certain officials of the War Department, to whom, as being specially conversant with such matters, it was referred. They have investigated it as it affects not only the War Office but several other Departments concerned. The inquiry has necessarily occupied a considerable time, but a Report on the matter as it affects the War Office will be shortly made.

  SUNDAY POST (COUNTY TIPPERARY).
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a memorial containing upwards of 200 signatures, including those of the local parish priest and curate, has been received from Clonakenny and Couraganeen, parish of Bournea, County Tipperary, requesting the establishment of a Sunday post for the general public convenience, which is only opposed by a small minority; and whether it is proposed to take any steps to meet the wishes of the great majority of the residents in this respect?
  MR. HANBURY: A memorial containing 120 signatures, including those of the local parish priest and curate, has been received from Clonakenny and Couraganeen, requesting the establishment of a Sunday post from Roscrea. Under regulations of long standing a Sunday post can only be established in a rural district on receipt of a memorial signed by the recipients of not less than two-thirds of the correspondence for the places affected, and in the present instance it is found from returns taken that the memorialists receive about one-fifth only of the correspondence for the Roserea and Clonakenny post. In the circumstances the Postmaster General is unable to comply with their request.

  EMIGRANTS' INFORMATION OFFICE.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the vacancies on the Managing Committee of the Emigrants' Information Office, caused by the retirement of Messrs. Brassy, Burnett and Town, have yet been filled up; and, if not, whether an effort will be made to secure the services of gentlemen familiar by personal experience with practical colonising work in Canada. Australia and South Africa respectively?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The vacancies have not yet been filled up, but care will be taken to secure representatives who have colonial experience or special acquaintance with the classes in this country from which emigrants are drawn.

  SCIENCE AND ART EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain on what basis of calculation a sum equal to only 2½ per cent. of the gross amount is voted for Science and Art Education in Ireland, and how many centres of examination are there at present in Ireland; and whether it is proposed to extend the operations of the Department in Ireland by a more liberal treatment in the matter of money grants?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,):The amount voted for

  667
  Science and Art Education in Ireland is 5 per cent., and not 2½ per cent. of the gross amount. It is calculated on the same basis as in Great Britain, viz., the number of students who attend the science and art schools and classes. There are 150 centres of examination in Ireland. There is a special grant of £3,500 for technical instruction in Ireland. Otherwise, Ireland is treated in the same manner as the rest of the United Kingdom.
  MR. G. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he state how much of last year's grant to the Science and Art Department was paid respectively to England, to Scotland, and to Ireland?
  SIR J. GORST: The amounts are as follows:—

  England

  …

  …

  £611,913

  Scotland

  …

  …

  87,348

  Ireland

  …

  …

  46,109

  Total

  …

  …

  £745,370

  ST. VINCENT (LABOURING POPULATION).
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether Sir Charles Bruce has informed the Legislative Council of St. Vincent that a rapidly increasing exodus of the able-bodied labouring class has been taking place from the colony, and that every effort should be made to keep the people and to attract those who have gone to return to the island; and added that it was in the power of a single proprietor to abandon the cultivation of one-fourth of the occupied area of the colony, and to deprive probably one-fourth of the population of their means of existence; (2) whether, in spite of His Excellency's expression of belief that no proprietor would avail himself of the power placed in his hands without some provision for the labouring population by whose aid his estates have been maintained, something of the kind has now happened; (3) what revision of the Crown Lands Regulations has taken place; and (4) what steps are being taken to secure the late Governor's objects of the creation of a
  668
  peasant proprietary by the purchase or lease of allotments, and the payment of wages in money?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. A report having been received last August of the intention of a large estate owner in the island to discontinue the cultivation of his estates for 1898, the late Governor made inquiry as to his intentions in the matter, but, up to the present date, so far as I am aware, no reply to that inquiry has been received. Both of the matters referred to in the latter part of the Question are under the consideration of the local Government, and the attention of the new Governor has been specially drawn to the correspondence with his predecessor regarding them.

  FACTORY ACT PROSECUTIONS (LOW MOOR).
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to alleged breaches of the Factory Act at Low Moor, and especially to the decision of the Bradford West Riding Court in a second case in which the defendants were charged with failing to exhibit a placard in accordance with Sub-section. 1 (a) of Section 40 of the Factory and Workshops Act, 1895, the Justices holding that the inspector could not proceed on a second information under the same Section; and whether instructions have been given to the inspector to take further steps in the case?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: My attention has been called to this matter. I am informed that the magistrates, having dismissed the first summons against the defendants on the ground that the pieces of cloth measured could not be identified, expressed the opinion that the second summons could not be sustained, as the "particulars" section only describes one offence, and the summons related, therefore, to a matter which had already been decided. Upon this the second summons was withdrawn. There is no power to take further steps in the case now, but attention will be paid to the point if similar proceedings have again to be instituted.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION (HEYWOOD).
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,): I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the School Attendance Committee, at Heywood has summoned for non-attendance at school 57 parents of children who were formerly scholars in the lately-closed United Methodist Free Church School; and that the parents having, on various grounds, refused to send their children to the other schools in the town, the School Attendance Committee has adjourned all the cases, pending the receipt of information from the Education Department; whether he is aware that the Heywood Town Council, on the 11th instant, resolved for the third time to apply to the Department to order a School Board to be formed, in accordance with Section 12 of the Education Act, 1870; and whether, having regard to these and other facts, and to the disturbed state of feeling in the town, the Department will, without further delay, reply to the repeated requests of the Town Council, for the appointment of a School Board?
  SIR J. GORST: My attention has been drawn to the facts mentioned in the first and second paragraphs. The question of the formation of a School Board is still under consideration; but I ought to point out that, even if a Board were formed, the scruples of those who will not send their children to the existing schools would not be obviated. The Board could not build a new school unless there were a deficiency of accommodation, not in course of being supplied. At present there is not.

  ROSSCARBERRY CONVENT.
  MR. MACALEESE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork County, S. (Mr. EDWARD BARRY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the revising officer appointed by the Commissioner of Valuation, in his recent revision of the Clonakilty Union, has placed an increased valuation on the new convent premises at Rosscarberry; and as those buildings are used exclusively for educational purposes and for the instruction of poor girls in the locality in weaving and other industries, whether the Commissioner of Valuation should have exempted
  670
  the convent buildings from rates under the terms of 17 Vic., c. 8, s. 2?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In the Valuation Lists for Clonakilty Union, issued to the Rating Authorities on January 26th 1897, there is an increase in the valuation of the Convent referred to, consequent on extensive additions which have lately been made to the premises. An appeal has been lodged, and the question of exemption is now under consideration.

  POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. MACALEESE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork County, S. (Mr. EDWARD BARRY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) Whether he will introduce a Clause into the Poor Relief Bill creating ballot voting for the election of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland; and (2) whether he will assimiliate the Poor Law to the Parliamentary Franchise?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to both Questions is in the negative. Such provisions would be outside the purpose of the Bill.

  RIFLE VOLUNTEERS (1ST SUTHERLAND HIGHLAND).
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the facts in Connection with the recent dismissal of Private Adam Robertson, the holder of a long-service medal, from his regiment, the 1st Sutherland Highland Rifle Volunteers; whether a Volunteer so dismissed has an appeal from the finding of his superior officer to the Secretary of State for War; and whether, taking the Circumstances of the case into account, the Secretary of State for War can see his way to reinstate the said Private Adam Robertson?
  MR. BRODRICK: This case has not been reported to Headquarters. Under the Volunteer Act of 1863, the Commanding Officer of a Volunteer Corps has the right to dismiss a member; but the member dismissed can appeal to Her Majesty through the Secretary of State for War.

  DONERAILE ESTATE (COUNTY CORK).
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish

  671
  Land Commissioners can give any information respecting the application of an evicted tenant named M'Grath, on Lord Castletown's Doneraile estate, to be reinstated under the 47th section of the Land Act 1896; is the Land Commission aware that M'Grath offered to give solvent security for the payment of rent for five years, and to have rent fixed by arbitration or by the Land Commissioners; and whether, in view of the fact that the evicted tenant believed that Lord Castle-town would join in the application under the section above-named, the Land Commission will refund the amount of the fee paid by the tenant?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: An application was made in the usual form to the Land Commission by David M'Grath, with a view to his re-instatement as tenant in his former holding under Lord Castle-town. M'Grath was evicted in March 1895, being five years in arrear with his rent. The landlord objected to the application being treated as a joint application, and the former tenant was thereupon informed that no further proceedings could be taken under his application. The Land Commission have no information as to the alleged offer of security by M'Grath, and they state he was not charged any fee by them.
  MR. FLYNN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Land Commission charge no fee?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: So I understand.
  MR. FLYNN: If I can bring before the right hon. Gentleman evidence that a fee was charged in this case, will he order the fee to be returned?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Certainly, if the hon. Member brings such evidence before me.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE BOOTS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the cost of the boots to be issued to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force in April next will be the same as that for the previous issue; (2) why it is expected that the boots about to be issued will remain in good order for a longer period than those issued upon any previous occasion; and (3) whether, when the choice between the two systems was given to the men,
  672
  the fact that the weekly payment would be six months in arrear was not made clear, whereas it was distinctly stated that failure to produce two pairs of boots in good, sound serviceable condition would render the officer liable to punishment, such neglect being regarded as an offence against discipline?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, and to the second, that no such expectation is entertained. The men were distinctly informed last year by the notice on the voting paper which was issued to them that the money allowance would commence on the 7th October 1897, but that they would not be required to purchase a new pair until the boots to be last issued were in need of repair. Failure to possess proper boots would, after due caution, render the officer liable to punishment; but it is not intended, or expected, that the new regulations will in any degree operate to the prejudice of the men.

  PRESENCE OF FOREIGN REPRESENTATIVE AT PUBLIC MEETING.
  MR. T. W. LEGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is in accordance with diplomatic usage for a foreign representative to take part in public meetings which involve discussion of the policy of the Government to which he is accredited?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Before that Question is asked, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is in order for the hon. Member to address a question which is intended to cast a serious reflection on the conduct of the representative of a friendly Power in this country. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not see anything out of order in the question.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): The presence of a foreign representative on such occasions is unusual and scarcely decorous. But no positive rule against it is known to exist, provided the representative does not actively interfere in a manner affecting the internal politics of the country.
  MR. LEGH: Is it not the fact that the Government of the United States ordered Lord Sackville to leave Washington because he was alleged to have interfered—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.
  MR. FLYNN: Who is to be the judge of the decorum of such proceedings? [Opposition cheers.]
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: Is it not within the absolute right of a foreign representative to be present at a public meeting if he previously receives the permission of his Government to do so?
  *MR. CURZON: That is a matter which affects the relations of the Minister in question with his own Government. It has nothing to do with me.

  CRETE.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps were taken to make known to the Cretan insurgents that the autonomy of the island was assured by the Great Powers; and whether it is the case that the information in question was withheld from the insurgents in the vicinity of Canea; and, if so, who was the intermediary to whom the communication was confided?
  *MR. CURZON: The Commanders of the ships of the Allied Fleet that have been sent to different parts of the island were instructed to distribute a Proclamation to the effect that the Great Powers had assumed the responsibility for the future of the island. A formal proclamation of autonomy is now being made, it being very doubtful whether the fact that autonomy has been guaranteed by the Powers is at all widely known. I do not know through what intermediary, if any, the information was conveyed to the insurgents in the vicinity of Canea.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: When proclamation is made of autonomy, will any explanation be given to the Cretans as to what is meant by autonomy? [Opposition cheers.]
  *MR. CURZON: Considering that the Cretans have been agitating for autonomy for 100 years—[cheers and laughter, and a NATIONALIST MEMBER: "So have the Irish!"]—I think we may assume that they understand very well what the word
  674
  means. But, in any case, in the proclamation it will be made perfectly clear to them that autonomy means in the case of Crete that they will not in any circumstances revert to the rule of the Sultan.[Cheers.]
  MR. M. J. FLAVIN: Have proclamations been issued there for the last 100 years? [Laughter.]
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs, whether any explanation has been received respecting the failure of the Greek Commodore to communicate to the insurgents in the neighbourhood of Canea the message of the Admirals of the Great Powers, forbidding any further advance towards the town, and offering medical assistance for the wounded?
  GENERAL SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Admiral commanding the British in Cretan waters has reported that the communication from the Admirals of the combined Powers to the effect that the insurgents would be fired upon if they advanced beyond their present positions was intrusted to the Greek Commodore Reineek to be delivered to the insurgents with whom he was in frequent communication; and, will he explain how it happened that the message of the Admirals was not communicated to the insurgents?
  *MR. CURZON: No further information on this subject has been received since the telegram from the British Admiral of the 11th inst., the substance of which I communicated to the House on the 12th.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether instructions have been sent to Admiral Harris to satisfy himself in future that his information is accurate before he communicates it for publication to the Correspondent of The Times in Crete?
  *MR. CURZON: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The telegram I read out to the House was to the effect that Admiral Harris had had an interview with the insurgents, and reported them as having given him certain information. [Ministerial cheers.]
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not the case that Admiral Harris communicated himself with the correspondent of The Times at Crete?
  *MR. CURZON: How can I possibly tell that?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Does it not appear from the telegram of the correspondent of The Times in the island?
  MR. FLYNN: May I ask whether it is not the fact that Admiral Reineck gives an emphatic denial to the statements in the question, and declares that he duly informed the insurgents of the message of the Admirals; and, further—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the hon. Member wants an answer to that Question he should give notice of it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government have made any response to the reply received from the Government of Greece on March 8, and March 10, to the separate Identic Note presented to the Greek Government by the representative of Great Britain on March 2, which Note the right hon. Gentleman stated not to have been an ultimatum, and, if so, whether he will communicate such answer to this House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): No answer has been made to the Note to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. The matter is under the consideration of the Powers.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Greek Vice Consul and all the Greek residents have been ordered to leave Canea; and, if so, for what reason, and under whose authority has this been done?
  *MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Consul has reported that the former Greek Vice Consul, who no longer held any official character, was residing in the Greek Consulate at Canea with certain correspondents, and that all of them had interviews and were in correspondence with the insurgents. The Greek Consulate had thus become a centre of agitation, and the Admirals on the 8th inst. invited the inmates to leave for Greece the next day, offering to convey them there if they had no means of leaving Crete. They eventually left on board a Greek man-of-war, under protest.
  MR. DILLON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to inform us by what right the Admirals obliged those Greek
  676
  citizens to leave Canea? [Opposition cheers.]
  *MR. CURZON: Because acting under instructions from the Powers, the Admirals have assumed responsibility for peace and order in Canea. [Cheers.]
  MR. DILLON: Are we to understand that that responsibility includes the right to banish from Crete any people, without trial or investigation, whom they may think—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been answered.
  MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,)asked whether the Admirals had made use of these people for communication with the insurgents, and afterwards expelled them?
  *MR. CURZON: No, Sir. I do not think the Admirals would be so unwise. [Cheers.]
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to statements in the public Press announcing that subscription lists have been opened in England for the purpose of equipping volunteers to proceed to Greece, and that many such have been already enrolled; and whether in the existing state of the relations between the Greek Kingdom and other Powers, such proceedings are in accordance with the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): My right hon. Friend was good enough to show me a letter in the Press to the purport referred to in the first paragraph of his Question. The facts were not sufficiently stated to show that any breach of the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act were contemplated.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (INSPECTOR FOX).
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, at the Greenwich Police Court on the 20th February, on the hearing of a charge of larceny against one George Black, Detective Inspector Fox, of the Metropolitan Police, gave evidence of a conversation which he had had with the prisoner whilst in custody, where-upon the magistrate deprecated the practice of cross-examining prisoners, and

  677
  ordered that the said evidence should be struck out of the depositions; whether this is the some Inspector Fox who, on the 14th January at the Central Criminal Court, was censured by Mr. Justice Hawkins, for similar conduct in relation to a prisoner in his custody; and whether steps will be taken by the superior officer of Inspector Fox to warn him against the repetition of such conduct in the future?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: My attention has been called to the circumstances alluded to in the Question. There was no cross-examination of the prisoner by the Inspector as the Question suggests, and the magistrate, with whom I have communicated, acquits the Inspector of any intention to act unfairly. I do not think it my duty to take any further steps in the matter. Inspector Fox is the officer about whose conduct in another case the hon. Member questioned me last month, and I expressed the opinion that his conduct had not, in my opinion, been deserving of censure.

  BELFAST LUNATIC ASYLUM (DEATH OF INMATE).
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the verdict of the coroner's jury recently given at Belfast at the inquest on the body of Mrs. Beggs, who died in the Belfast Lunatic Asylum; (2) whether he is aware that the eminent doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination found a number of her ribs and breast bone broken, and that the jury found that the bones were not broken at the time she was taken from her home to the asylum; (3) whether the doctors of the asylum had at any time, and, if so, at what date, discovered that her bones were broken; and (4) whether, considering the facts disclosed at the inquest, the Government will, in the interests of inmates of lunatic asylums, have further inquiry made into the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the first and second paragraphs. The verdict of the coroner's jury was that the injuries were not received at the patient's house, and that there was no evidence to show when and how they had been received. Deceased was admitted to the asylum on the 5th January, and on the 21st January the asylum doctors discovered the injuries. An Inquiry has been held into the matter
  678
  by the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums who will forward their Report to the Board of Governors of the Asylum.

  NAZIM PASHA.
  MR. DILLON: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. J. SWIFT MACNEILL), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary of State has yet received official information that Nazim Pasha, the Minister of Police during the massacres at Constantinople, has been appointed Governor General of the Province of Beyrout; whether this appointment has been made under the system of reformed administration guaranteed by the Ottoman Porte; if the Secretary of State has not received official information, will he institute inquiries as to whether the appointment to this Governor Generalship of Nazim Pasha has been made, as positively stated, in the public Press; and whether in the event of the appointment having been made, the Secretary of State will direct the British Ambassador at Constantinople to make a strong remonstrance on the subject, and to insist, in the interest of the lives of the Christian population, that Nazim Pasha's appointment be instantly cancelled?
  *MR. CURZON: The appointment of Nazim Pasha as Governor General of Beyrout has been officially confirmed by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople. As I have already informed the hon. Member Beyrout is not one of the six villayets to which the scheme of October last applied. After consulting Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that Nazim Pasha can scarcely be held personally responsible for many of the measures supposed to have been executed under his orders, and that there are not sufficient grounds for protesting against his appointment.
  MR. DILLON: Was he not at the head of the police during the frightful massacres in Constantinople, and is he now to be allowed to be Governor of a district in which Christians live? [Opposition cheers.]
  *MR. CURZON: I believe that he was the Minister of head of the police—the exact office I do not know. But, of course, in this matter we can only act on the advice of Her Majesty's Ambassador, who, I believe, has the confidence

  679
  of both sides of the House. We have consulted him, and he sees no ground for protesting against the appointment.

  COUNTY COURT JUDGESHIP (COUNTY DOWN).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the name of the gentleman appointed as County Court Judge for County Down?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The appointment has not yet been completed.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL (ASSOCIATIONS).
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education from what source the money required for the administrative work of the associations, intended to be constituted by the Voluntary Schools Bill, will be derived?
  SIR JOHN GORST: This Question will be answered by the First Lord of the Treasury. [Ironical Opposition cheers and laughter.]
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the associations to be authorised under the Voluntary Schools Bill will be entitled, in drawing up schemes for the distribution of the aid grant, to insert in such schemes claims for the whole or any portion of the expenses of such associations for staff, offices, inspection, examination, or for any duties discharged by them in aiding in the administration of the Act, or whether the regulations of the Department will prohibit the application of any part of the aid grant to other purposes than the actual educational expenditure of the individual schools to which the Department after approving the schemes is to distribute the grant; and, in the latter case, whether any regulation will be made by the Department to prohibit the managers of any school receiving the aid grant, from paying, or being called upon to pay, any sum from their ordinary income towards the expenses of the associations, and disallowing any such item from the school accounts?
  MR. LEWIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman also reply to my Question? [Laughter.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The money for working the associations will not be provided out of the aid grants, but will have to be found for the associations by those interested in the prosperity of Voluntary Schools.
  MR. CHANNING: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question—whether any regulation will be made to prevent the indirect application of the grant to the expenses of the associations by a levy made upon the managers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The aid grant will have to be paid for the ordinary purposes of school maintenance. It cannot be diverted, as the hon. Gentleman supposes, for purposes connected with the association.

  LAND COMMISSION (CLONTYGORA TENANTS).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Land Commission would let the tenants of Clontygora, near Newry, know when they would hold a sitting to hear their cases listed last October?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The cases referred to were received on and since the 13th October. A list is now being heard for the adjoining Union of Kilkeel, and when that list has been dealt with the cases referred to will be taken up.

  LUNACY (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the promised inquiry into the causes of the increase of lunacy in England and Wales has been made, and when its results will be made known?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The inquiry has been made, and the Report laid on the Table of the House. I am informed that copies of the Report will be delivered almost immediately.

  COUNTY COURT RULES.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether an opportunity will be afforded to the House of discussing the proposed draft new County Court Rules, which seriously affect the interests of traders?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The operation of the Rules has been postponed

  681
  till May, in order to give the County Court Judges the opportunity of considering some objections which have been raised.

  IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN MANUFACTURED GOODS.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, having regard to the serious decrease in the staple exports of British and Irish products indicated in the Trade and Navigation Returns for last month, side by side with the continued growth of the imports of like goods manufactured by foreigners, mainly from iron, cotton, and wool, and amounting to £81,679,227 for the year ending 28th February, and the consequences of this condition of affairs to British labour, he will either allow the Motion standing first on the Paper for Tuesday, 16th March, to come on, or, if the exigencies of the public service render this impossible, if he will afford other facilities for the consideration of the evil, and the remedy?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am well aware of the interest which my hon. Friend has always taken in this question; but he will sympathise with the difficulties of a Leader of the House in finding time for discussions of this nature, and I cannot give a definite pledge on this subject.

  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND (CONGESTED DISTRICTS).
  MR. D. NICOL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state whether the Bill to deal with the £15,000 voted last year in aid of congested districts in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland will be introduced before Easter?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: No date can as yet be named for the introduction of the Bill dealing with the sum of £15,000 set apart for the Highlands last year, and until the Bill is introduced I cannot state what provisions it will contain.

  QUEEN'S REIGN (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT).
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury
  682
  whether it has been determined in what way the two Houses of Parliament are to take part in the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of the accession of Her Majesty to the Throne?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No definite arrangements upon this subject have received the assent of Her Majesty, but precedent will be carefully considered before the final arrangements are come to.

  HIGHER EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  MR. DILLON: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. MACNEILL), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that on the 15th July 1889, speaking on behalf of the Government, he stated that higher education in Ireland had long been under the consideration of the Government, and that he hoped to be able to make proposals On that subject to Parliament, he can give any assurance as to the time when these proposals which have now been under consideration so many years will be submitted to Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have nothing to add on this subject to the answer I gave on Thursday last.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the truth of the statement made by the correspondent of The Daily Chronicle that an Armenian agent of the Relief Fund had been murdered immediately on his arrival in the district where he had undertaken to distribute £500; and whether Sir P. Currie would be instructed to demand the arrest and punishment of the assassin and the restitution of the money stolen?
  *MR. CURZON: We have received no information about this alleged murder. It hardly seems necessary to make the suggested inquiry at Constantinople, since Her Majesty's Ambassador will certainly report at once if the newspaper announcement be correct.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. DILLONasked the First Lord of the Treasury what Supply would be taken on Friday next?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: On Friday next it will be necessary, in order to complete the financial arrangements of the year, to pass two very small Votes connected with the Army—one supplementary Vote and the other an excess Vote—and the Vote for the Navy. I shall put down the Navy Vote first.
  MR. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any notion when the Motion to move the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates will be made?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Without entering into any absolute pledge, my belief is that the most convenient course will be to move the Speaker out of the Chair on Friday week.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN Of WAYS and MEANS, MR. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
  [PROGRESS, 11TH MARCH.—NINTH DAY.]
  Clause 1,—

  AID GRANT TO VOLUNTARY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  "(1) For aiding Voluntary Schools there shall be annually paid out of moneys provided by Parliament an aid grant, not exceeding in the aggregate 5s. per scholar for the whole number of scholars in those schools.
  "(2) The aid grant shall be distributed by the Education Department to such Voluntary Schools and in such manner and amounts as the Department think best for the purpose of helping necessitous schools and increasing their efficiency, due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions.
  "(3) If associations of schools are constituted in such manner in such areas and with such governing bodies representative of the managers as are approved by the Education Department, there shall be allotted to each association while so approved,

  "(a) a share of the aid grant to be computed according to the number of scholars in the schools of the association at the rate of 5s. per scholar, or, if the Department fix different rates for town and country schools respectively (which they are hereby empowered to do) then at those rates; and

  684

  "(b) a corresponding share of any sum which may be available out of the aid grant after distribution has been made to unassociated schools.

  "(4) The share so allotted to each such association shall be distributed as aforesaid by the Education Department after consulting the governing body of the association, and in accordance with any scheme prepared by that body which the Department for the time being approve.
  "(5) The Education Department may exclude a school from any share of the aid grant which it might otherwise receive, if, in the opinion of the Department, it unreasonably refuses or fails to join such an association, but the refusal or failure shall not be deemed unreasonable if the majority of the schools in the association belong to a religious denomination to which the school in question does not itself belong.
  "(6) The Education Department may require as a condition of a school receiving a share of the aid grant, that the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the school shall be annually audited in accordance with the regulations of the Department.
  "(7) The decision of the Education Department upon any question relating to the distribution or allotment of the aid grant, including the question whether an association is or is not in conformity with this Act, and whether a school is a town or a country school, shall be final."
  *MR. LLOYD MORGANmoved in Sub-section (3) after the word "managers," to insert the words "and parents of the scholars using the school and" He wished to have the parents represented on the associations, because he considered the way in which they were constituted under the Bill was most unsatisfactory. Whatever the merits of the clergy might be, they were not advanced educationalists, and their history showed them to be much more anxious to promote the interests of their Church than to forward secular education.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)asked the hon. Member to explain how the representation of the parents upon the associations would be effected.
  *MR. LLOYD MORGANreplied that that would be a question for the Education Department to arrange. He thought it obvious that the parents ought to be represented on these associations, because, after all, there were no people who could possibly have as much interest in the proper working of these Voluntary Schools as the parents of the children who attended them. It was a serious flaw

  685
  in the Bill that the class most concerned were utterly neglected in the associations. The Amendment seemed reasonable and was sound in itself.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)thought he might reasonably ask the hon. Gentleman whether he supposed that parents in rural districts were always to be regarded as more advanced educationists than school managers. But he did not wish to deal with the details of the hon. Member's Amendment. It would be sufficient to point out in answer to it, as well as to one or two other proposals of a similar nature, that it was open to two objections of a very diverse character. The first objection was a practical one. He did not believe it would be possible to frame a scheme by which in any tolerably sized association, embracing a considerable area and a considerable number of schools, room would be found for the representation of the parents on the managing bodies in the case of all the schools concerned. Apart from that insuperable difficulty—and he might dwell upon it much more at length—for what purpose were the associations called into existence? They were called into existence in order to advise the Department as to the allocation of the money between the various schools. Now he said deliberately that for that purpose neither the parents nor the ratepayers, nor any of the other bodies mentioned in the earlier Amendments, were calculated to give any valuable assistance to the work of the associations. He perfectly understood those who said that they should associate in the management of schools, parents or local bodies. But they were not now dealing with the management of schools. They were discussing merely the best machinery for advising the Department in the allocation of the grant. On this point what was the difficulty raised by the Opposition generally, and the Leader of the Opposition in particular? It was that when these associations were brought into existence there would be a scramble among the representatives of various schools for as much as they could get, irrespective of the general object of supporting in the most economic and efficient manner the system of education which was the true policy of the Bill. If they were going to send up parents
  686
  interested, not in the general system of education, but in their own particular school or parish, then, of course, they would and must have that scramble to which hon. Gentlemen so often pointed as the rock on which the associations would split. In his opinion it would be a very great mistake to intrude into the associations persons animated, it might be, by strong local zeal for their own school.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDquite ageed that there would be difficulty in carrying out this system throughout the country, but the right hon. Gentleman would not forget that the Opposition had been excluded altogether from making proposals for the representation of parents upon the management of the schools. That having been shut out, the question now was whether the Education Department could do anything to represent the parents on these bodies. He thought some guidance might be afforded to them in the Bill for that purpose. There were many Voluntary Schools on the management of which the parents were represented at the present time. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that parents' representatives in any form would be an intrusion upon these governing bodies. [Cheers.] It seemed to him that, if they were on the management body, they would be just as likely to do their duty by the Voluntary Schools as any other kind of managers, and just as likely to have both the interest of the single and group denominational schools at heart as any other body of managers they could find.
  MR. J. HERBERT LEWISpointed out that a practical scheme had been formulated for the representation of parents on the governing bodies of intermediate schools. Such representation was much more difficult to arrange than the representation of parents on elementary schools. If it was possible to arrange for the representation of parents on the governing bodies of intermediate schools, many of whom lived at long distances from the schools, surely it was equally possible to obtain a good representation of parents in connection with elementary schools. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the object of the formation of the association would be merely to advise the Education

  687
  Department. But there were other objects that the association would exist to promote besides the mere allocation of the money. For example, special teachers might be provided for the different elementary schools in the district, and the organisation of peripatetic teaching was a question to which attention had recently been paid, and which could be carried out as a useful feature in connection with elementary as well as intermediate schools. The subjects which their children ought to be taught were surely of as much interest to the parents as to the clerical managers; and if, through their representatives, they had an opportunity of exercising some influence on the decision of the association, then, he thought, that the representation of parents was a thing certain to work for the good and the advantage of the association.
  *SIR JOHN LUBBOCKthought that the schools ought to be allowed to select their own representatives. There were many places in the country in which there were Voluntary Schools, not necessarily denominational, which were carried on on purpose to avoid the expense and loss of time of unnecessary elections. There was much to be said for the representation of parents on the managing bodies, but what practical object was there to be gained by having representatives of parents on these associations? There was no constituency, and no authorised list of persons who had the right to vote. The only legal power of the associations was to distribute the funds. What they had to do was to get the best representatives of schools and those most likely to bring forward the needs of the schools. He should like the Education Department to have power to nominate the inspector, even if only as assessor, to attend the meetings.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESunderstood that the first step would be the creation of an association of Voluntary Schools in a certain area, the Department first of all to determine the area. After that, a certain number of Voluntary Schools in the area might combine together to form an association. When the association was formed the governing body had to be constituted; and one of the conditions laid down was
  688
  that the governing body of the association was to be representative of the managers of Voluntary Schools. All that his hon. Friend proposed was that the governing body should be elected, not simply by the existing managers of the different Voluntary Schools forming part of the association, but that an element representing parents and scholars should be added. Unless the governing body of the association was to be limited in its dealing with the Department simply to the distribution of the fund, and was not to give advice on any other matter, it would, perhaps, not be a matter of vital importance whether the Committee should adopt this Amendment. But he was convinced that they would play a much larger part than the mere distribution of the grant; they would advise the Department in regard to many matters in reference to public elementary education. The Amendment would distinctly add to the value of any advice in regard to funds or any other matter which the governing body might give to the Department. He could not see any difficulty in framing a scheme to carry out the proposal. Why should not the parish meeting or the Parish Council elect two parents to be added to the Board of Management of a Voluntary School for the purpose of electing a representative on the governing body of the association?
  MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon)referring to the argument that it would be difficult to ascertain the parents, pointed out that there was the register kept by the School Attendance Committee of the district, and the register of a school, both of which contained a full list of the parents of the children in that particular school for the time being. The same difficulty was met with in the nomination of a School Board. There was no register there; they had simply the ratepayers for the time being in the parish. The list of parents could be drawn out in the same way. The First Lord of the Treasury had said his objection was that the parents had too much interest in the management of the schools. That, surely, was a very remarkable objection. He should have thought their interest was a very strong reason why they should have representation on these associations. The same objection would obtain to the subscribers. Take the case of Liverpool. In that city

  689
  the annual subscriptions amounted to £10,000, but the fees paid by the parents amounted to £11,000. Under this Bill there would not be on these associations a single representative of the people who paid the greater amount, but the subscribers would have full control. The First Lord of the Treasury objected to local interest. Surely what they wanted in respect to these associations was to enlist the sympathy of the people who had a keen interest in the school. The keener and the deeper the interest of the people, the greater their claim to representation on the board of management of the school. The right hon. Gentleman's position was altogether illogical.
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEYsaid he was extremely jealous of the wording of the clause, because it confined these governing bodies to one particular class. [Opposition cries of "Hear, hear!"] His right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury had again and again enlarged upon the virtue of elasticity in dealing with this question, and he had followed the right hon. Gentleman in many divisions in consequence of that argument, but upon this occasion the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be falling away from that position. The governing body of the association, whose primary duty no doubt was to advise the Committee of Council as to the distribution of the grant, was to consist exclusively of representatives of the managers. That was a strict line which he thought it was very ill-advised to adopt. If they inserted in the words, "other persons interested in the conduct of the schools," or "other persons acquainted with the management of the schools," they would permit the introduction of other persons who would be of great assistance even to the immediate purpose in view, and of still greater assistance if the associations were developed as it was proposed. There would be no difficulty in securing representatives of the parents upon the governing bodies, but he thought it was even more desirable there should be representatives of the teachers. [Cheers.] In the allocation of the funds to the different schools the teachers would possess better knowledge than even the managers. Again, the presence of a representative of the Education Department on one of these boards would be of the greatest possible value, for he would
  690
  bring what no one else would bring, a knowledge of all the schools; he would be able to suggest how the funds could be distributed with the best regard to the promotion of education as a whole. Under the Bill as drawn they could not have such a thing. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Why not?"] Because the clause said the board should consist of representatives of the managers. He asked who would be the persons who would form these associations. They would be, for the most part, the Bishops and clergy of the Church of England, persons who would put the narrowest interpretation upon their powers. They would insist that "representatives of managers" meant the "representatives of managers" and nobody else, and they would exclude from the associations such men as he had named.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London held the view that there was no practical object to be attained in having representatives of the parents on the governing bodies. The right hon. Baronet could not know that, in the case of a large number of schools, while the managers were exclusively Church of England, the children in attendance were largely, in some cases wholly, Nonconformist. The result of that was very serious to the efficiency of the schools themselves. The parents felt they had no power over the instruction given in the schools, and no safeguard against intolerance being shown in the schools. The result of it all was that they cared very little about the attendance of the children in the schools. If they gave the parents a direct interest in the governing bodies they would very largely remove that difficulty. The First Lord of the Treasury had asked whether the Committee thought that the parents were such good educationists as the clergy? His experience was that the enthusiasm for education in the elementary schools came a great deal more from the parents than from the clergy, and that therefore any alteration in the clause which enabled the parents to take a practical interest in the schools would necessarily raise the standard of education. He took it that the understanding of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that the phrase "representatives of the managers" meant representatives of the managers only. [The

  691
  FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Not necessarily, but they must represent the managers."] He would like to know what answer the Attorney General would make to a technical lawyer who argued that the representatives of the managers meant the representatives of the managers, and did not mean the representatives of anybody else.
  *MR. J. H. YOXALLsaid it was quite clear that the Education Department could not form these associations; neither could the parents or the managers. The forming of them would no doubt come from the centre of the diocese. The nucleus existed in the Diocesan Board for Inspection of Religious Knowledge. His apprehension was that funds of the schools joined in the associations would have in future to bear the whole costs of the inspection of religious knowledge, which was now borne by other people. While it was necessary for the parents to be represented some way or other, he did not see how it could be brought about in this Bill. It would be against the principle of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the First Lord had already told them that parents could be represented.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I did not say that.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid that was his impression, but nobody could be a member of an association unless he was elected by the managers of the schools. How could a parent get on an association unless he was elected by the managers. What was the likelihood of the managers electing a parent? Indeed, their hands would be strengthened by that discussion. In the Bill of last Session the words were, "if a reasonable number of parents desire "representation" they would get it. Now they were told that it was impossible.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought that they wanted a little more light on this point from the Leader of the House. It was clear that parents could only become members of the association by leave of the managers; and it was also clear that there would be many cases in which the assistance of parents would be an obvious advantage. He was sorry to hear the First Lord practically say that the sole use of these associations would be to allocate the grant.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No; I did not say that.
  MR. BUXTONwas glad to hear that, for the Vice President had said that these associations would have many duties to fulfil. He believed that the Bill might be so amended as to make the associations more entitled to public confidence.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid he was one who voted for some representation of the parents, but this Amendment would cut at the bottom of the whole principle involved. If one parent was elected he would naturally wish to benefit his own school. He thought the difficulty would be met by putting in the words "and others," so that he would not necessarily be a parent.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he believed that the association would more and more supersede private management in these schools. He quite admitted that there was a great difficulty in the way of framing a scheme for the representation of parents upon the associations, but he did not think that that difficulty was insuperable. That difficulty was, however, much increased by the fact that they did not know how the representative managers who were to serve on the associations were to be selected. Were they to be selected by the head of the diocese, and were the views of the Bishop as to who were fit and proper persons to represent the managers to regulate their selection. In his opinion the managers themselves should select their own representatives. ["Hear, hear!"] It was only by calling a meeting of the managers of a diocese, and allowing them freely to choose their own representatives that any real representation could be secured. It was said that the representatives however selected must receive the approval of the Education Department before they could serve on the association, but he should like to ask the Government how it was possible for the Department to judge whether the selected persons were or were not really representative of the managers. ["Hear, hear!"] Supposing, for instance, that the Bishop of the diocese were to select A, B, C, and D, to represent the managers on the associations, and supposing the managers were to say that those persons did not represent them,

  693
  how was the Department to determine the issue so raised between the Bishop and the managers. If they knew what process was to be gone through in order to secure the due representation of the managers there would not be so much difficulty in devising a scheme for the representation of the parents on the associations. Of course the Government would be ready to meet the Amendment with the stereotyped answer that the matter must be left to the Education Department. He did not intend to argue the question, but he thought that every reasonable man would admit that if it could be arrived at in any practical way it was desirable that the parents should be represented on the associations. It was rendered all the more desirable by the course which the Government had taken in this matter. The Government said that the subscriptions must be kept up, and, therefore, from their own financial point of view the parents from whom the subscriptions were largely drawn ought to be represented. What difficulty would there be in calling a parish meeting once a year for the purpose of selecting the representatives of the parents. Assuming that no great local feeling had been aroused, it would be easy to select a respectable man who possessed the confidence of the locality to act as the representative of the parents. He could conceive of no substantial objection that could be urged aganst this Amendment, because there appeared to be insuperable difficulty in framing some scheme by which the parents might be represented on these associations. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that he entreated the Government not to shut the door upon the representation of the parents upon the associations by the rejection of this Amendment. He thought that as far as the representation of the managers were concerned, that if they were allowed to select their own representatives they would only be too anxious to select those who really represented them. In his view, very useful representatives might be chosen outside of the management. He was in favour of admitting the words in the Amendment in the interests of justice and of economy. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid that it was perfectly clear that all hon. Members who had had practical experience of elementary educa-
  694
  tion held a strong opinion in favour of the principle of the Amendment, even if they did not approve of its exact terms. It was most important that they should have representatives of the parents upon the associations, because they would assist the associations in arriving at a decision whether it was worth while, in the interests of education, to keep alive certain schools by awarding them a high payment per child out of the fund, which the associations had to distribute. He knew of some denominational schools that were almost entirely supported out of the State grant. He should very heartily support the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,)said that the Amendment would test the sincerity of those who had lately been championing the rights of parents in regard to the choice of schools and to religious instruction. It was equally important that parents should have some rights with regard to the secular education given in the schools. It had been stated that the parents of the children did not take an interest in the schools. In order to make them take an interest in them it would be necessary to give the parents some power and responsibility in connection with the schools. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 250.—(Division List, No. 99.)
  MR. R. W. PERKSproposed in Sub-section (3), after the word "managers," to insert the words "and of the teachers of the said schools." He said the object of the Amendment was to secure for the teachers some share of representation on the governing bodies constituted under the clause. The teachers, he thought, could not be charged with being uninterested in the education progress of the schools. They were certainly more advanced educationally than the managers of rural Voluntary Schools. Whatever might be the relations of these new governing bodies to the Education Department, it was clear that they would not have been called governing bodies in the phraseology of the Bill if they had not been intended to govern somebody. Their government would be over the

  695
  Voluntary Schools connected with the associations in different parts of the country. When the Elementary Education Act of 1870 was passed there were only 28,000 teachers in England and Wales, but now there were between 125,000 and 135,000 elementary teachers of all grades; so that the educational constituency for whom they were asking for some share in the constitution of these governing bodies was a very large one. Of these 125,000 teachers in the country, about 70,000 were teachers in Voluntary Schools, and of these 70,000 about 55,000 were connected with the Voluntary Schools of the Church of England. These teachers had at present no right to be heard on the subject of the management of their schools. The Church of England Schools were mostly administered under trusts, which gave the teachers no voice or vote in the managing committees. The managing committee consisted usually of the clergyman of the parish, of his curates, if he should so determine, of the two churchwardens, and of certain subscribers, who must be members of the Church of England. In the case of the Wesleyan schools the teachers were in the same position, having no voice or vote in the management. In connection with the British schools the same condition of things was found, except that here if a teacher was a subscriber to the school he could be elected on the board of management. Then the teachers in Roman Catholic schools were absolutely excluded from the managing committees. The teachers were vitally interested in many of the questions that would be dealt with by the governing bodies of the associations, and in the distribution of this enormous grant of upwards of £60,000. They were at the present moment receiving very much lower salaries than were paid in the Board Schools, and if they were elected members of the governing bodies they would have very strong motives for taking care that the money voted in this Bill was used to increase the efficiency of schools in the manner indicated by the Minister of Education a few weeks ago, when he said he hoped this fund would be used for increasing the stipends of teachers and increasing the staffs. There were other duties which teachers would be in a position to discharge. They would be able to protect members of their calling against capricious and often unjust
  696
  dismissal, and against the strange extraneous tasks which were often imposed upon them, and to which reference had been made more than once in the course of that Debate. These were protective rights which the teachers might justly claim to exercise in the governing bodies. The Committee had been told by the First Lord of the Treasury that the parents were not qualified to exercise the same authority as the managers exercised in their management of Voluntary Schools. Whatever might be the validity of the argument, it certainly could not be applied to the school teachers, whose representations could not fail to result in increasing the efficiency of schools. On some questions teachers would be able to give a more unprejudiced opinion than clerical managers. Take sanitary matters for example. A teacher would be the very first man to urge that better provision should be made in a school for sanitary purposes, that better buildings should be erected, that playgrounds should be enlarged, and that damp and unhealthy buildings should be superseded by others. The governing bodies would be largely clerical associations, and Members of that House—especially those who were connected with Nonconformist denominations—were entitled to ask that some counterpoise should be present in those bodies against the clerical element. The presence of teachers would provide such a counterpoise. To sum up—the representation of the teachers would be just to them; it would be likely to increase largely the efficiency of schools, and it would neutralise to some extent the probable clerical constitution of the governing bodies.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that in answering the last Amendment he had given several general reasons for opposing it which applied not only to that Amendment, but to most of the Amendments that followed dealing with proposed additions to the representation of managers upon the associations. Those reasons it was not necessary that he should repeat, but he would add to them one which was specially applicable to this particular Amendment. However valuable were the services of the teachers in the schools, and useful as might be the experience of men who had been engaged in teaching, when information was required on the subject of the wants of the

  697
  teaching class or as to special things needed in connection with the teaching in elementary schools, he could not accept this Amendment. There was this, at all events, to be said in favour of the last Amendment—that they would all rejoice to see the representatives of parents associating with the managers in the management of Voluntary Schools. No one, however, desired to see the teachers in a school associating with the managers in the management of that school, and he believed that the Education Department would decline to recognise as a manager of a Voluntary School a teacher engaged in the school. The Department would certainly refuse to permit a teacher in a Board School to continue to receive a salary if he were elected a member of the School Board. The Education Department had invariably refused to recognise a teacher in a school as a manager of that school; and he thought it would be equally objectionable that a teacher should be a member of the governing body of an association in which his school was included. These considerations constituted strong and adequate grounds for rejecting this Amendment.
  *MR. YOXALLsaid it was no doubt perfectly true that the Education Department would object to a teacher's becoming a member of a School Board, and the Department would rightly oppose any arrangement by which a teacher should be ex officio a member of the managing body of his school. But even now it often happened that a teacher was present to give advice in the capacity of assessor at meetings of school managers. In such cases he was present at the managers' request. The proposal in the Amendment was not, however, that a teacher should become a manager of his school, but that among those persons appointed by the managers to represent the schools on the governing body of the association some teachers should be found. In some existing associations of schools able teachers had been placed upon the governing body and had done excellent work. The experience which a teacher had, and his particular interest in education generally, could not but make him an admirable and most efficient member of the governing body of an association. He hoped, therefore, that the Leader of the House would consent to reconsider his opposition to the Amendment.
  MR. HOBHOUSEexpressed his intention of voting for this Amendment. There was a strong opinion in various parts of the country that teachers were a valuable element on bodies of this description. ["Hear, hear!"] He was quite aware of the objection that might be urged that teachers had some pecuniary interest. But so had the managers in many of these questions, and he thought that among teachers—certainly among those likely to be chosen as the representatives of their class—men of sufficient public spirit would be found not to vote from solely sordid reasons for grants that would benefit their special pockets. ["Hear, hear!"] In two districts with which he was intimately acquainted committees were formed which included representatives of the head teachers, and, speaking from practical experience of committees of Church schools, as well as other schools, he could say that for the secular purposes of education the teachers had proved a most valuable element. ["Hear, hear!"] They often knew better than the managers what were the special needs of the schools, and if a minority of the teachers—subject to the sanction of the Education Department—were put on the governing bodies of the associations, those bodies would, he believed, be much more practical and valuable than they were likely to be if they were confined purely to representatives of the managers. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ACLANDremarked that the hon. Member for Somerset had a wide experience both of elementary and secondary education in his own county; he had devoted great attention to educational subjects, and he was hopeful that some Member of the Government would feel it advisable to say some few words after the announcement of the hon. Gentleman that he felt it necessary to vote for this Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought some qualifications were necessary of the assertions which had been made by the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman said that nobody now-a-days desired to see teachers associated with the managers.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If I said so, that was not my point. My point was that by the Code it was not permitted.
  MR. ACLANDsaid he took down the words which the right hon. Gentleman used. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the course of the last 20 years or so there had been a marked and wholesome change of opinion as to teachers being represented on the management of schools. It used to be the doctrine that in their grammar schools the head master was hardly ever to be admitted to a meeting of the managers, or, if he was, he was frequently, in the case of some of the smaller grammar schools, not asked even to sit down, the whole attitude of the board of managers being that he was a mere employé, who only came in to answer a few questions, they being the experts. The Charity Commissioners, by their acceptance of modern schemes, had shown that they in their turn had begun to take a different view of this question, and the teachers or their representatives were now frequently admitted on the governing bodies of schools. ["Hear, hear!"] He could quote cases fairly similar to this where the county governing bodies, which were to be the authority in Wales under the Bill of last year, contained among their members representatives of the elementary teachers of the particular counties concerned. He could also quote cases where arrangements had been made that on the local governing bodies of schools the head master or mistress should be members for all purposes except those which directly concerned the appointment of, or the salaries or dismissal of, the head master or mistress. ["Hear, hear!"] If they went abroad and looked to the most enlightened countries they would see that great and reasonable progress had been made in the direction of providing for the representatives of the elementary and secondary teachers on the governing bodies of schools. As to the objection that the Code did not allow teachers to sit on School Boards, they might assume that the Code was not finally perfect, and the day might come when elementary education might be much more fully developed, and when teachers might sit on their educational councils in various parts of Europe. ["Hear, hear!"] The position of the Opposition was one of great difficulty. Up to the present the right hon. Gentleman had given no indication whatever that he was going to allow the Education
  700
  Department to lay before the House some scheme by which they might know how these governing bodies were going to be formed, therefore they were compelled—and he thought this a great misfortune and waste of time—to raise point after point in order to see if they could give any instructions to the Department in this Bill as to the classes of persons who should be represented on the governing bodies. If they had any concession made to them indicating that the Government thought teachers should and ought to be represented on the governing bodies, and that the Education Department would prepare schemes in that direction and lay them before Parliament, he was quite sure it would not be necessary to debate some of these points one after another in the way they were obliged to do now. If it was urged that the proposition for the representatives of teachers was vague he replied that the proposition of the Government for the representatives of the managers was equally vague. They both stood on exactly the same footing, and as the Government insisted on having representatives of the managers, so the Opposition, in the same way, demanded representatives of the teachers. Public opinion was strongly in favour of bringing teachers in a reasonable degree on the governing bodies of schools, and he deeply regretted that this moderate proposal should be rejected. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JEBBwished to point out that one function, and one only, was given in the Bill to associations, and that was the function of advising the Education Department in respect to the distribution of the grant. ["Hear, hear!"] All the arguments the right hon. Member for Rotherham had used would have been perfectly in place if they had been setting up a new educational authority, and the question had been whether the teachers should have a share in the direction of the policy. For his part he recognised as much as anyone could do the claim of the teachers to have a voice in the educational policy, but the one function of advising the Department on the distribution of the grant was all that was given to the association. ["Hear, hear!"] It had been said more than once that two different views had been presented of these associations—that one moment they had been described as

  701
  merely advisory bodies, and at another as new education authorities. He submitted that there was no ground for that comparison. They were advisory bodies, and advisory bodies only; and the fact that the teachers had a direct interest in the distribution of the grant seemed to him a reason not for but against their being placed on the associations; and on this simple ground he intended to vote against the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. GEORGE LAMBERTobserved that the hon. Member for Cambridge University, who no doubt understood something about the Bill, said that under it they were not setting up a new education authority. They had had one definite announcement from the First Lord of the Treasury, and that was that the Education Department would not allow teachers to be represented on the governing bodies, and that no teachers should be members of the governing bodies. For his part he did not see why representatives of this most influential and useful class of men as regarded educational efficiency in their localities should not be represented upon the governing bodies. If this Bill was to promote education, then those teachers who had made a special study of education should be on the governing bodies as persons who would do their best to promote education and not clericalism. For what reason should they be excluded? They had been told perfectly plainly by the First Lord of the Treasury that teachers were not to be represented, and he had argued that the Education Department should not allow a single representative of the teachers to be on the governing bodies.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I never suggested that the Education Department should prevent teachers being on the governing bodies. I used the analogy of the School Boards to show that it was in my judgment improper, or at any rate contrary to the spirit of what had been done by the Education Department hitherto, to have representatives of the teachers on those bodies.
  MR. LAMBERTremarked that if in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman it would be improper for the Education Department to allow representatives of the teachers to be on the governing
  702
  bodies, of course the Education Department would be under the control of the right hon. Gentleman, or he supposed his position and influence would have weight with the Department. But it did seem to him to be a most extraordinary thing that it should be improper for gentlemen who were among the most ardent educationalists in the country, to have representatives on the governing bodies. In the case of small Voluntary Schools there were undoubted grievances, injustice being done to the teachers, who were often turned out without adequate cause, because they would not perform this or that duty which did not properly belong to their office. If representatives of the teachers were appointed on the governing bodies they would prevent such injustices being inflicted, and aid in distributing the grant so as to promote educational efficiency.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYremarked that the hon. Member for Cambridge University had stated—very inaccurately—that these governing bodies were to do nothing but advise as to the distribution of money, and that that being so he failed to see what advantage could be conferred on these bodies by the presence upon them of representatives of the teachers. But that was not the view of the functions of the governing bodies which had been presented to the Committee. The First Lord of the Treasury on more than one occasion had expressly told the Committee, as he told the House on the First Reading of the Bill, that these bodies were not to be confined to the mere distribution of money, and that they hoped they would be able to give not merely pecuniary assistance, but assistance in many other ways. ["Hear, hear!"] Since then the right hon. Gentleman had used other language pointing in the same direction, saying that these bodies should not confine their functions to advising the Department, but should voluntarily consult together on questions of common interest to all of them, adding that he should rejoice to see them doing so and regard it as a most useful addition to their functions.
  MR. JEBB: What I said was that the Bill attributed to the association only one function.
  MR. J. MORLEYreplied that that only showed, as they had always maintained, that the Bill was open to any number of

  703
  constructions, and that it was ambiguous and vague. The hon. Gentleman was going to vote against this Amendment because he assumed that the governing bodies would be confined to the distribution of money, whereas the First Lord of the Treasury said that what the Bill meant was that they should not be confined to these functions, but would range over others much more extensive. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the hon. Member for Cambridge University, whom they were always glad to hear on education questions, had stated that the only function of the associations under the Bill was to advise the Education Department with regard to the allocation of the grants to schools. What was the greatest danger to be apprehended from the working of the associations and from the release of the present safeguards for the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions? It was that these voluntary subscriptions would be allowed in some way or other to fall off. The presence of teachers upon the associations would surely be the most valuable safeguard possible for preventing this. The teachers would make it their business to see that the money was properly expended on educational objects and not allowed to be given in relief of voluntary subscriptions. It appeared to him that the argument the hon. Gentleman had put forward for the rejection of the Amendment was really a reason entitling it to support. It was true, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, in regard to individual schools, that the Code at present prevented any representatives of the teachers sitting upon the governing body of the Board School of which the schoolmaster would be the governor. But with regard to larger bodies like these associations, the representation of teachers would be found to be a great benefit, as it had been in Wales, both with regard to elementary and intermediate education. It was an element which if introduced into these associations would tend to the promotion of educational efficiency.
  MR. BARTLEYconfessed to being in some difficulty as to how he should vote on this Amendment. If the chief work of the association was simply to be to recommend the apportionment of money, it seemed to him the teacher ought not to
  704
  be upon it, because he was specially interested in the allocation of the money. If, on the other hand, the associations were ultimately to become really educational institutions for advising and for the general supervision and improvement of education in their respective areas, then he could conceive no persons more fitted, in fair proportions, to be on the associations than some of the teachers of the schools. ["Hear, hear!"] The real difficulty was to know the definite intention of the Government as to what the associations were really to become. If they were to become, as he should like to see them, educational authorities, he should be sorry to give a vote which would render it impossible for teachers to become members of the association. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR HENRY FOWLERquite appreciated the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman was placed as to the real meaning of the Government in regard to these associations. At one time they were to be simply bankers for the purpose of the distribution of money, and at another they were to have more important functions allotted them. But upon this question as to the scope and functions of the associations, one luminary of the Government—who had been singularly silent in the latter Debates—had spoken at great length and with great fulness, and had clearly indicated to the House, not so much his own view, but what he stated was the view of the Committee of Council on Education in reference to this question, and of the responsible head of the Department. As the right hon. Gentleman had taken no part for many evenings in the discussion of this important part of the Bill, he hoped the Committee would excuse him if he referred to what the right hon. Gentleman had said. The Vice President of the Council, in discussing the formation of these associations, said the managers
  "would have a representative on the council of the association, and in a short time a consideralde amount of experience and knowledge would be gained by the associated body, which would be of enormous value to the managers of individual schools, and would teach them better methods and encourage them in a very much improved management."

  705
  That was not the distribution of money.
  "The larger the association the better would be the management and the less would be the waste."
  The right hon. Gentleman defended the compulsory character of the association with considerable ability, and said:—
  "The power in the Bill to refuse the grant to schools which did not join the association would have to be pretty freely used, so that no school would remain out without a valid excuse. These associations being so formed, they would have the duty of preparing and submitting to the Department a scheme for the distribution of these grants in accordance with the terms of the Bill, so as to insure that the money would go to the schools that want it, and that it would be used by those schools for the purpose of improving education." … "A scheme will not only have to indicate the amount of public money which is to be allotted to each of the constituent schools, but it will also have to prescribe the purposes for which the money so allotted shall be used by the school."
  [Opposition cheers.] One of his hon. Friends on that side of the House then asked if the schemes would be published, and the right hon. Gentleman replied:—
  "That is a detail I have not gone into, but I have no doubt the schemes will be published."
  He was the only Member of the Government who had given them that hope. The right hon. Gentleman continued:—
  "May I point out to the House what these associations may recommend and what the Education Department may prescribe? They may prescribe, for instance, that schools in the area for which the association is formed shall have a sufficient number of teachers, shall have additional teachers. I am quite sure the Member for Rotherham will agree with me when I say it is impossible that there can be efficient education in any school in which the teacher is entirely single-handed.… The association may prescribe that in every school there shall be an assistant teacher, or at least one or more pupil teachers. They may prescribe that no school is to be kept on the minimum staff required by the Department. They may raise the level of education; and I should like to say I have often heard in this Debate Members talk about the Education Department having raised the cost of education. It is not the education Department that has done that; it is the public opinion of the country.… You may raise the standard. Then you may raise the salaries. There are many schoolmasters and mistresses who are now receiving salaries far below those they ought to receive.… I believe many hon. Members little know the enormous strain which is put upon the teacher, sometimes the solitary, single-handed teacher, especially in small village schools. Then there is improved apparatus. There are desks; there are better seats;
  706
  there are the little museums"—[laughter]—"of objects which go so far to enlighten and enliven children in schools; there is the apparatus now necessary for the manual instruction, which is prescribed in all the lower standards and is very much used in the schools; and finally there is the apparatus for physical exercise. Now, all those are things which the associations will recommend—[Opposition cheers and laughter]—"and which Education Department will prescribe.… I am quite certain that the Government—I do not know that I have a right to speak for my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, who is not here at present; but I can speak as far as the Committee of Council is concerned—any Amendment which really goes to secure that this State aid grant shall be used really for the purpose of promoting and improving the education of the country will be welcomed be the Government."
  [Opposition cheers.] He thought nobody in that House could doubt, whatever the vague and unintelligible phraseology of this Bill might mean, the intention of the Government, as expounded by the First Lord of the Treasury, in the speeches which his right hon. Friend had quoted, and in the more complete exposition of his views given by the Vice President of the Council, was that these associations should be of some practical value in improving the education of the country, that they should have at once both responsibility and power, and that they should enforce their decisions by the appropriation of a large sum of public money. They wished that these schemes should be laid before Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman just now pleaded the code, but they asked that this should be put into the code which came before Parliament once a year. They asked that Parliament should have some opportunity of seeing whether the promises and intentions of the Government were faithfully carried out, and that the educational needs of the country were fully supplied. They were quite willing that this should be as elastic as possible. He urged the Government that these bodies should be, educationally, as strong as it was possible to be.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have forgotten that there was nothing in the phraseology of this Bill which would prevent the teachers being upon the associations. In the code, however, there was a provision preventing teachers being on the management of Board Schools. The elasticity of their

  707
  present measure, in which there was nothing of that kind, was greater than the existing elasticity under the existing code in the case of Board Schools.
  SIR H. FOWLERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree to omit the words "representatives of managers?"
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he would certainly never willingly consent to that. [Ministerial cries of "Never!"] He never would consent to that. [Ministerial cheers.] They would be driven to leave the whole thing to the Education Department; an Education Minister might come in whose view was that the distribution of this money should be advised, not by managers of Voluntary Schools, but by County Councils, Parish Councils, or any other body which might occur to the fertile imagination of the Education Minister. The responsibility would then be watered down with the result that the function of advising the distribution, delicate and difficult as it was admitted to be, might be intrusted, not to persons who had the confidence of the managers of the schools, but to persons whose very object might be to wreck the whole system of education. [Cheers.] He did not say that hon. Members opposite wished it to be so, but that it might be so.
  SIR H. FOWLERsaid he did not wish to remove the representatives of managers. He desired to add to them the representatives of teachers.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he must insist, and he begged the Committee would support him in insisting—["Hear, hear!"]—that the body which was to advise the Education Department in this matter should be a body which from its essential constitution had the confidence of the managers of the schools. From that principle they could not depart.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESasked the right hon. Gentleman how these governing bodies were to be created. Was it intended that the managers of Voluntary Schools were to be at liberty to elect, subject to the approval of the Department, their own representatives upon the governing bodies, or that the Department might if it liked nominate the persons who were to represent the Voluntary
  708
  Schools upon these bodies? He thought the words were vague.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said it had already been frequently pointed out that the associations were to be voluntary. Several schools would form themselves into an association with a governing body representative of the managers. If the Education Department approved of the scheme then that association would be entitled to the advantages conferred by the first clause of the Bill. If the Department did not approve of the scheme it would be for the schools to suggest some other plan which the Department would approve.
  MR. J. W. WILSONsaid he trusted the Committee would grant him that indulgence which was extended to every Member who spoke in the House for the first time. ["Hear, hear!"] It was clear that Members on both sides of the House expected that the associations would be able to undertake wider duties than the duty of merely advising the Education Department as to the distribution of the 5s. grant. It was, therefore, more than ever essential that the formation of those associations should be made as elastic as possible, and capable of development in the interests of education. In regard to the particular Amendment before the Committee he thought that as the Committee had rejected the inclusion of parents in the associations, teachers could not very well be included; but he appealed to the Government, in the interests of the wider use of the associations, to make the basis of the associations as wide as possible, not for the sake of overriding the schools, but for the sake of some representation of minorities. Therefore, though he could not support the Amendment he hoped the Government would see their way to make the associations as elastic as possible. It was only by that means that the associations would obtain the confidence of the country, without which they would be a failure. [Opposition cheers.]
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the First Lord of the Treasury had stated that the teachers might be members of the associations. The Amendment did not ask that the teachers should be members of the associations. It only asked that the teachers should form a constituency to

  709
  elect members of the associations. He thought that no one could give better advice to the associations in regard to the distribution of the grant than the teachers.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the First Lord had stated that there was nothing to prevent the teachers from being appointed to the governing bodies. But who would have the selection or nomination of the members of the governing body?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALreplied that the constitution of the governing body was a matter for the schools which formed the association to agree upon; and it was then for the Department to determine whether it could be intrusted to carry out the Act.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Then it is the managers who will have the selection of these representatives?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the parents of the children should represent the schools? Surely the managers of the schools are the proper persons. [Cheers.]
  MR. J. M. PAULTONsaid the interests of the teachers were largely concerned in the distribution of the grants. It was conceivable that the teachers would be called upon by the associations to exert themselves in one form or another, as the 17s. 6d. limit was to be abolished, to obtain extra grants. It was impossible to suppose that the persons who would choose the governing bodies would hold that the teachers were in any sense representative of the managers.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid that if they wanted to make the teaching of the schools more efficient, and if they wanted the money applied to that purpose, they must bring to the distribution of the money the advice that the teachers alone could give. His right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury escaped very cleverly from that argument in support of the Amendment by suggesting that it was meant to throw on the Education Department the absolute selection of the governing bodies. That was not what was wanted. [Opposition cheers.] What was wanted was that there should be representatives of the teachers on the governing bodies. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] That might not
  710
  be the universal desire of the Committee, but many Members on the Government side had spoken in that sense already. [Opposition cheers.] They wanted representation of the teachers even for the mere limited purpose of the distribution of the money; but if the large benefits which every lover of education must desire were to be the outcome of this Bill, then they must certainly do their best to secure the representation of teachers. He should certainly vote for the Amendment. [Opposition cheers.]
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 266.—(Division List, No. 100.)
  MR. GRIFFITHmoved in Sub-section (3) after the word "managers," to insert the words "consisting as to not less than one-half of persons not clerks in holy orders." He said that the Government had repeatedly declared these associations not to be machines for the propagation of a particular creed; and the Amendment was designed to put that declaration to the test. He was not particular as to the fraction of parsons decided upon; but he suggested one-half. He wished to say nothing derogatory of clerks in holy orders, but whatever else they were distinguished for it was not love of education among the working classes. [Cries of "Oh!"] They had kept the Voluntary Schools going, but their primary motive had not been love of education. Their first concern had been the particular creed to which they were attached. [Ministerial cries of["Oh!"] He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite did not mean to suggest that parsons put education higher than religion, which would be a terrible thing to say, either here or anywhere else. [Laughter.] They were almost all agreed upon this—that the associations would be dominated in the main by the clerical element that governs the Voluntary Schools. [Cries of"No!"] If they were truly to represent the managers they must be clerically minded and influenced. All the Amendment asked was that at any rate half the associations should consist of persons who were not parsons. That was not very much to ask from the Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he was as strong an advocate as the right hon. Gentleman himself of a lay admixture in the associations which were likely to be formed, and he had not the least doubt that a strong lay influence would be found in the associations when formed. If the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to inquire into what was actually taking place in such associations as had already been formed for purposes similar to those of the Bill, he would find that though diocesan in their character they by no means exclusively consisted of persons in holy orders. Therefore, he thought the Amendment was directed against a danger which was in truth imaginary. Apart from that the Government were quite unable to accept an Amendment which, while putting a special disability upon clergy of the Church of England and priests of the Church of Rome, placed no corresponding disability on the ministers of any other denomination.
  MR. BUXTON,referring to the objection raised by the First Lord of the Treasury in his concluding sentence, said his hon. Friend would doubtless be quite willing to alter his Amendment so as to make it apply to ministers of all religious denominations. On the general question he supported the Amendment.
  MR. AUGUSTINE BIRRELLsaid he had not been able to comprehend all the Amendments, but he thought this an honest Amendment, framed in the interests of the Bill itself. If it could be accepted it would greatly mitigate the feelings of hostility and even of anger which the Bill was exciting in the minds of no doubt unreasonable persons—namely, the Nonconformists, who, nevertheless, were likely to continue to exist even after the Bill came into operation. The great antipathy which it excited in their minds was that it was a clerical Bill, handing over a sum of money which at no distant date would probably mount to a million a year, to clergymen meeting in diocesan assemblies. The First Lord of the Treasury hoped and believed there would be a large lay element in those new associations, but "hopes" and "beliefs" were not very businesslike terms, and he should like some security that those "hopes" and "beliefs" should be facts. Clerks in holy orders were not admitted to this august abode, though it contained
  712
  persons who were more clerical than the clerics—[laughter]—and there was a general belief that laymen were better fitted to distribute money than the clergy. He quite agreed about the possibility of altering the Amendment, but he would point out that ministers of religion were laymen. A Nonconformist minister did not make those sacerdotal pretensions which of necessity were made by persons who called themselves clerks in holy orders. [A laugh.] Some of them had already discarded the preface "reverend," and those who adhered to it only did so because in the distribution of the business of this life they had functions in respect of which they had no objection to being known as "reverend," but the title was denied to them by the clergy of the Church of England. His own father was a Nonconformist minister, and many of his acquaintances who were clergy of the Church of England always made a point of addressing him as esquire—[laughter]— to which he had no objection, being a sensible man, and being well aware that he was not sacramentally gifted or graced in any way. [Laughter.] At the same time it might be said that they were not by the habits of their life very well adapted to deal with practical business matters, and he should be glad to see the Amendment extended in such a way as should secure that one-half, or some other fraction of the associations, should neither be priests nor ministers of religion. As business men the Committee should require the application of business qualities to the distribution of these funds. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, was it not futile to leave this business to the clergy, business of which they knew very little. Did not the right hon. Gentleman think there ought to be a fixed proportion of laymen for the distribution of this money he, in an unfortunate moment, had promised to the clergy?
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONfound an analogy to the proposal now made in the view expressed by the First Lord in reference to the establishment of a Roman Catholic University in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said the money could only be granted on condition that those who administered it on the governing body were composed in large proportion of laymen with a smaller proportion of clerical members. Now, if

  713
  the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to take such precautions in a country where education was acknowledged to be conducted on purely denominational lines, then, surely, there was good reason for imposing a similar condition in regard to education in a country where the denominational system was not the only existing system. The presence of ministers of religion on the educational boards that now existed had not been attended with happy results altogether, and he had no hesitation in saying that, had ministers of all religious denominations been perforce absent from School Boards, education would have been beeter attended to than it had been. It was a legitimate demand to make, that the clerical element should only form a proportion on the administrating body. He could not associate with the clergy who would have places on these boards any particular faculties for conducting business and administering large sums of public money; and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself expressed the hope that laymen would find positions on these associations afforded no security that this would be so in time to come. No doubt a large proportion would consist of clergymen of the Church of England—it could not be otherwise; and there was every probability of their having a controlling voice in the management. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that, in order to clear the public mind of the idea that the Bill placed a large sum of money at the disposal of the clergy, it would be well to accept the Amendment.
  MR. PERKSsaid that Her Majesty's Government had refused to allow parents to be represented on these associations, had refused to allow teachers to be represented, and had now refused to give any security that the laity should be represented; so their proposal was to hand over these grants to practically clerical assemblies. It would seem that the Government claimed for their Bill something in the nature of a Divine revelation, that it was incapable of improvement, and every Amendment proposed was declared useless and unnecessary, adding nothing to the action of the Bill—a totally ridiculous and absurd assumption in the eyes of the commonsense people of the country. He had
  714
  very strong objection to the ascendency of the clergy on these new educational boards. In spite of what had been said, the clergy would arrogate to themeselves the control in the administration—a control detrimental to the rights of parents and the liberty of teachers. No body of men had shown themselves more incompetent and more unjust in the treatment of rural Dissenters than the Anglican clergy. Journals like the Schoolmaster and organs of the Union of Teachers teemed with instances of ignorance and injustice in clerical management of schools. There was a recent instance of a schoolmaster, on his holiday on the Yorkshire coast, meeting the rector of the parish in which the school was situated, and the rector expressed surprise that the schoolmaster should be away on a day appointed for choir practice. The schoolmaster, who had been in his employment for 20 years, said he thought his absence might be excused under the circumstances; but next day he received notice of his dismissal. Educational papers teemed with instances of this kind, showing that the clergy were incapable of taking a reasonable view of the administration of schools. Clerical journals, which, under present circumstances, he studied with more assiduity than usual, declared there was a compact between the Church Party and the Government that not a single Amendment should be allowed to this part of the Bill; but he protested strongly against the Government policy being tied to the coat tails of the parsons.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENwas quite sure that he spoke the sentiments of a considerable number of Churchmen when he said that the despotic control of the clergy over school administration was a galling burden on parishioners. A personal friend of his, a Churchman, in a moment of exasperation said, "Oh, the Church would get on capitally if it were not for the parsons." Without going so far as that, the Amendment simply expressed the claim to have a certain amount of lay representation on these governing bodies. This was but following the tendency of the age. The whole tendency of modern education was to remove teaching from the clergy, putting it into the hands of lay teachers. A striking instance of this he found in the

  715
  list of masters at one of our great public schools which contributed very largely towards the wit and wisdom of the House. Forty years ago there were 17 masters, of whom six only were laymen and 11 were clergymen; but in 1894 the number of masters had increased to 35, more than double, and in the same time the lay masters had increased five-fold—from six to 29. Yet, in the fact of what was being done in schools to which the wealthier classes sent their own sons, the Government were insisting that the children of the poorer classes should only be taught by the clergy—["No, no!"]—that the teaching should be mainly controlled by the clergy. [Cries of "No, no!"] Did anybody doubt that the clergy would be the chief managers in this business? And yet the men who proposed this would not have a similar system of teaching for their own children.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that it would be unfortunate if the clergy had an undue proportion of control in these associations, and the only objection he urged to the Amendment was that, in its present form, it would put the clergy of the Church of England at a disadvantage as compared with the members of other denominations. There was not the slightest desire to do that; and, to meet the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the views of hon. Members, he would move to add to the Amendment the words "or other minister of religion." That would completely meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps might induce him to accept the Amendment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 85.—(Division List, No. 101.)
  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes, 225.—(Division List, No. 102.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move, "That the Question, "That the words "as are" stand part of the clause' be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question 'That the words "as are" stand part of the Clause' be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 221; Noes, 83.—(Division List, No. 103.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the words 'as are' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 219; Noes, 77.—(Division List, No. 104.)
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANScalled upon Mr. Asquith to move the next Amendment in order, when,
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,)pointed out that he had an Amendment upon the Paper which came before that standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the next three Amendments were in order, but they all raised, in his opinion, exactly the same point. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife seemed to him to raise the point in a better and fuller manner than the others, and it was within his discretion which Amendment he would receive.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHsaid he was not sanguine enough to believe that the Government were prepared to modify, even in non-essential particulars, the structure of their Bill, but if there was an Amendment which the Government could, without doing any violence either to the object or the scheme of the Bill, reasonably be called upon to accept, it was the one he was about to move. The Amendment would not in the least degree hamper the formation or the conduct of the associations which were to be set up under the clause, but merely apply to the constitution and operation of the associations the safeguard Parliament had consistently insisted upon whenever it had intrusted to the Education Department or any other body the expenditure or control of public money. In the few observations with which he was going to trouble the Committee he did

  717
  not propose to travel over old ground. He would simply remind the Committee that they had two former proposals on this subject which had been rejected. They had first the proposal as to the distribution of funds and the submission of the scheme to Parliament. That Amendment was objected to on various grounds, and, among others, that it might lead to a large multiplication of schemes dealing with small details, as to which the House was not very competent to form an opinion, and that in the form in which they would be presented they might hang up the money for an indefinite time. Then, at a later stage, there was an Amendment that the constitution of these associations should be defined. That was objected to by the First Lord of the Treasury on the ground that it was not desirable to subject the forming of the associations to a series of cast-iron statutory rules—that there should be greater elasticity and greater power of adapting the schemes to each particular case. He thought that was the main ground taken for rejecting the Amendments proposed, and he had endeavoured in the Amendment he was now submitting to meet these objections and to secure for Parliament ultimate and effective control. He proposed to move, in line 16, to leave out "approved by the Education Department," and insert "prescribed by schemes made by the Education Department and published and laid before Parliament in the manner hereinafter provided." It was proposed, first, that these schemes should be published in the London Gazette. He could not conceive upon any principle what objection could be made to that—of giving notice at the earliest moment to the public to enable them to understand the scheme. Then he proposed that, as soon as may be after Parliament meet, or, if it was sitting, the schemes which had been published in the Gazette should be laid on the Table, and if either House within the next 40 days resolved that such schemes ought to be annulled, they should be of no effect. That machinery was taken from the Factory Acts. It would not interpose any unnecessary delay in the distribution of the funds if the schemes were approved. It met entirely the objection of the First Lord of the Treasury that all these associations should not be
  718
  formed upon the same Procrustean model. It would allow them to adjust a scheme to each particular case. Many Gentlemen opposite would probably agree with him that these schemes should not be left to a Government Department, and that Parliament should retain the power of criticising the constitution and the operations of the body. He did not know whether it was any use making an appeal to the Leader of the House, but he did make an appeal to the common sense and the impartial judgment of hon. Gentlemen opposite whether, if their positions in that House were reversed, and a Liberal Government brought forward a scheme of this kind, placing the expenditure of large sums of money for years in this condition, they would not as one man rise in protest against Parliament being asked to abdicate its functions. The Party opposite was the Constitutional Party, as they called themselves. He did not want to say anything offensive; they were the self-appointed guardians of the Constitution. Why should they object to this Amendment? It did not alter in the least the principle of the Bill, but apparently there was not to be a word or even a comma altered. He did not take any Party view in this matter, but he contended for the time-honoured principle, in which he believed he was joined by the large majority of the Party opposite, that that House should have a voice as to the way in which this money was to be administered. If this Amendment were not carried the constitution of these associations and their areas would be such as were approved by the Education Department. What was the Education Department? ["Hear, hear!"] Or, he might say, who was the Education Department? [Laughter.] They were asked there, to use an expression of Lord Salisbury, to give a blank cheque. [An HON. MEMBER: "No; of the First Lord of the Admiralty."] In whose favour was it to be drawn? Was it to be in favour of the right hon. Gentleman who was the nominal head of the Department? Was he going to be the authority under whose control these schemes were to be drawn, or were they going to witness in the administrative working of this capital Act all power taken away from him and put into other hands? [Cheers.] He was not drawing any invidious comparisons in connection

  719
  with those into whose hands during the next two months the crucial duties of carrying out the Act would be intrusted. If that were going to be put into commission and withdrawn from the man who was nominally responsible they should have still less power of criticising and controlling these associations. ["Hear, hear!"] In conclusion, he could only say that his Amendment proposed to bring the matter into conformity with the invariable practice of Parliament, and thus provide the only effective means in the future of seeing that the money was not sqaundered or frittered away. He begged to move his Amendment.
  [After the usual interval, Mr. GRANT LAWSON (York, N. R., Thirsk) took the Chair.]
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTobserved that if hon. Members on his side of the House hesitated to rise to continue the Debate before the Chairman left the Chair, it was because they expected that the Leader of the House would at once reply to the speech of the right hon. Member for East Fife. They did not realise at once the condition of mental paralysis into which the Members of the Government had been thrown by the conclusive and unanswerable arguments of his right hon. Friend. [A laugh.] The Amendment was a very moderate one, and was based on the constitutional principle that Parliament should retain some control over the expenditure of public money. He admitted that the Parliamentary control here designated was not the kind of control which hon. Members on his side of the House thought best, but it would, at any rate, supply some semblance, some shadow, some pretence of an opportunity of discussing some of the many thousand schemes which, he presumed, would be prepared under this Bill. The proposal that schemes should lie on the Tables of both Houses for the usual 40 days was a highly Conservative proposal, and for that reason alone the Government ought to consider it favourably. The Opposition did not ask for this concession from any Party point of view. They had no political object or Party motive in asking for it. In fact, throughout the Debates in Committee hon. Members on his side of the House had not attempted to give
  720
  a Party, political or religious colour to any of their Amendments. By whom, in the opinion of the Government, were these schemes to be controlled? Did they really intend to throw this vast work upon a body of inexperienced country clergymen and village traders, who would, in many cases, be utterly unfit to perform the work? If so, they ought to have the assistance of a Government Department, or of some other body of persons experienced in the administration of public matters. Clergymen were not suitable persons to administer this money. They were often isolated in remote parishes, where they had lost touch with the administration of public affairs and forgotten much of the experience which they gained at school and college. The Opposition therefore asked that these schemes, before being finally put into execution, should lie upon the Table of the House for the usual Constitutional period, not with a view to oppose them, not with a view to deprive men of money which they believed to be in their grasp, but in order to assist these poor country gentlemen to apply rightly the money voted, so that the greatest amount of good that it was possible to get out of it should be got out of this expenditure. The object of this and other Amendments was to improve this hastily-prepared and ill-considered Measure, and to make the plan of the Government more effective than it would be if it remained unaltered. The object was to make the Measure as beneficial as possible, and to prevent the purpose of its promoters from being nullified by ignorance, mismanagement and incapacity. At present no one knew what these associations were to be. The Opposition only asked that the schemes should be laid on the Table of the House in the usual constitutional manner, that the House might have an opportunity of approving or condemning them.
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid that if Her Majesty's Government persisted in opposing the Amendment they would show more than by anything else they had done since the Bill had been in Committee that the belief, which was beginning to prevail, that they intended to resist every Amendment, however necessary or reasonable, was well founded. The Bill proposed to give immense power

  721
  to the Education Department, which it ought to exercise for itself. If the Amendment were rejected Parliament would be deprived of the opportunity of knowing, in an official way, what had been the result of the exercise by the Education Department of the powers proposed to be given to them. The endowed schools schemes proposed by the Charity Commissioners were laid on the Table, that they might be amended by the House, or set aside. These schemes were small affairs in comparison with the schemes which would be framed under this Bill, which would affect extensive areas, many schools, and very important educational interests. The action of the Government in this matter showed that the party which called itself "the constitutional party" was at times guilty of the most unconstitutional conduct. In resisting the Amendment they would not only damage the interests of education, but aim a blow at the dignity and authority of Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. C. A. CRIPPSsaid the right hon. Member for East Fife had stated that the clause as it stood involved a new departure in Parliamentary procedure, and Parliament would, by it, devolve the control of public money upon an irresponsible body. But there was no new departure whatever, in the sense in which he used the term. Parliament already controlled the expenditure of public money for educational purposes. The conduct of the Education Department was subject to question and control by Parliament, and precisely the same principle was adopted in this Bill. Not only was there no new departure, but, on the contrary, the scheme of the Bill was that the funds should be spent in exactly the same way as all other funds voted by Parliament were expended at the present time—namely, spent by the Education Department, that body being responsible to Parliament for the expenditure. No one doubted that the functions of the new bodies would be advisory and consultative, or had suggested that their powers would include the distribution of the 5s. special grant not subject to the control of Parliament. If that had been proposed it would have been objected to by many supporters of the Government. When it was pointed out that the Bill, instead of being a new departure, followed precedent, what became of the argument of the
  722
  right hon. Member for East Fife that the Government proposed a new departure which, for the first time, would put the control of funds for educational purposes out of the hands of Parliament?
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid the proposed new bodies which the Committee were then discussing would have the spending of large sums.
  MR. CRIPPS: The hon. Member is entirely wrong. [Cheers.] They would not have the spending of a single penny. All they would have to do would be to advise and consult with the Education Department, and that Department would be as responsible to Parliament for every penny spent under the Bill as they were for the spending of the educational funds they distributed now. ["Hear, hear!"] The Education Department might take the advice of the new bodies or not. If the Education Department were left as the distributing body—and it clearly was under the provisions of the Bill—why was its responsibility one iota less as regarded those funds than as regarded the several millions it already distributed? The responsibility for the expenditure of the funds was given to a body which could really exercise it, which was not Parliament, in a case of this kind, but the Education Department, and that Department ought to be judged by the way it exercised that responsibility. The Education Department had all the official knowledge and all the means of official inquiry. He hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR H. FOWLERsaid the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken had urged the Goverment to reject the Amendment, and to adhere to the framework of their Bill, so as to stamp it with that air of infallibility which no man denounced more than the First Lord of the Treasury when a certain Bill was before the House in the last Parliament. The hon. and learned Member had several times repeated that there was no new departure in the clause of the Bill under discussion. He himself regretted the tendency among Members who had not long taken part in the deliberations of the House to base their arguments on the assumption that Parliament was really incompetent to exercise the duties that belonged to it—to exercise absolute control over the distribution of public money.

  723
  [Cheers.] He did not know whether the hon. and learned Member had ever sat through Committee of Supply. But his whole speech was based on a false assumption of the principles upon which Committees of Supply discharged their duties. Committees of Supply existed to control public departments, and he could conceive nothing more fatal to our Constitutional system than that Parliament should vote en bloc a large sum of money to a Department which was to do what it liked with it. Why did the hon. and learned Member not propose this with reference to the Army and Navy, the Home Office, or the Treasury? The Education Department had no discretion in the expenditure of public money. Parliament had prescribed down to the last sixpence the mode in which the Department should spend its money. It had to make its payments uniform with regard to the fee grant and capitation grant, and variable payments as regarded the merit and earned grant. But in every case Parliament had kept power in its own hands, and the Education Department could not spend a shilling without the direct control of Parliament, which was exercised through its head. The doctrine of the hon. Member with regard to the control of Parliament over the expenditure of public money was the most unconstitutional he had ever heard.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to misunderstand him. The purport of his speech was that Parliament would have control in this as in other cases.
  SIR H. FOWLERsaid that was the position he was contradicting. He hoped the hon. Member, his friends, and the Press—which did not seem to quite appreciate the fact—would take note that this money was not absolutely fixed by an Act of Parliament, but was to be voted annually by, and would be under the control of, the House. [Mr. CRIPPS: "Hear, hear!"] But the hon. Member proposed that the House should abnegate its control. There was no new departure in what his right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife proposed, but there was in what the Government proposed. If the Government had stated in the Bill how these associations were to be formed, the areas in which they were to work—if they had defined the powers with which they were to be invested, and pointed out the
  724
  exact way in which the governing bodies were to be elected, he was willing to admit it would not have been necessary to propose an Amendment of this sort. It would have been sufficient to have said that such a scheme should be approved by the Education Department. But no intentions of Parliament were disclosed in the clause. If associations and schools were constituted it did not say by whom or in what manner or areas. These things were left undefined, and no two Members could say what these areas would be. They ran from a million to quite a small population. The whole evening had been occupied in discussing who were to constitute the governing bodies, and the Law Officers of the Crown gave no indication of what their construction of the clause was. An absolutely blank cheque was given to the Education Department. But if the Education Department was responsible let it draw the necessary rules and regulations, that there might not be one rule for Norfolk, another for Devonshire, and a third for Yorkshire; one rule for one denomination and another for another. Let them administratively prescribe what were to be the general lines on which the associations were to be formed, where they were to work, and what governing bodies were to be constituted to represent them. All they asked was that Parliament should have the opportunity of disapproval. He thought it extremely probable that what the Education Department would do would receive the approval of Parliament as a general rule. The hon. and learned Member said this was a new departure.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid the right hon. Gentleman had misapprehended him. He said that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the proposal of the Government was a new departure, but that it was not.
  SIR H. FOWLERsaid he had heard the hon. and learned Member say with repeated emphasis that his right hon. Friend was wrong in saying this was a new departure, but he had waited in vain for him to give an illustration from any Act of Parliament by which Parliament had delegated such powers before and at the same time abdicated its own. There was no such precedent in the Welsh Intermediate Act, in all the schemes of the endowed schools, or in all the succession of Education Acts. If the right hon.

  725
  Gentleman opposite was perfectly impervious upon this point, if no one else did, he should put down a clause to see whether he would follow the ipsissima verba of the Act of 1876. It was no good attempting to throw dust in each others' eyes. [Cheers.] What was the real reason why all Amendments were refused? [Cheers.] Why was this Bill to be stamped with the infallibility of inspiration, and to be laid on the Table of the House like the two tables of stone from the Mount, which were incapable of improvement or alteration? It was one of the most impracticable ideas of Parliamentary controversy that something was to be saved by avoiding the Report stage of this Bill. He had had some little experience of fighting on both sides of the House as to Bills of a contested character, and he did not shrink from saying that the right hon. Gentleman had lost more time already than the Report stage would have taken by the impression he had given, but which he hoped was unfounded, that there was an attempt to avoid the legitimate stage of review of Amendments made to the Bill. He was satisfied the right hon. Gentleman was not gaining time, and a great deal of time had been wasted—[Ministerial cheers]—he said that advisedly—by the action of the First Lord of the Treasury. [Opposition cheers.] If, in the language which had been addressed to himself two or three years ago, the right hon. Gentleman had wanted to facilitate the progress of the Bill, the Government would have shown themselves ready to accept Amendments and shown themselves conciliatory towards the Opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman had met them in that spirit they should by that time have very nearly emerged from those portions of the Bill which were controversial and Party, anal got to those sections which were purely administrative, and in regard to which, after the principle had been once declared, he thought that side of the House would have joined with the other in endeavouring to make good and efficient. They had been met, however, in a totally different spirit—with no argument—[Ministerial cries of "Oh!"]—and with an absolute negative. Here was an Amendment moved on high grounds by his right hon. Friend the Member for Fife, who, he thought, was not guilty of wasting the
  726
  time of the House on frivolous Amendments, and no notice was taken of it. The Chairman was on the point of putting the Question without a word having been said in reply, and would have done so if the Debate had not been kept up on that side of the House. That was a course which was, he thought, as unprecedented as it was unwise. He supposed it was useless to appeal to the Government to listen to any Amendment, but he must record his protest not only against the manner in which this Bill was being conducted, but against the unconstitutional manner of the procedure which was being adopted. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he did not propose to occupy the Committee at any length with discussing that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which dealt with the method the Government had adopted in dealing with the Amendments which had been put forward during the eight or nine, or more, Parliamentary nights which had already been occupied. The right hon. Gentleman had taunted them with not adopting any Amendment in order that they might escape the Report stage. He frankly admitted that, after his experience of the Committee stage, he had no passionate desire to go through the same thing on the Report stage. [Laughter.] He must honestly and sincerely say to the Committee, and to anybody else who cared to hear the avowal, that there had not been a single Amendment proposed on the other side which, in his judgment, and exercising such an impartial estimate as he was capable of forming—[ironical Opposition cheers]—which would have been an improvement to the Bill. [Ministerial cheers.] Hon. Members opposite might think he was not a fair judge. [Opposition cheers.] Very likely; but, after all, he could only judge to the best of his ability—["hear, hear!"]—and hon. Members opposite would hardly expect him to take their opinion as conclusive upon so interesting a subject. His experience in conducting opposed Bills of all sorts through that House was not inconsiderable—he did not think it fell short even of that of the right hon. Gentleman who sat opposite, and who had with conspicuous ability dealt with a very great Measure in that House. His own experience was that there were Bills in regard to which something was gained

  727
  even by yielding their better judgment to the Opposition, and by accepting what they thought a worse form of words, rather than adhering to their own, and that without much detriment to the symmetry of the Statute Book. There were other Bills in regard to which concession was only regarded as a mark of weakness on the part of the Government—[cheers]—and was only treated as a new vantage ground for obstruction. [Cheers.] In which of those categories that Bill fell he left it to the impartial spectators of their Debate, if such there were, to form judgment. Though he should certainly not resist an Amendment to this Bill which he regarded as an improvement, he must honestly confess that he thought nothing would be gained in the progress of business by substituting what they regarded as an inferior, or even equal, form of words for those they had themselves devised. He would pass from that episodical matter and come direct to the merits of the Amendment. If the Amendment were passed it would lie with the Education Department to initiate the form of the scheme which each of those associations was to adopt. Under the Bill in all probability the initiative in regard to the constitution of the associations would lie with the schools forming the associations. ["Hear, hear!"] The schools would form themselves voluntarily into a body; they would frame some kind of scheme for their self-government; they would lay that scheme before the Education Department; and if the Education Department were of opinion that under that scheme the association represented the managers of the schools, they would in all probability approve of it, and the association in question would rank as one qualified by statute to advise the Department. But if the Amendment were adopted all that would be changed. The Education Department would have thrown upon them, in addition to the burdens already cast upon them by the Bill, the burden of framing for each district of the country, possibly for each denomination of the country, some kind of constitution which would suit the peculiar necessities, wishes, and prejudices of the body with which they had to deal. That was a burden which he was unwilling to throw upon the Education Department. ["Hear, hear!"] But that was not the
  728
  main objection to the Amendment. What would the consequences be, so far as the House was concerned, if the Amendment were passed? No one could say, with any approach to certainty, how many associations would be formed within the limits of England and Wales for the purpose of carrying out the Act; but considering that there were at least three great denominations which had a large number of Voluntary Schools in their charge, and considering the area of the country concerned, he supposed—his estimate was a mere shot—there would be 60 or 70. [An HON. MEMBER: "Five hundred."] An hon. Friend said "Five hundred." He trusted that was an overestimate. At all events, the number must be considerable, and he could not forecast what it would be. But was the House willing to take upon itself the discussion of all those schemes which would be brought forward? There was no more intolerable burden cast upon Members of the House than the exacting and arduous work of sitting up after 12 o'clock till some indefinite hour of the morning, not at the bidding of the Government responsible to the majority of the House, but at the bidding of any single Member of the House, in order to discuss some local scheme, some matter of purely local interest. ["Hear, hear!"] Members groaned under the burden that existing legislation imposed upon them in that regard. But what would it be if every scheme of the Roman Catholic associations, the Anglican associations, the Wesleyan associations, and the "mix'emgather'em" associations—[laughter]— were open to discussion in the House after midnight—["hear, hear!"]—and if any hon. Gentleman locally interested in an association had the power to require them, with their necessarily imperfect knowledge—under the conditions imposed upon them when dealing with these large subjects, week after week, month after month—to discuss the schemes brought forward by the Education Department? [Cheers.] He frankly admitted that there was another difficulty which tended to influence those who had the conduct of the business of the House. Were the Government to be responsible for each of those schemes? When he first entered the House, any scheme sanctioned by the Charity Commissioners or by the Education Department became,

  729
  ipso facto, a Government Measure, and a majority was kept in the House until the question was settled. That had been altered within the past few years; but the point was revived by this Amendment, and he deprecated, on the part of the Government of which he was a Member, and also in the interest of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who hoped some day to be in a position to form a Government, this proposed addition to the labours and responsibilities of the Government. But it might be thought that they ought not to rest their objection to the Amendment simply on grounds connected with their own personal ease and convenience. [Opposition cheers.] He agreed. He thought their personal ease and convenience, considering how much time they had to devote to the public service, was not a matter to be despised; but still it was not a conclusive consideration in dealing with an Amendment of that class. He therefore came to the substantial argument which right hon. Gentlemen opposite had urged in opposition to the proposal in the Bill. But in one word, the objection of the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Fife and Wolverhampton came to this—are you going to tolerate in this Bill so violent a departure from established Parliamentary procedure as to give to a department of State uncontrolled power in dealing with the expenditure of public money? In the first place, he would observe that every year this £620,000, or whatever the sum might be required under the Bill, would have to be voted by the House of Commons. [Cheers.] When the money was voted, those who were responsible for it would have to answer to the House. [Cheers.] To say that the Department which was to answer for that expenditure was not responsible to the House was in itself so inconsistent a doctrine that he was amazed that those who advocated it should have the courage to accuse their opponents of being neglectful of constitutional tradition. [Cheers.] But already the House of Commons had handed over to the County Councils, with no Parliamentary control—[cheers]—a sum of money far in excess of that now concerned. They had at this moment practically unhampered control. [Cries of "No."]
  SIR H. FOWLER: It is governed by statute. The destination is pointed out.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, but there is no control by this House. [Cheers.] In 1888 the House of Commons handed over to the County Councils, without even saying that the money was to be used for technical education—without even determining that primary matter—a far larger sum than was now being dealt with. And no later Parliament had any ordinary or constiutional opportunity of reviewing the decisions to which the County Councils might come.
  MR. LEWIS: They are the representatives of the people.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that if the hon. Gentleman had listened to the two speeches from his own Front Bench, he would have learnt that the question in dispute was one of Parliamentary control alone. [Cheers.] There was no Parliamentary control over the destination of the money given to the County Councils. It was given by one Parliament, and could not be reviewed by another; and, unlike this proposed grant, which must be voted every year, and so give the House every year an occasion of reviewing the action of the Education Department, that money was handed over to local authorities outside the control of Parliament. [Cheers.] If the sound constitutional doctrine were that every penny of public money was to be spent under the supervision of the House, then the Bill under discussion sinned against Parliamentary precedent incomparably less than the Government Measure of 1888. But that was not all. Though the Committee would not guess the fact from the speeches to which they had just listened, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman did nothing whatever to absolve the House for its constitutional sin, to cure its lapse from Parliamentary precedent, to preserve the control of Parliament. [Cheers.] The Amendment dealt, not with the body which had to spend the money, but with the bodies which had to advise about the expenditure. It left absolutely uncontrolled and untouched the discretion of the body which had to spend the money. [Cheers.] Nothing could be more exquisitely absurd than to say that constitutional orthodoxy was maintained by giving Parliament control over the constitution of the associations which advised, while the control of the Department, whenever it acted

  731
  against the advice of the associations and irrespective of and outside associations, was untouched. Supposing that there were 100 schools in an association, and 100 schools which, for reasons satisfactory to the Department, had refused to form an association, the former would, if the Amendment were carried, be subject to the assent of Parliament as to the constitution of their association. But if Parliament refused its assent what would happen? The schools would simply decline to form an association. There was nothing in the Bill about unreasonably refusing to form an association, though there was something about unreasonably refusing to join an association which was formed. If, with respect to a great district like Lancashire, the House of Commons were to refuse to accept the constitution of the Anglican schools' association, and if the schools were thereupon to refuse to form an association, there would be no remedy under the Bill.
  SIR H. FOWLER: They would get their money all the same.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that they would get their money through the action of the Education Department. [Sir H. FOWLER: "By the Act of Parliament."] The Amendment did not touch that. There was nothing in the Amendment to give the House of Commons control over the expenditure by the Education Department apart from associations. [Mr. YOXALL: "The Code!"] There was nothing about the Code in the Amendment.
  MR. YOXALLsaid that in the case supposed, the Education Department would put the conditions of the expenditure in the Code which came before Parliament year by year.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that the Amendment did not deal at all with the Code, and there was no ground for supposing that the expenditure would be put in the Code. The arguments for this Amendment had been entirely beside the point. The Amendment was uniformly defended on the
  732
  ground that Parliament ought to control the expenditure of public money, and the Amendment did not help Parliament to do so. All it did was to throw upon Parliament a burden which it was very illfitted to bear—that of dealing seriatim with the constitution of every association—while leaving unfettered and untouched the discretion given to the Department by the Bill for the purpose of the distribution of the money. Therefore the Amendment, good or bad, did not carry out the objects of those who proposed it. It gave to Parliament no control which it would not otherwise possess over the expenditure of public money, and the Education Department was left the absolute master of the situation as far as the associations were concerned, and the absolute servant of Parliament as far as the expenditure of the money was concerned. [Cheers.] For these reasons, which he had given at greater length than he was accustomed to on this Bill—[cheers and counter cheers]—he hoped the Committee would reject an Amendment which would throw a heavy burden on the House without adding to its powers, and, while hampering the Education Department, would add nothing to the responsibility which that Department justly owed to Parliament. [Cheers.]
  MR. ACLANDsaid not one single Amendment had been proposed which, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, would be an improvement in the Bill. Standing as he did as the late Education Minister, he could not help saying that he wished he had the opinion on all those Amendments of the representative of education in this House. [Cheers.] It was, indeed, hard upon any one who had been Minister of Education, that he should be placed in this position, that the Education Minister during all these Debates was as though he were dead or had lost his seat, and that neither by argument nor appeal were they able to extract from him, the responsible Minister, an opinion on the various questions which

  733
  were brought before the House on this Bill; such a situation was almost unprecedented. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would not consider him impertinent if he said he did not attach as much importance to his opinion as he should attach to it if it were the opinion of the Ministerial representative of the Education Department. [Cheers.] The argument used by the right hon. Gentleman towards the close of his speech did not seem to carry very great weight. If the Department refused to give the money to a school outside the association, that school would get no money at all. If the Department, on its responsibility, gave the money direct to a school lying outside the association, at any rate there they touched the Department and the Department alone. But what the Opposition asked was this, that, if, as they knew, the authors of the Bill desired that in almost every case a school should be brought under an association—or else it would probably be ruled out altogether as unreasonable—then the associations should be brought under the cognisance of Parliament. And, as to the argument that the County Councils were under no Parliamentary control with regard to the expenditure of the technical education money, he pointed out that that money was handed over to them because they were representative bodies. They never dared to give it except to a representative body.
  *MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Quarter Sessions to wit, before 1888.
  MR. ACLANDsaid the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well, first of all, that they had got rid of quarter sessions in that connection; and, secondly, that the great grants of the present First Lord of the Admiralty when Chancellor of the Exchequer were made after the foundation of county councils. The House of Commons had a right to know to some extent what would be the nature of the bodies, which were not elected bodies, who would have the administration of the money
  734
  provided by this Bill. Regulations should be made which should regulate broadly the constitution of these associations. These regulations could be put into two or three pages without the slightest difficulty. What was the Code itself? It was only a code of regulations for day schools. What was it they asked the Government to lay before the House of Commons? The regulations for the associations by whose advice or on whose sanction this money was to be voted to day schools. Therefore it would be perfectly appropriate that these matters should form part of the existing School Code. If a discussion should be raised on the subject after Twelve o'clock that would not be unreasonable. If once the regulations were discussed and searched out by the House bringing to bear its opinion upon them, and upon the Minister of the day, of course, the regulations would be modified in accordance with that opinion, and in the following year there would probably be no Debate at all. The idea of continual Debates after Twelve o'clock was a mere figment of the imagination, there would not be more discussions of the kind than there had been on the Education Code for the last 20 years, for the regulations would very soon conform to the view expressed by Parliament. Then the Committee had been told this could be done on the Estimates, that there was full power of debating every grant made by Parliament, and that the Education Department and the action of the Minister could be overhauled on Class 4 of the Estimates. But what would Members think of a proposition to abolish the Code for a like reason? Fortunately that could not be done, the law did not allow it, but such a proposal would be analogous to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. How would a proposal be received to discuss the educational system involving the expenditure of seven millions, on a Motion for the reduction of the salary of the Vice President? But that would be exactly on all fours with the suggestion made. The real guardianship of the

  735
  seven millions was in the articles of the Code, the Code that could be and would be changed any year if there was anything unsatisfactory in it. A Debate on the Estimates could do something, but the Code could do a great deal more, and what the Committee were asked to adopt was a proposal to make the expenditure of this large sum something like an annexe to the Code, whereby the provisions for association should be brought up with the Code every year in order that Parliament should retain that constitutional power it hitherto had held.
  *MR. C. P. SCOTTthought there would be no disposition on that side of the House to press very urgently the Amendment now under discussion if it were not for the absolutely vague and unknown character of the associations to whom were to be intrusted the distribution of these large sums of money. If they knew what these associations were, as they knew, for instance, what County Councils were, if they knew how they would be called into existence, and how, approximately, they were to be composed, he should feel that there was some guarantee as to the mode in which the money was going to be expended. But there was no such guarantee. The Committee had been discussing this Bill for eight or nine nights, as the First Lord had said in a tone of reproach, but during that time they had derived uncommonly little information from the Front Bench. There had been rather more to-night, and for this he was grateful. The First Lord had opposed the Amendment on two grounds. In the first place, he said that the right hon. Member for Fife was mistaken in asserting that the Bill was contrary to Parliamentary precedent; and, secondly, he asserted that the Amendment would be ineffective for its intended purpose. When the right hon. Gentleman tried to show that the Bill was not contrary to precedent, the only precedent he was able to cite was that of the grants made to County Councils and the "drink money." It was a great pity the Councils did receive the money without control, and they would not have so received
  736
  it if legislation had not miscarried, if the Government had not had a large sum of money to get rid of somehow, and then handed it over to the Councils in a lordly manner, saying, "Do what you like with it." That would not have been done but for Parliamentary exigencies, and experience of that legislation had not been satisfactory. A great many Members on both sides of the House would be prepared to admit that the expenditure of the grants referred to had been largely wasteful, and that it would have been far better if some rules had been prescribed by Parliament, some check imposed by Parliament as to the purposes to which these grants were to be devoted. As to the Amendment not being effective, as touching only the constitution of the spending bodies, and not the actual expenditure, surely, if you affect the constitution of the spending authority you go a long way towards affecting expenditure also? Every detail of this enormous expenditure all over the country could not, of course, be brought before the House, but some security could be taken that it should be properly administered, and it was just this the Amendment provided. Then it was said the unassociated schools would not be touched by the Amendment. Of these unassociated schools part would be those who refused unreasonably to associate and these would receive no money, and those who reasonably refused would receive so much per head of scholars in attendance, and the conditions might be prescribed in the Code; there would be no difficulty about that. The right hon. Gentleman said the initiation of the formation of associations would probably lie with the schools of the country, and that seemed to show that the Department was not going to direct the formation of these associations, so that the process of formation would be more chaotic, more "fluid" than had been supposed. It would be far better if the Education Department undertook this great and responsible work of brigading the schools that

  737
  had to be formed into an association. They had not been told how many of those associations would be formed, and he thought it was time that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues came to some conclusion as to how this great scheme was going to be worked. This was a question which ought not to be trifled with. The Committee ought to have received from the Government a clear statement as to the way in which the associations were to be brought into existence, how they were to be constituted, and what were the powers they were to exercise. Because no such information had been vouchsafed they demanded that Parliament should have some control in this great question. [Ministerial cries of "Divide!"]
  MR. CHARLES HARRISONrose to continue the discussion, when.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 101.—(Division List, No. 105.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 256; Noes, 103.—(Division List, No. 106.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I beg to move "That the words of the clause down to the word 'at' in line 19—["(a) a share of the aid grant to be computed according to the number of scholars in the schools of the association at']—stand part of the clause." [Ministerial cheers.]
  Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the clause to the word "at," in line 19, stand part of the clause,' be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 256; Noes, 102.—(Division List, No. 107.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Clause to the word 'at,' in line 19, stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 260; Noes, 97.—(Division List, No. 108.)
  MR. DILLONmoved, in paragraph (a) Sub-section (3), after the word "association," to insert the words" and to the needs of the association." The hon. Member observed that in a subsequent Amendment he proposed to omit the words "at the rate of five shillings per scholar." The object of his Amendment, he said, was to leave to the Education Department the same discretion as between association and association as the Bill had already conferred on the Department as between school and school. A previous Sub-section set forth that the money
  "shall be distributed by the Education Department in such manner and amounts as the Department think best for the purpose of helping necessitous schools and increasing their efficiency."
  When speaking on that part of the Bill the First Lord of the Treasury said that it would be a gross waste of public money if the Department were obliged to give 5s. per head to every school without regard to whether they were necessitous or not. The right hon. Gentleman also said he hoped the effect of the Bill would be that some schools would get a great deal more than 5s., some 5s., some less, and a good many nothing at all. But when, in this latter portion of the Bill, provision was made for dividing the money between the different associations which might be formed, they found the Department was deprived of discretion in allocating the money as was best, according to its judgment, to necessitous schools. He was anxious to hear on what ground the Government would justify such a departure from the principle of the Bill. Assume that the unit of this association was to be the number of schools associated, and that the average number of each association was 200

  739
  schools. There would probably be two different associations, covering the same area, belonging to different denominations. Suppose there were two associations containing each 200 schools, that in one of these associations every school was extremely necessitous, while in the other association only 50 per cent. of the schools were necessitous, half being schools which, if the Department had discretion in the distribution of the money, such as was given by Sub-section 2, would receive none of the aid grant at all. What happened, however, according to the Bill as it stood, was, that the Department had no discretion between the two associations, and therefore they could only give the poor association, with its 200 necessitous schools, the same amount that they gave to the comparatively rich association, where there were only 100 necessitous schools, and those, perhaps, not nearly so necessitous as the 200. That was a manifest injustice. There was one other point. He asked the First Lord of the Treasury the other day how the compulsory portion of the clause was to be worked with regard to the formation of an association. The objection he sought to remove by the Amendment would assume smaller proportions if it were made clear that there was to be no compulsion on any body of schools to form an association if they preferred to deal directly with the Department. In some districts, such as the City of London and the South of England, Catholic schools were extremely necessitous, and would much prefer, if left alone, to deal directly with the Department, for the simple reason that they would get more than 5s. as special aid grant, being able to show they were extremely necessitous. If it were made clear that any Catholic schools could stand out of the associations and deal directly with the Department, that would modify his views as to the inability of the Department to distinguish between association and association in considering the relative necessities of the schools.
  *LORD EDMUND TALBOTsaid that, speaking in the interests of Catholic schools, the Amendment appeared to him to strike directly
  740
  at the existence of the principles on which the associations were to be formed. It was true that it appeared to favour an association composed entirely of poor schools as against associations which combined both rich and poor. But he very much doubted its practical effect. It would not materially aid what the schools in a Catholic association would already get under the Bill. This Bill in itself was not accepted by the Catholics as in any case meeting their just demands. It in no sense gave them that equality of treatment which they considered they had a right to demand. But, so far as the Bill went, it was, in the opinion of Catholics, a good Bill. There was no harm in it. For this reason they did not want to delay the Bill from passing into law, but wished it to become law as speedily as possible.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid he wished to support the observations of the noble Lord who had just spoken. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. The arrangements of the Bill were much more calculated to serve the interests of the Catholic body in this country generally than the Amendment, and if the matter were discussed at all it would suit the interests of Catholics much better to have the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset, which dealt with the same subject-matter in a better way, and would have a better chance of success in the House, seeing the quarter from which it came. The Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo would not serve the interests of Catholic schools, but would militate against them. The division between the amount to be paid for the urban schools and the amount for the rural schools would enable Catholic schools to gain, to a certain extent, an advantage beyond anything the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mayo would be likely to secure for it.
  And, it being Midnight, the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  MILITARY WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  SUPPLY [12th MARCH].
  Resolution reported.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  "That 100,050 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast-Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, including 17,005 Royal Marines."
  Resolution agreed to.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Ordered, that the Resolution which, upon the 15th day of February, was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, be now read:—
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 158,774, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
  Ordered, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Brodrick and Mr. Powell-Williams do prepare and bring it in; presented, and Bead the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 161.]

  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be Read the Third time to-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  SUPPLY.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL.
  Second Reading, deferred till Thursday.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, &c. [17th February] further adjourned till Thursday.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 30th March.
  ASSISTANT COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 11th May.
  ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [24th February] further adjourned till Wednesday, 28th April.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  LEASEHOLDERS (PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) (NO. 2) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 31st March.
  CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday, 2nd April.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 1st April.
  TENANT RIGHT IN TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 15th April.
  LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
MOTIONS.

  TOWN HOLDINGS (TENANTS' COMPENSATION).
  Bill to give Compensation to occupying Tenants of Town Holdings for beneficial improvements, ordered to be brought in by Mr.
  744
  Hazell, Mr. David Thomas, Mr. Field, Earl Compton, Mr. Kearley, and Mr. Channing; presented and read the first time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd Appril, and to be printed.—[Bill 159.]

  QUARTER SESSION JURORS (IRELAND).
  Bill to provide for the relief of Jurors from unnecessary attendance at Courts of Quarter Session in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by the Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Gerald Balfour; presented and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd April, and to be printed.—[Bill 160.]

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL (PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY,in moving "That the House do now adjourn," said: I beg to give notice that it will be necessary, I fear, to-morrow to move the suspension of the Twelve o'clock rule. [Opposition cries of "Oh!"] I am sorry to have to do it, but it must be done if Members opposite are anxious to continue to develop their views at such length. [Ministerial "Hear, hear!"]
  MR. LAMBERT: Is that for the Education Bill alone?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Only for the Education Bill.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman give us notice to-night with the intention of forcing the Bill through to-morrow?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No. I do not know whether we shall get the Bill to-morrow; but I do not mean to ask the House to sit indefinitely to-morrow.
  MR. LAMBERT: Will the House sit after half-past Five on Wednesday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That cannot be done without a special Motion.
  MR. LAMBERT: Is it the intention of the Government to make that Motion?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: This Motion is enough for the time.
  House adjourned at Ten minutes after Twelve o'Clock.